As much as I love this project in terms of scope and scale, I really hope they do a LOT more work on refining the towers, perhaps combining them into ONE ICONIC SUPERTALL TOWER. Toronto desperately needs ICONIC towers in our skyline. We have way too much "meh". The CN Tower is our only standout feature.

Taken in isolation from the podium design, would anyone consider these towers groundbreaking or impressive? They are just "meh" IMO. I think instead of 3 mediocre towers, the answer is to build one really massive, ICONIC supertall tower (I'm thinking 1,500 feet) above the expanded Art Deco podium, in a design that is complementary to the Art Deco style of the expanded podium without trying to mimic it. Not enough imagination has gone into this project, which makes me wonder if it is for real.

If I were the developer, I would be looking to a design firm like SOM out of Chicago to build something iconic. Hariri-Pontarini has done some great work recently, but nothing iconic. I don't think they are up to this job. Of course, there are many other great architectural firms other than SOM, so if I were developing this project, I would be looking for the best of the best.
 
Last edited:
EBT said:
Toronto desperately needs ICONIC towers in our skyline. We have way too much "meh". The CN Tower is our only standout feature.
Click to expand...
I would hardly call the CN Tower our only standout feature. One Bloor West, Forma, CIBC Square, Scotia Plaza, Royal Bank Plaza, Brookfield Place, 160 Front Street, along with many more mid and low-rise gems as well.

This proposal is great and would make a fine addition to the Yonge corridor. The density is evenly balanced between the three towers which all look fantastic IMO.
 
Yeah, the skyline is getting there. Top 5 most picturesque skyline in NA. But don’t go overboard there’s still massive room for more visually appealing standout “iconic” buildings. Hopefully breaking free of the monotonous colour scheme as well.
 
EBT said:
As much as I love this project in terms of scope and scale, I really hope they do a LOT more work on refining the towers, perhaps combining them into ONE ICONIC SUPERTALL TOWER. Toronto desperately needs ICONIC towers in our skyline. We have way too much "meh". The CN Tower is our only standout feature.

Taken in isolation from the podium design, would anyone consider these towers groundbreaking or impressive? They are just "meh" IMO. I think instead of 3 mediocre towers, the answer is to build one really massive, ICONIC supertall tower (I'm thinking 1,500 feet) above the expanded Art Deco podium, in a design that is complementary to the Art Deco style of the expanded podium without trying to mimic it. Not enough imagination has gone into this project, which makes me wonder if it is for real.

If I were the developer, I would be looking to a design firm like SOM out of Chicago to build something iconic. Hariri-Pontarini has done some great work recently, but nothing iconic. I don't think they are up to this job. Of course, there are many other great architectural firms other than SOM, so if I were developing this project, I would be looking for the best of the best.
Click to expand...
The CN Tower could also use a bath. A good scrub & polish up. Looking a little worn & grubby up close.
 
I will never understand the desire that some have on this forum to have every project, regardless of location, be the Burj Khalifa. Height isn't everything.

Specifically to College Park, this is decently north of our main skyline, which is a weird place to put a signature tower if you're thinking about the postcard view of the city. Also the structural work to build anything that tall is insane, it would almost certainly require significantly more demolition of the current College Park than this proposal does.

I was bored earlier and was going through the application documents and the amount of heritage restoration work and the reuse of planned but unused Carlu designs for this project is truly impressive. Maybe the residential towers can be refined further but tbh I think they're better aesthetically than most of what we have built over the past 20 years (although I agree the unit sizes are a disaster and need to be changed).
 
Last edited:
tstormers said:
I really hope they redesign these unit sizes... The industry as a whole needs to create livable units and stop with the undersized units with no storage space and no space to do separate things while living with a partner, (basically living on top of each other).

View attachment 682423

For context in sqft.

Studio - 33m2 = 355 sqft
1 BD - 45m2 = 484 sqft
1 BD+D - 46m2 = 495 sqft - (9 sqft Den??) Or same size as a 1BD.
2 BD - 57m2 = 613 sqft - (my 1BD condo I rented in North York was 620sqft and my ex and I had no personal space away from each other if you wanted. Add to that no where to eat but the couch. Really cramming those bedrooms in!)

The Studio in the below plan looks almost as bad as the Forma ones (Forma is worse, I think). It might be 30m2 based of the other towers' sizes.

View attachment 682434

I really hope people stop buying these so they stop building them. I work in the field and wish I didn't have to design them, but you do what the client asks unfortunately, or at least in my position.
Click to expand...

613 square feet for a 2 bedroom is ridiculous.

My mom has a 2 bed/2 bath newer condo up north (in Alliston). It's a top floor unit, 10 foot ceilings, 1000 square feet plus a balcony. And underground parking. The 1 bedroom units in this building are 800 sqaure feet!

I get it's Toronto, but come on man the sizes in these new buildings are laughably low and unliveable for the vast majority of the population.
 
TossYourJacket said:
I will never understand the desire that some have on this forum to have every project, regardless of location, be the Burj Khalifa. Height isn't everything.
Click to expand...
It is, if you want to shield the gazes of the masses from the Aura that's standing right next to it... >.<
 
TossYourJacket said:
I will never understand the desire that some have on this forum to have every project, regardless of location, be the Burj Khalifa. Height isn't everything.

Specifically to College Park, this is decently north of our main skyline, which is a weird place to put a signature tower if you're thinking about the postcard view of the city. Also the structural work to build anything that tall is insane, it would almost certainly require significantly more demolition of the current College Park than this proposal does.

I was bored earlier and was going through the application documents and the amount of heritage restoration work and the reuse of planned but unused Carlu designs for this project is truly impressive. Maybe the residential towers can be refined further but tbh I think they're better aesthetically than most of what we have built over the past 20 years (although I agree the unit sizes are a disaster and need to be changed).
Click to expand...
One of the worst skyline’s is Dubai’s. Cold, hollow & unappealing.
 
You must log in or register to post here.

Back
Top