Toronto Scotiabank North Tower at Bay Adelaide Centre | 140.2m | 32s | Brookfield | KPMB

Big Daddy said:
This design represents the cheapest possible form of office construction. They can then offer the cheapest possible rents(? - not likely). It's sad but the developer can best fill his pockets by building these buildings as cheaply as possible - that's really ttheir prime motivation, if not their only motivation. Making the city livable is not their concern.
Click to expand...

Whoa. Developers are very much a middle man in the process. Their designs need to attract tenants otherwise, they have nothing. That summarizes their motivation. Anchor tenants have been looking for affordable and efficient.
 
maestro said:
Anchor tenants have been looking for affordable and efficient.
Click to expand...
Most have, sure, but EY and more recently CIBC have gone for standout architecture, and I am hoping that EY and CIBC's competitors will now pick up the challenge in that regard. (The Well, 160 Front, and Union Centre all represent better than typical architecture too.)

42
 
interchange42 said:
dataBase file created, and linked at the top of the page.

I am not sure about 31 storeys or 120 metres (rounded to 394 feet), but 1) that's the number of floors I count in the hero rendering, and 2) that's the height the City wanted it capped at 11 years ago when the 3-building proposal was going through the ZBA process. Beyond that height the building will create more shadow on Nathan Phillips Square. If we hear different, the file will be updated of course.

42

@DonValleyRainbow
Click to expand...

Updated.
 
interchange42 said:
Most have, sure, but EY and more recently CIBC have gone for standout architecture, and I am hoping that EY and CIBC's competitors will now pick up the challenge in that regard. (The Well, 160 Front, and Union Centre all represent better than typical architecture too.)

42
Click to expand...

However all those other buildings are clad entirely in glass too. For once I wish that a new building would use some other material or colour, like we used to do in previous decades.
 
Last edited:
salsa said:
However all those other buildings are clad entirely in glass too. For once I wish that a new buulding would use some other material or colour, like we used to do in previous decades.
Click to expand...

Think of where we stood w/the big 5/6 in early 90s.

Royal Bank - Golden Glass
TD - Black w/use of prominent non-glass
Canada Trust - Grey Stone (BCE/Brookfield Place)
Scotia - Red Stone
CIBC (CC West) Steel/Glass shiny silver
BMO - White Stone (marble, at the time)

Nice variety.
 
interchange42 said:
Most have, sure, but EY and more recently CIBC have gone for standout architecture, and I am hoping that EY and CIBC's competitors will now pick up the challenge in that regard. (The Well, 160 Front, and Union Centre all represent better than typical architecture too.)

42
Click to expand...

I appreciate these buildings however, standout architecture is a stretch. Both Bay Park and 100 Adelaide are just more decorative, single skinned boxy towers. I find the boxiness works better with Bay Park grid facade than 100 Adelaide's angular lines . Bay Park Centre bottom floor plates are massive; perfect for a bank. These would be broken up by a large atrium in a stand out design. It will be interesting if CIBC leased any of penthouse floors above the setback.

EY is the last of the Big 4 accounting firms to move into a new building. CIBC isn't competition for anyone. Some are already referring to TD, Royal and, Scotia as the Big 3. BMO is significantly larger than CIBC too.
 
For a world alpha city and major financial centre Toronto is surprisingly meek in its tolerance of colourless, featureless glass boxes popping up shoulder to shoulder in every direction. Other world centres have avoided this scenario, even though it would no doubt benefit their local developers to erect the cheapest buildings possible. So, how do THEY encourage standout designs?

I'm quite curious as to why Toronto seems to be unique in this regard. It's also troubling because the uniform banality of the grey condo box template can affect the image we put out to the world. Great architecture can have incalculable economic benefits for a city. Bad/boring architecture can have a similar negative effect. For a city trying to up its game as a diverse cultural/economic powerhouse it pays to know what the long term effects of uninspiring, cheap design will have.
 
I wouldn't say other world cities have avoided this scenario entirely. Other cities have tenants that strive for "landmark" designs which is great when it works out but, pretty awful when it doesn't. I disagree with these towers being the cheapest quality possible based on a standard SSG cladding and a simple , boxy massing. They could finished much more cheaply.

The way I see Canada is the land of oligopolies through policies that shelter many industries including Toronto's major tenants from outside competition. There isn't that competitive edge to create the circumstances for impressive head offices. Our lenient signage laws in Toronto don't help either.
 
When I say standout architecture in regards to the EY Tower and Bay Park Centre, I mean that their exteriors stand out in comparison to the typical Toronto office box, nothing more. Recent examples of the box are One York, Telus House, the PwC Tower, Bay Adelaide, etc. Some of those a fine examples of boxes, but comparatively, EY and Bay Park stand out from them. I'm just glad that we are getting some new office towers that aren't simple boxes, and I am hoping that more firms looking for new build new HQs will consider more daring architecture. It's a simple wish for a couple steps forward.

42
 
Brookfield has no mention of this building at all on any of its websites that I could find. It used to, but no longer. The other developers are selling their buildings enthusiastically, but this doesn't appear to be on the market.
 
I really don't understand the negativity towards this building.
I'm not saying this should be the way in which we evaluate our developments,
but city enthusiasts in Tokyo or Seoul, would kill to get a building having the quality of 100 Adelaide or BA...
 
You must log in or register to post here.

Back
Top