Toronto 191 Bay | 301.74m | 64s | QuadReal | Hariri Pontarini

jje1000 said:
Agreed- the corner bevels need to be carried all the way up- the way the building pinches in and out is a bit awkward, and like what interchange42 says- makes the building feel bulky. Some additional exterior texture would be nice (One Yonge diagrid? Or translating the pavilion roof pattern into a facade pattern?) as well.

It would also be great if the roofline and the spire were resolved a bit more, as the spire kind of just sits on the roof (but the spire needs to be kept regardless, our current skyline is boring).

But overall, a nice and completely unexpected holiday gift.
Click to expand...

Personally I'd rather avoid purely decorative diagrids - exterior features like that should matter functionally, especially for an office tower. I am actually glad that the roof more or less eliminates the possibility a messy outcome like that of FCP though.

I wanted to see a floorplate that is less rectlinear with more than just the corners lopped off. Play with the shape and asymmetry more. The way it pinches in and out right now has antecedents (Hearst Tower, Ping An Finance Centre in Shenzhen) but as practiced it looks insufficient.

I have no problem with bulk - the financial core can use it - I have a problem with bulk that is not in proportion with height.

AoD
 
Last edited:
I'm wondering how much money it costs to produce this insane amount of engineering, architecture, studies and paperwork. Clearly in the millions.
This is far from a pie in the sky idea. It's as serious as it gets.

Some not so important observation: the TRUMP sign is still on in the rendering, but CIBC is gone from CCW.
 
raptor said:
I'm wondering how much money it costs to produce this insane amount of engineering, architecture, studies and paperwork. Clearly in the millions.This is far from a pie in the sky idea. It's as serious as it gets.
Click to expand...

Not so. It's most likely ideas and "linework on a page" at this point (and a schematic REVIT model). The structure won't actually be resolved yet at this point in a proposal. The architect and other consultants might have millions invested into them for the project's entire lifespan / the entire contract, but at this point, millions haven't been sunk, apart from any properties that had to be assembled or related costs.

I'm not sure how far along the design is, but generally, what can be made to appear fully resolved (especially in renderings, or even in drawings) is in fact a series of unresolved ideas that require a lot of further development.
 
I really don't get why it's the same height as FCP, as if that building represented some kind of hallowed gold standard. Make it visibly taller, please.

Otherwise, very exciting indeed!
 
TorPronto said:
I was wondering the same. There are a lot of commercial proposals right now and only a few getting built. If there is enough demand, all the better for Toronto.
Click to expand...
only a few? The largest office complex since the TD centre is under construction right now, as are several other major buildings. Office vacancy downtown is the lowest it has been in 15 years, to the point where there is essentially no space available if you are looking for more than 100ksf.
 
AlvinofDiaspar said:
Nice unexpected hit of the year. Reminds me of KPF’s Bank of America in NYC.

AoD
Click to expand...

The roofline + spire definitely gives off that impression from the north and south. Also getting Wilshire Grand Tower vibes at street level with some PingAn IFC + KL118 in the tower details.

interchange42 said:
That's not much of a spire—that's a cloaked aerial, and that's it really. If you're looking to have it as a spire, and it's an asymmetrical building, have it come out from the highest corner, not the middle. Meh so far.

42
Click to expand...

The angles where the spire placement doesn’t sit with me are on the East/West elevations, where the tower appears wider and the roofline appears flatter... having a thin spire the middle looks weak. But if it’s built up more at the base, ala One Bryant, it could look more decorative and more integrated with the rest of the building.
That being said, I do think the spire gives this much more presence, which I don’t entirely mind given the other iconic office buildings in area - however, the spire is in such close proximity to the antennas found on FCP and CCW, that it could be irrelevant. Roof height will really make a difference here.

—

Also, naming rights could likely go to a lead tenant here. But unofficially, this would make more sense being referred to as Commerce Court East/South wouldn’t it?(rather than CC3)
 
Interesting that the floor plate seems to be matching Commerce Court West. I'm assuming that's a purposeful homage.

I hope that pavilion includes above ground retail, restaurant & food court type uses. The PATH is maxed-out in this area and those uses will be needed with this much new density.

Assuming the office market remains as hot as it is right now and/or there was a large anchor tenant lined up, I wonder how far out we are from this development? How quickly could design be completed and the existing buildings vacated? In that scenario, could we see demolition start as early as 2-3 years?
 
You must log in or register to post here.

Back
Top