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

ushahid said:
^ I agree with NeilV. 50 years ago architects didn't have the technology they have today. it used to take months to design a building, now it takes few weeks to design a building. if architects nowadays were building in context and respect to older buildings all the buildings would be like boxes . this new design is very simple, some curves and style would have been better.
Click to expand...

This has been in design for 3+ years now. Don't let a lack of understanding drive shallow posts. Better to ask than assume.

In any case, yes, much, much better. It will be interesting to see more of the details when the documents are posted. What I'm seeing is a strong improvement.
 
Ramako said:
Wow, how incredibly drab for such a high profile tower. They've even managed to somehow make it look like it has balconies, like every generic condo tower going up in this city. I already cringe when I regularly hear my international clients and colleagues comment on how boring our city looks. Toronto's well established reputation for architectural mediocrity continues. Utterly disappointing.
Click to expand...

Assuming we are adding 1M+ sq ft of space to this site, shouldnt one of the main goals of the exercise be to tread lightly (in form/spirit) on the existing collection that makes up one of Toronto’s architectural landmarks?
 
Getting some Piano/NYT vibes here. I too would have liked perhaps a little more flare here, given the prominence of the site, but man is this ever an improvement over the first iteration; just so much more refined — I think it actually underscores how unresolved the previous version was.

Tough to fully assess before seeing the higher-res renders, but there are some hints of some very nice detailing here, too.
 
Wow, not happy with that at all. This new design doesn't even stand close to the original proposal. It looks super clunky compared to the previous proposal, but it certainly matches the rest of Commerce Court now. It doesn't even seem all that slimmer. But whatever, it definitely looks more "Toronto" now. This'll just make CIBC Square and The HUB stand out even more than they already will.

If they're going to value engineer the crap out of the exterior, they should at least have made it a bit taller.
 
interchange42 said:
Beautiful? What are you guys smoking?


Looks the pile-on-the-gimmicks crowd is feeling stung. I'm in the if-there's-going-to-be-a-gimmick-make-it-just-one-gimmick-and-do-it-with-some-taste crowd. The previous version simply looked undisciplined, bloated, and screaming for attention that it didn't deserve. If it had actually looked good, I might be down too, but AFAIC we have dodged a bullet.

For those who only see CCW as plain and drab, and only see I.M.Pei as an architect from 50 years ago and nothing more, then you don't display any understanding of detail or proportion or any appreciation of history. Look up I.M. Pei just for starters. The rest will take a lot longer.

42
Click to expand...

Really, you don't think CCW is hideous? Sure, it may be excusable since it was built 50 years ago and nearly everything built 50 years ago is hideous, but today CCW is not something that any architect should try to reference.

And I actually don't dislike this design; I will be happy to see this thing go up. What I dislike is that it was "dumbed down" from the previous version in order to fit better with CCW.

Of course this is only my subjective opinion, and if you like the design of CCW then I can't argue with that.
 
NeilV said:
Really, you don't think CCW is hideous? Sure, it may be excusable since it was built 50 years ago and nearly everything built 50 years ago is hideous, but today CCW is not something that any architect should try to reference.

And I actually don't dislike this design; I will be happy to see this thing go up. What I dislike is that it was "dumbed down" from the previous version in order to fit better with CCW.

Of course this is only my subjective opinion, and if you like the design of CCW then I can't argue with that.
Click to expand...

No.
 
ADRM said:
Getting some Piano/NYT vibes here. I too would have liked perhaps a little more flare here, given the prominence of the site, but man is this ever an improvement over the first iteration; just so much more refined — I think it actually underscores how unresolved the previous version was.
Click to expand...
I got that Piano vibe too, and I agree that the previous design was a bit of a mess. Definitely my least favourite of the latest batch of office towers.

I just don't get the pile-on: the new design is so much better than the last one in every way. This version is restrained, but it's not dull.

The value in this one will all be in the detailing, just like CCW. I love this bit from the heritage impact statement about the thought that Pei's office put into finding the perfect cladding for CCW:
The cladding material is 1/8” stainless steel with a special pebble finish developed specifically for the project. The steel was rolled out in sheets of unprecedented size, with spandrels weighing roughly 3,000 lbs each. According to Pei, “Stainless steel is an amazing material, but it has a kitchen sink look to it. So we experimented and found that by embossing with rollers to make tiny dots across the surface it becomes very beautiful.”

In order to prevent distortion due to movement of the structure, the cladding is supported at two locations only and in each case by one 3/8” high tensile steel bolt -- this allowed complete freedom of movement from the structural frame while remaining flat across the surface.
Click to expand...
 
Last edited:
jje1000 said:
Looks like the tower got its 'suit' retailored so it it doesn't look like it's bulging out at the seams now. It reminds me of the NYT Building by Renzo Piano, which is of course a good thing.

Also interesting though that the roof slant remains even as it's no longer reflected in the design- is it mainly due to shadowing?
Click to expand...

It doesn't seem to quite approach the level of RPBW's NYT Building (no surprise there) given what we have seen so far, though the double-height skylobby is nice to see. There is still something not quite right about that glassed in pavilion - it felt extraneous relative to the two towers.

I wonder what happened to that awkward projection on the East elevation facing Yonge. Hope they got ride of it pronto. And is it my eyes - or did they facadectomize Pei's midrise?? If so Toronto has reached new heights in that particular art.

EDIT - oh lord, they did!

Two groups that lamented some aspects of the 1.0 plan were the City's Heritage Preservation Services and the Design Review Panel. Both wanted to see an acknowledgement of the Commerce Court West and South buildings that CC3 would replace, so 2.0 incorporates some of CCE's 13-storey limestone-clad walls, and eschews the faceted exteriors that marked the 1.0 design for a rectilinear design throughout.
Click to expand...

AoD
 
Last edited:
Interesting to see the differing opinions between the traditionalists and what I will guess is a lot of youngins. Would be kind of interesting to get the ages of everyone and see if there is a pattern to the opinions above - I have no doubt there is one.

I personally like both versions so I guess I am in the middle someplace. A slimmer, soaring, refined 1st version would have been ideal in my opinion with a bit more height, but this looks decent as well and I am sure the materials will/would be strong in either case. It certainly pays better homage to the past and this complex as a whole, but I hope they take the stupid antenna off CCW if this large one is going up here. As well, It seems now we will have versions of the same sort of tower, with both the HUB and CC3. I have more recently been feeling the architecture of EY Tower and 160 Front with those curves and angles, more so than the rectangular standard.
 
  1. So they only kept one part of the facade of one of the stone-clad buildings? They opted for a facadectomy but couldn't even do it along the entire frontage?
  2. Great. More glass along a building elevation when we need exactly more of what stands there currently - masonry with punched windows. Stone. Texture.
  3. My frustration is quickly overcome with ambivalence. The balance of the plaza's notable pinwheel geometry by way of its elegant liner buildings is being completely dismantled. Given that fact, it doesn't matter what the design of the tower is - the block itself, this entire piece of the urban fabric is irreparably damaged. The tower could look incredible or it could look terrible and it doesn't matter because the spaces between the buildings - and the way the buildings play off each other - is destroyed.
 
You must log in or register to post here.

Back
Top