Toronto Concord Canada House | 231.97m | 74s | Concord Adex | Arcadis

[Waterloo_Guy]

Where is the City planning dept and the Design Review Board when this kind of second rate dreck is moving forward?

We haven't seen any renders. What are you talking about?

 

[Waterloo_Guy]

At 70+60s, I'd hope we can aim higher than not being the worst. They have caught some attention at the moment, and I am not sure if it is all that positive.

AoD

More like 80+70s

 

[Big Daddy]

This project is going to be surrounded by a dozen similar glass blocks, I find it hard to imagine how the design will matter all that much here (except for the top )

 

[DarkSideDenizen]

This project is going to be surrounded by a dozen similar glass blocks, I find it hard to imagine how the design will matter all that much here (except for the top )

I agree. There is nothing to be excited about here unless we are privilege to some kind of innovative new design complete with a change in colour. The location is prime for something fantastic, but I'm afraid with the firms involved, well just get more of the same only with a few floors added.

 

[kris]

Anyone remember these renders?

Would not mind these towers at all

 

[Waterloo_Guy]

That would have looked so futuristic in the 1960s.

 

[Critique]

That was the runner up for the design competition though wasn't it? I would much rather have that then what's been described so far.

 

[vegeta_skyline]

Really? There's hardly anything special about those, I find the those gaps to be quite awkward as well.

 

[isaidso]

That would have looked so futuristic in the 1960s.

It's still better than 90% of City Place. The gap is perfectly placed.

 

[Miscreant]

I think those look great, but I'm also a plebian.

 

[vegeta_skyline]

The side with the random panels looks good, though its a motif already seen on another CP tower; Luna. But I'm not a fan of its other side. It would of looked better if the slant was more angled and if the gap on the taller tower was lower and the one on the shorter tower was higher so that they'd line up. The taller tower was a little top heavy as depicted and I don't think the slant would of been dramatic enough to detract from the sterility of the balcony wall which looks incredibly dull on most towers;

Tableau by Marcanadian, on Flickr

 

[interchange42]

The side with the random panels looks good, though its a motif already seen on another CP tower; Luna. But I'm not a fan of its other side. It would of looked better if the slant was more angled and if the gap on the taller tower was lower and the one on the shorter tower was higher so that they'd line up. The taller tower was a little top heavy as depicted and I don't think the slant would of been dramatic enough to detract from the sterility of the balcony wall which looks incredibly dull on most towers;

When you're criticizing abstract/arbitrary shapes, you're getting into an area where you are simply not going to get wholesale agreement on what looks good and what doesn't. Buildings like that break the rules, so who gets the final say that they don't break them the right way? What you find awkward might be exactly what will attract others to it. I find it pretty hard to declare in such cases what a building should have been this way or that, they just are.

42

 

[vegeta_skyline]

Fair enough, I don't disagree. Just wanted to be more specific with my concerns on that render.

 

[Strange Advance]

I think those look great, but I'm also a plebian.

Don't put yourself down. Every aesthetic valuation is valid. I like them quite a bit as well.

 

[Hypnotoad]

Whatever it looks like, it'll probably look great in the middle of this: