Toronto The One | 308.6m | 85s | Tridel | Foster + Partners

The works of Foster+Partners is very much that of our time - one really can't compare the worth of Empire State Building to them simply because it would be about as honest as asking someone whether it is worth more than say the Seagram Building.

AoD
 
salsa said:
So I was looking at some examples of Foster buildings in today's Star article, and to be honest they don't inspire much excitement for me. If Mizrahi want's to compare this future development to the Empire State building or the Rockefeller Centre, then I'm expecting to see some stone or marble cladding rather than just all glass, as well as an observation deck. None of those examples in the article are nearly as epic compared to those NYC buildings, except for maybe The Gherkin, London (but even that one doesn't hold a candle to the Empire State building). Of course we still have to wait and see what they will come up with for Toronto, and see if it will live up to the hype.
Click to expand...

has there been a single high profile building constructed in the past decade with predominantly stone cladding? demand a modern landmark not an echo from the past, art-deco is many decades old.
 
I'm pretty sure it was more about the impact ESB & Rockefeller Centre had, rather than any actual physical resemblance. Your best bet in that case is to hire Stern, not Foster.

But even in terms of impact, using that analogy on this project is probably a case of gross exaggeration and pure hype.
 
WiddleBittyKitty said:
Christopher Hume had a good column on this yesterday - he's got the pitch just right here.

http://www.thestar.com/news/gta/2015/01/19/stollerys-and-the-slaying-of-a-building-hume.html
Click to expand...


Really? I think he gets it all wrong, it borders on schmaltz. Forcing a mediocre and entirely out of scale facade onto a building and at a location with so much potential is not forward thinking in any way.... and the developer really isn't doing anything wrong! This hand-wringing is so completely overwrought and unjustified here. Direct the ire at the city's heritage preservation policies and save the passion for those structures that truly merit protection because they are probably at risk!

The loss is sad, by the way. It does deserve some respect from Hume and anybody else, but this situation also deserves some perspective, which seems to be in short supply.
 
January 20 2015, Glad to see this go, it was a real eyesore
33cxcu9.jpg

20gjyna.jpg

2u7neo1.jpg

wl3yib.jpg

jausjo.jpg
 
Tewder said:
Really? I think he gets it all wrong, it borders on schmaltz. Forcing a mediocre and entirely out of scale facade onto a building and at a location with so much potential is not forward thinking in any way.... and the developer really isn't doing anything wrong! This hand-wringing is so completely overwrought and unjustified here. Direct the ire at the city's heritage preservation policies and save the passion for those structures that truly merit protection because they are probably at risk!

The loss is sad, by the way. It does deserve some respect from Hume and anybody else, but this situation also deserves some perspective, which seems to be in short supply.
Click to expand...

Not sure everyone sees it this way. I can understand how people could see it as forcing the destruction of 100-or-so-year-old building in the name of a building that doesn't even exist in the form of conceptual drawings yet (at least to our knowledge) at such a prominent location. Seriously we aren't even talking about Ghery style conceptual renderings or even a massing study, all we have is the name Foster and Partners and our imaginations.

That being said, I do not think I'll miss Stollery's. It's just the way this all went about is not ideal, and dangerously precedent setting.
 
Last edited:
Got to love how they rushed in to chip out all the worthwhile bits out on a weekend and left everything hanging during the week. If that's not the best sign of ill-intent, I am not sure what else could be interpreted as such. For all his bravado, I look forward to Mizrahi putting up similar details on his extant and ersatz faux-historical P+S projects.

AoD
 
Last edited:
AlvinofDiaspar said:
Got to love how they rushed in to chip out all the worthwhile bits out on a weekend and left everything hanging during the week. If that's not the best sign of ill-intent, I am not sure what else could be interpreted as such.

AoD
Click to expand...

The point is that they aren't "worthwhile bits"...only that those "bits" represent an excuse by those who would thwart his plans. He's simply making a move his enemies have forced on him.

If we were talking about something that actually deserved to be protected from ever being replaced, it would be a different story.
 
freshcutgrass said:
The point is that they aren't "worthwhile bits"...only that those "bits" represent an excuse by those who would thwart his plans. He's simply making a move his enemies have forced on him.

If we were talking about something that actually deserved to be protected from ever being replaced, it would be a different story.
Click to expand...

+1
 
I think a lot of people are forgetting that designation does not mean it can never be demolished. It just means a demolition permit requires City Council approval. Even the Heritage Preservation Board routinely tells Council that some designated properties aren't worth protecting and a demolition permit should be granted. So while it wouldn't have been the ideal scenario, a heritage designation would have at least helped the building stay intact until some formal plans were introduced. As it stands now, that corner is going to be an even bigger eyesore in the coming months.
 
Canadian Chocho said:
Not sure everyone sees it this way. I can understand how people could see it as forcing the destruction of 100-or-so-year-old building in the name of a building that doesn't even exist in the form of conceptual drawings yet (at least to our knowledge) at such a prominent location. Seriously we aren't even talking about Ghery style conceptual renderings or even a massing study, all we have is the name Foster and Partners and our imaginations.

That being said, I do not think I'll miss Stollery's. It's just the way this all went about is not ideal, and dangerously precedent setting.
Click to expand...

Yeah, i agree it's not ideal to have an empty lot sitting here. I don't like it either but i'm not sure what could realistically have been done about it... and it's sort of par for the course in a city like Toronto really, extremely under-scaled for the unprecedented growth demands it's been experiencing.

As for what we'll get? Hard to tell really. Development in a boom-burg like Toronto is always a bit of a crap shoot. AoD raises some concerns that I think are credible, yet they're promising a Foster? The thing is they can promise all they want but there's little that is legally binding, and their behaviour suggests little sensitivity. I guess we'll have to wait and see.
 
You must log in or register to post here.

Back
Top