Toronto The Globe and Mail Centre | 83.21m | 17s | First Gulf | Diamond Schmitt

arvelomcquaig · Jul 14, 2014

My standards aren’t high; all I ask is that cladding consist of more than glass (or any one material). The equivalent in the time of Victorian architecture would be buildings whose faÃ§ades are sheer brick walls. Fortunately, Victorian architecture had *way* more diversity of materials than that.

AlvinofDiaspar · Jul 14, 2014

Regardless, it isn't that big of a deal in this setting - there is enough material diversity in the neighbourhood - unlike say Southcore. The addition of office space in this area can only be counted as a major plus.

AoD

salsa · Jul 14, 2014

slicecom said:
Not every building can be world class, but buildings and growth are ALWAYS better than surface parking lots in my opinion.

You have low standards if a parking lot is the baseline for your architectural judgements.

slicecom · Jul 14, 2014

salsa said:
You have low standards if a parking lot is the baseline for your architectural judgements.

Your standards are too high if you'd rather have a parking lot than a useful tower that will bring jobs and more life to the neighbourhood, just because you think it's architecturally boring.

salsa · Jul 14, 2014

slicecom said:
Your standards are too high if you'd rather have a parking lot than a useful tower that will bring jobs and more life to the neighbourhood, just because you think it's architecturally boring.

Where did I express my opinion about the tower?

slicecom · Jul 14, 2014

salsa said:
Where did I express my opinion about the tower?

Nowhere, but I don't think that changes anything about my statement.

salsa · Jul 14, 2014

slicecom said:
Nowhere, but I don't think that changes anything about my statement.

Fail. I'm actually quite satisfied with this tower if it turns out as promised. I don't expect every new building to rival Chicago or NYC, but at the same time "it's better than a parking lot" is a poor excuse for mediocrity. When a crappy building goes up, we'll be stuck with it for many decades. I think most of us regret the condos on Queens Quay West for example, regardless of what was once there.

pw20 · Jul 14, 2014

salsa said:
Fail. I'm actually quite satisfied with this tower if it turns out as promised. I don't expect every new building to rival Chicago or NYC, but at the same time "it's better than a parking lot" is a poor excuse for mediocrity. When a crappy building goes up, we'll be stuck with it for many decades. I think most of us regret the condos on Queens Quay West for example, regardless of what was once there.

Yes and no... could they be improved upon, sure? Are they a mistake - well.. on one hand they proved that people are willing to live on the waterfront, they also set a benchmark for how to do things differently. Cities are evolutionary beings - they are improved upon over time.

The waterfront condos are generally a bit of an extreme example - vis-a-vis this... I would view this as an important step of creating a multi-faceted neighbourhood one with jobs, residences, restaurants and shops. Does this tower help create a vibrant neighbourhood - yes. I think people sometimes confuse city-building with grandstanding. I prefer the first.