Toronto MaRS Centre Phase 2 | 112.77m | 20s | Alexandria | B+H

I really like the glass on the southern side of the west face. Not a window expert but it appears to be of pretty high quality

GLpsd.jpg


7jLWY.jpg


78gfi.jpg
 
Great shots, thanks for those. I think this building makes a great addition to that intersection. And I also really like how the view from north on Avenue has changed in just the last two or so years with MaRs and Shangri-La coming up. Also, if you stand more to the west at Bloor and Avenue you can appreciate Trump in the skyline as well.
 
Yup, another institutional building exceeding all of my expectations! Can't wait to see the rest of the cladding up on this one, the contrasting glass already looks great!
 
Not sure I'm feeling this one as much as I'd hope ...

The renderings made it out to look as if the "bumped" out glass portion would contrast the rest much more, but that's not really the case, its still good don't get me wrong !
 
I have never been a big fan of this one, and I'll be surprised if the finished product turns me into one. I am open to that happening, but…

For a building that's all about innovation, have we not missed a chance here to get some really innovative architecture? The staggered slats extending from the curtain wall just do not suffice in that regard. Surely something bolder could have been achieved here, something forward-looking that could have meshed with the message that the high tech companies inside would want to be associated with. Because it's all labs inside I'd hold no hope of getting away from the squared-off spaces required, but the skin could have been really interesting here. Maybe the building could even have responded to Hydro Place, which addressed the location so much more grandly so many years ago. Hydro Place isn't perfect, but it has some sense of occasion in regard to its outstanding location to the south of Queens Park. MaRS 2, however, could be plunked down on any square plot in town. Boring!

42
 
i42:

It's B+H, about as corporate bland as it could be. Personally, I would have preferred the original scheme by Adamson - at least it would have maintained the symmetry so lacking in this current proposal. In hindsight, perhaps a bit of verve like the curving atria at SickKids Research Tower would have been more appropriate.

AoD
 
I was commiserating with a civil engineer last week who specializes in avant-garde glass installations. He's from here, but works all over the place, and was reinforcing what many of us already know: Toronto is a very conservative city when it comes to design. We are usually the last to try new things out, it all has to be tried and true for the corporate types in this town to give the go-ahead on anything. Apparently there is one exception in the offing however; we are going to see some pretty special stuff at the new Globe HQs. Details to follow in a year or so!

Anyway, again, in a building dedicated to scientific advancement, it would be great to have had some architectural advancement too!

42
 
interchange42 said:
I was commiserating with a civil engineer last week who specializes in avant-garde glass installations. He's from here, but works all over the place, and was reinforcing what many of us already know: Toronto is a very conservative city when it comes to design. We are usually the last to try new things out, it all has to be tried and true for the corporate types in this town to give the go-ahead on anything. Apparently there is one exception in the offing however; we are going to see some pretty special stuff at the new Globe HQs. Details to follow in a year or so!

Anyway, again, in a building dedicated to scientific advancement, it would be great to have had some architectural advancement too!

42
Click to expand...


I figured after voicing my concerns others would chime in with similar views ... now having said that, lets keep one thing in mind, there was a lot of public money involved in this project, I think the majority of the public wouldn't exactly fall in love with the fact that a very large construction budget was allocated to produce a unique design when the utility of the building (i.e. how it can be used on the inside for research) is no greater then a building at half the cost (clearly with a relatively safe / cheap design at play).

The same can be said about hospital projects, where lots of the money comes from private donations.

Given that one can argue this building and the new hospital of sick children's research facility are actually well designed given (and exceed the modest expectations that should have been in place) this constraint !
 
The contrast between the two types of glass is very good - but dependent on the lighting / time of day / angle of the sun.

But it is much much better than a lot of other efforts to have different types of glass on the same building.
 
You must log in or register to post here.

Back
Top