Toronto King Blue by Greenland | 155.75m | 48s | Greenland | Arcadis

It's nothing to write home about but atleast it is not just another tower of solid blue or green glass like most of the crap going up in/near CityPlace. Glass and steel has a very sterile and isolating, coming from Vancouver I know what I'm talking about.
That said, by using two totally different designs and materials for the same podium looks absolutely ridiculous.
 
The more I look at the towers, the more I hate this project. The cladding (heck, its not even "blue") is 'North York - Cory Hart 80's', the towers should be set back from and away from the street (ideally) and the Westinghouse building should be set aside or better integrated on the King Street facade (and left alone). In fact, just get rid of the oversized and ugly towers and I will be happy.
 
Just bumping this so that if you saw the pics when they were first put up, descriptive text has been added since.

42
 
Just awful. P+S architects are blind.

Another reminder of how elements of Westinghouse could be incorporated well (KPMB?):

3277495750_b6930439d7.jpg


Now, watch P+S try to do the same with the help of 1990s PC game level design principles.
 
Last edited:
I was at the meeting and the towers don't look that bad. It's an expensive design already as you can see from the ground floor plans. It's going to be take 4 years to build this thing because it's very complicated in the podium. Nooks and crannies, walls, exits, doors everywhere, change of materials at every corner. I wouldn't be surprised if they simplify it in the end after they get the contractors giving them some feedback pricing.
 
podium seems fine, with a lot of good ideas worked into it, but like Solaris mentioned earlier today, the towers are strictly Maple Leaf Square lite....
 
The towers, while not great, are not the hideous growths that they are made out to be by some. They are to be clad in a near-black (or very dark grey) glazing. The balcony glass should provide some interesting contrast. Of course, a render and reality are two different things, so the final product could turn out to be better, or worse. I would agree that one can look at Maple Leaf Square for a reasonable comparison - not perfect, but reasonable.

The court yard appears to be a thoughtful design - given all the functions it must address.

I guess that was Interchange 42 and Atlantis sitting front row.
 
Yup, that was us. From our fine vantage point in the front row it was pretty clear how amateurish, clunky, and embarrassing the new plan for the towers is. It's amazing to me that anyone could excuse the new plan when faced with what could have been. (But that's just me!)

42
 
Last edited:
It's amazing that the architectural quality of new development is still barely on the radar in this city. Sometimes I get so discouraged by the things that seem to be defining this town of late, namely: banal architecture, crappy sports teams and ridiculous mayors. Oh yeah, and traffic congestion/clusterf**ked transit plans.

Sorry, but this project really brings out the Debbie Downer in me.
 
Last edited:
Irishmonk said:
It's amazing that the architectural quality of new development is still barely on the radar in this city. Sometimes I get so discouraged by the things that seem to be defining this town of late, namely: banal architecture, crappy sports teams and ridiculous mayors. Oh yeah, and traffic congestion/clusterf**ked transit plans.

Sorry, but this project really brings out the Debbie Downer in me.
Click to expand...


I'm not sure I understand the surprise around here at yet another banal development? With a few notable exceptions development in Toronto is driven by a frontier town mentality, led by speculators and investors. There is little concern for building sustainable 'housing' for families, liveable spaces, engaging architecture with quality materials or leaving behind a beautiful public realm with a functioning infrastructure... and heritage? Heck, get away with the least amount of it as possible. They like facades in frontier towns because it lends a false impression of real, stable city development. Just don't look behind the flats!

If you view things from this perspective these announcements are far less outrageous!
 
I'm not a flat out P&S hater, but maaaaan, they can do better than this. The entertainment district needs a landmark focal point that makes a statement. This represents entertainment about as much as the TIFF building... which ain't much.
 
grey said:
?? The Bell Lightbox is a highly entertaining cultural landmark.
Click to expand...

He's referring to its architecture, not its function. An architectural landmark is what he wants for the Entertainment District.
 
You must log in or register to post here.

Back
Top