Toronto 300 Front Street West | 156.05m | 49s | Tridel | Wallman Architects

[Ramako]

What else would Tridel insist? That their materials aren't top quality?

The debate about whether spandrel is a "high quality building material" aside (as that notion is incredibly vague in the first place), the way that Tridel integrates it into their designs simply looks like crap to most observers, and that's why so many of us examining their projects from an architectural standpoint associate Tridel's designs with poor quality.

If Tridel couldn't be bothered to avoid the same poor use of spandrel at Ten York, their signature building that will (unfortunately) be one of the most visible skyscrapers in the downtown core for decades, they never will. Either the decision makers at Tridel have no taste or just don't care about the architectural legacy they are leaving for this city. There's not much we can do about it, aside from not purchasing their units.

 

[SP!RE]

I think one of the big issues is the obsession we have with cladding our towers almost entirely in glazing.

Why can't pre-cast, composite, and other types of cladding be used in lieu of spandrel panels disguised to appear as part of a vision glass facade? It almost never looks convincing.

I still feel that The MET is one of the only projects in this city where the spandrel and vision glass blend rather seemlessly. In most cases it looks lazy and unconvincing.

 

[kweku]

I think one of the big issues is the obsession we have with cladding our towers almost entirely in glazing.

Why can't pre-cast, composite, and other types of cladding be used in lieu of spandrel panels disguised to appear as part of a vision glass facade? It almost never looks convincing.

I still feel that The MET is one of the only projects in this city where the spandrel and vision glass blend rather seemlessly. In most cases it looks lazy and unconvincing.

You're 1000% right.... in fact, the MET makes AURA looks like a banana republic project when looking at both together....

 

[ProjectEnd]

It really bothers me how people here interpret spandrel as a building feature that is placed in lieu of vision glass to save money. Spandrel serves a very necessary purpose. The most expensive, grand office and residential towers around the world pretty much ALL make use of spandrel in one way or another. It's designed into the building and not randomly added later on as a cost-saving measure while construction is about to start.

If you are going to judge materials on how they look, that's fair. I love a good discussion on aesthetics. But don't blame spandrel itself. Spandrel is a very necessary feature of any large building project (especially in a climate like our own). It's about HOW it is used, and how the design makes use of spandrel. Is it nicely integrated? Is it used to try and appear like vision glass (as many condos attempt to do and fail)? Would another material have been good in its place?

But seriously, we need to stop making it just about "glass OR spandrel" and "cheap VS. expensive". There are many nuances to the discussion of spandrel, which is not a bad or good thing on a building, but rather a necessary building component.

/end rant.

While you are entirely correct about the differences between well and poorly applied spandrel (Woodsworth Residence is a prime example the material being used to positive effect), you should remember that it is cheaper. Of course it is 'designed into the building,' but that's because materials are evaluated and costed in the design rather than the construction stage. By the time the first panel is applied, the decision to use the material would likely have been made years before. As Ramako notes above, it's nice that Tridelwebmaster believes the material to be on par with vision glass but really, would he or she proclaim that it wasn't top notch?

Not only is spandrel cheaper itself to spec, it's even cheaper to go with a muted colour like grey, white or black. The pigments used in the dyes applied to coloured panels cost more than those for muted panels, hence the sea of muted grey spandrel plaguing this city.

 

[someMidTowner]

Here is one from yesterday I completely forgot about til now

 

[Torontovibe]

Not only is spandrel cheaper itself to spec, it's even cheaper to go with a muted colour like grey, white or black. The pigments used in the dyes applied to coloured panels cost more than those for muted panels, hence the sea of muted grey spandrel plaguing this city.

Sadly, that explains a lot.

 

[steveve]

Here is one from yesterday I completely forgot about til now

I had to have a double-take to make sure this wasn't a promotional image for the building! It has a surreal quality to it. what a south view, soon to be filled in...

 

[MisterF]

Not only is spandrel cheaper itself to spec, it's even cheaper to go with a muted colour like grey, white or black. The pigments used in the dyes applied to coloured panels cost more than those for muted panels, hence the sea of muted grey spandrel plaguing this city.

Black spandrel would actually look pretty good as it would match the windows a lot better, especially on that mess of a podium. Picture the tower with the grey spandrel replaced with black, leaving the fritted balcony glass to provide visual interest. It would look much cleaner, IMO. Too many architects try to jazz up their towers with visual clutter.

 

[urbandreamer]

Indeed, no matter the material--nylon, canvas, glass spandrel, brick maybe?, custom dye lots cost way way more. Sometimes double or triple that of standard "popular" hues like white, beige, grey, black. I recall back in the day sourcing fabric for my line of accessories that going for a bold vibrant colour was not only costly from a budget perspective but also sales--the average Torontonian simply prefers to go through life in black, beige, white, grey and perhaps navy blue.

Surely the cost savings from spandrel comes from labour time saved?

Spandrel is indeed necessary--you gotta hide stuff people don't wanna see, right? Although I really wish Toronto architecture would move away from generic glass'n spandrel window wall.

 

[Parkdalian]

I entirely agree with Spire - there's nothing inherently wrong with what we call "spandrel." There's a couple of handsome buildings up on St Clair that strongly feature it (in black, no less). And yes, it is cheaper. But if we are judging buildings on the value of the applied materials, than a building encrusted in gold would be the aesthetic winner and we'd move down in value and judgement at the same time. Surely the arrangement of elements in terms of design is what really matters when we are trying to discuss design. Otherwise we are simply applauding rich people on their ability to show off their wealth.

I think I'm starting to figure out what jiggers people about "spandrel" (when they aren't being huge money snobs): it is too distracting. It can often create endless parades of intersecting lines and contrasting sections that don't seem to balance out aesthetically. It can seem too functional - we have nothing to focus on but the seams.

At the same time, I think people get a little too excited about glass. As soon as a non-reflective all-glass building is finished it gets filled up with an unbalanced array of white and off-white blinds: it can look like a tired mess. Spandrel buildings (and brick and pre-cast buildings) hold their looks for longer, and tend to look neater. But we tend to care less about finished buildings than just-finished buildings because this is a construction forum, so I think we should consider our biases a little.

 

[someMidTowner]

Today - Sorry about the glare

 

[Ryan_T]

I entirely agree with Spire - there's nothing inherently wrong with what we call "spandrel." There's a couple of handsome buildings up on St Clair that strongly feature it (in black, no less). And yes, it is cheaper. But if we are judging buildings on the value of the applied materials, than a building encrusted in gold would be the aesthetic winner and we'd move down in value and judgement at the same time. Surely the arrangement of elements in terms of design is what really matters when we are trying to discuss design. Otherwise we are simply applauding rich people on their ability to show off their wealth.

I think I'm starting to figure out what jiggers people about "spandrel" (when they aren't being huge money snobs): it is too distracting. It can often create endless parades of intersecting lines and contrasting sections that don't seem to balance out aesthetically. It can seem too functional - we have nothing to focus on but the seams.

At the same time, I think people get a little too excited about glass. As soon as a non-reflective all-glass building is finished it gets filled up with an unbalanced array of white and off-white blinds: it can look like a tired mess. Spandrel buildings (and brick and pre-cast buildings) hold their looks for longer, and tend to look neater. But we tend to care less about finished buildings than just-finished buildings because this is a construction forum, so I think we should consider our biases a little.

You're too sensible for this forum. Get Out!!

Agree with everything you said. Now if they can only make spandrel pattern more interesting. Intersecting lines is an element of artistic value in many artworks. If they can randomize the production process somehow and create spandrel that has some aesthetic quality, that'd be a nice upgrade.

Like those Concrete pavers with alternating shapes and sizes. At the end of the day, they all form/cover a designated area, but the pattern can be very pleasing to the eye.

 

[DtTO]

Now if they can only make spandrel pattern more interesting. Intersecting lines is an element of artistic value in many artworks. If they can randomize the production process somehow and create spandrel that has some aesthetic quality, that'd be a nice upgrade.

You mean like this?

They did a great job with this building IMO. The only thing that isn't well executed is the transition between vision glass and spandrel on the tower portion. That's a minor complaint though, since it won't be nearly as noticeable when blinds come into play. Overall, I'd rate this a solid 6/10. That's a scale where Scotia is a 10, Shangri La is a 9, L Tower is an 8, and Ice is a 7. 6 is really good for an average residential development. Most cities are lucky to get 3s for average residential buildings.

 

[Ryan_T]

A bit more than that. Either the panels need to be smaller, or the larger bits need to merge together better. Right now it still looks cluttered. What I'm going for is the type of look where there's no particular sense of order, but the repetition and occasional randomness makes it look appealing. Not sure if that makes sense.

That does provide a nice contrast to the orderly taller tower though.

 

[Ratazana]

From Liberty Village.