TORONTO | 1 York & The Harbour Residences | 765 - 735 - 570 FT | 66 - 62 - 35 FLOORS - Page 3

caltrane74 · #41 Posted **Jan 5, 2012, 3:21 AM**

This tower going up anywhere else is loved, in Toronto..loathed.

Gresto · #42 Posted **Jan 5, 2012, 8:08 AM**

Not by me.

isaidso · #43 Posted **Jan 5, 2012, 8:29 AM**

Quote:

Originally Posted by DrNest

It's just more downtown filler. The office tower would look better if it had another 20 stories, and the residential towers will just be lost amongst the many other condo towers in that area.

Those residential towers won't be lost though. They're 240 m tall and close to the lake. Are these the images of Toronto we want to be showing to the world? Seeing The Royal York and TD Centre from the lake put our best face forward, these are their replacements. I'll wait till better quality images come out, but I'm very very worried.

It's shocking how people will accept any pile of shit as long as it's tall. If they tried building stuff like this in New York, London, or Sydney they'd be shown the door so fast their heads would spin. These architects aren't very sophisticated people.

DrNest · #44 Posted **Jan 5, 2012, 10:33 AM**

And that is why I feel the office tower should have another 20 or so stories. Something to stand out and been seen. Not just density in the area.

I still feel that in a few years the towers will be lost with the ICE condos and 10 York being built so close. All pretty much the same thing; glass box and balconies.

Toronto is slipping into a wave of same-old, same-old. It needs something different to give it a new face, and re-establish itself as a skyline that will make folks go wow.

isaidso · #45 Posted **Jan 5, 2012, 10:49 AM**

Agree 1000%. Instead of yet more cookie cutter in fill where design is an after thought, this city needs to shake off that complacency. It's just lazy and we're never going to grow into one of those global alpha cities unless we step it up.

Something like this would be a good start. We're being beat an our own game by Brits???

isaidso · #46 Posted **Jan 5, 2012, 10:50 AM**

Quote:

Originally Posted by caltrane74

This tower going up anywhere else is loved, in Toronto..loathed.

Because some people in this city aspire to something more than 'Edmonton with tall buildings'.

caltrane74 · #47 Posted **Jan 5, 2012, 10:59 AM**

This building is designed by the top architects in the city.

All these Southcore developments have the top Canadian Designers behind them, aA, Wallman, and Libskind. Remember that these towers are not high end and even if they were, and wouldn't be overly dramatic buildings even if that's what some here want.

isaidso · #48 Posted **Jan 5, 2012, 1:27 PM**

Quote:

Originally Posted by caltrane74

This building is designed by the top architects in the city.

All these Southcore developments have the top Canadian Designers behind them, aA, Wallman, and Libskind. Remember that these towers are not high end and even if they were, and wouldn't be overly dramatic buildings even if that's what some here want.

The only conclusion one can draw is that the 'top' architects in this city don't pass muster. It's time to bring in better talent from elsewhere. Southcore isn't very good, imo. Price Waterhouse, Telus, and ICE are decent, but the rest is only slightly better than this stuff.

Libeskind is hit and miss, but the real problem is us. If Torontonians stopped buying it, they'd stop building it. That it sells says a great deal about Toronto's sense of style. We like unsophisticated, plain, and banal. You just have to compare goods on offer here to that across the border. I can get cuter stuff in northern Minnesota than I can here in downtown Toronto. Why? It's the culture.

Generally speaking, we're a city of Sears shoppers with a Sears design sense. I guess it's too much to ask for anything stylish because few people here can tell the difference. There, I've said it. This city's history is blue collar and it shows.

Sorry for venting, but Toronto really frustrates me from time to time. Just when I think Toronto is 'arriving' as a city, I realize how far this city still has to go. We're just not 'there' yet.

caltrane74 · #49 Posted **Jan 5, 2012, 1:45 PM**

Plain Jane got us to where we are now. Don't forget there always was/is a more flashy Canadian city. We should ask them how that's going for them right now.

Toronto is New York run by the Swiss. Efficiency above all else.

isaidso · #50 Posted **Jan 5, 2012, 1:57 PM**

Quote:

Originally Posted by caltrane74

Plain Jane got us to where we are now. Don't forget there always was/is a more flashy Canadian city. We should ask them how that's going for them right now.

Toronto is New York run by the Swiss. Efficiency above all else.

Does that mean we have to be Plain Jane for the rest of our history? If it does, I'm moving back to London, England. And I wouldn't classify Montreal as flashy. It's a very stylish cosmopolitan place and has been for a very very long time. That sophistication developed over decades and decades due to Montreal's wealth and prestige. Montreal's decline has nothing to do with having a sense of style, and you know it.

You're correct that Toronto is a very pragmatic place, but if we never move beyond that we'll also remain a very boring city that the world pays little interest in, and people will stop wanting to come to. Why bother having Maserati dealerships, Prada, or Yorkville, for that matter. Why bother having Carribana or PrideWeek. Why have a Mies skyscraper, or a Royal York hotel. Are they pragmatic? No, but these are things that make a city special.

A forumer from Milwaukee commented that Toronto could grow bigger than Chicago is size/scale, but it's skyline can't ever be considered on par till we get an iconic signature building like John Hancock, the Empire State Building, or Bank of China. He's 100% right on the money.

It's the iconic, the special, the beautiful that make something stand above the crowd. These things are of value even if you don't see it.

Acajack · #51 Posted **Jan 5, 2012, 2:35 PM**

Quote:

Originally Posted by caltrane74

Plain Jane got us to where we are now.

There is a lot of truth in this statement.

Quote:

Originally Posted by caltrane74

Don't forget there always was/is a more flashy Canadian city. We should ask them how that's going for them right now..

Well, the flashy city isn't doing too badly at the moment. Sure it has its problems (as does Toronto) but it it is arguably one of the most beloved cities in the country, and is right up there (if not ahead in some cases) in international recognition when compared to the goody-two-shoes city, even though the latter has been number 1 on almost all indicators for 30 years and has 2 to 3 million more people now.

Quote:

Originally Posted by caltrane74

Toronto is New York run by the Swiss. Efficiency above all else.

This may have been true when Peter Ustinov visited decades ago but it is now more of a myth than anything else. Toronto is no longer so prim and proper and perfectly run anymore, and is even a middling North American city when it comes to cleanliness. Not saying you are (I realize you are just repeating a famous quote), but anyone who makes comparisons with Switzerland has clearly never been to Helvetia.

Innsertnamehere · #52 Posted **Jan 5, 2012, 2:38 PM**

ahem. cn tower anyone? but we do need more well designed buildings. we havent had one since scotiaplace, but we will be getting some OK buildings soon. (L tower, aura, 1 bloor, ice)

caltrane74 · #53 Posted **Jan 5, 2012, 4:04 PM**

L tower and Aura will be nothing to sneeze at, and let's not forget about One Bloor.

These towers are not the end of the world, and there is an empty lot sitting right next to this project.

DrNest · #54 Posted **Jan 5, 2012, 4:48 PM**

I agree, Scotiaplace was a great step forward, and is an iconic building. But there has been nothing on a par built in Toronto since. Rather than more and more 30-40 story glass boxes going up, if Toronto wants to really stake a claim in the world's skylines it needs something bold and different like Scotiaplace was, but taller. In the 400m's range. Something that will link the other towers to the CN Tower.

Vertigo3000 · #55 Posted **Jan 5, 2012, 7:40 PM**

I want something similar to the Bank of China or Central Plaza in Hong Kong to be built in the extreme south of Yorkville to make it iconic, sort of like how the Empire state building isn't quite in the middle of a cluster of skyscrapers, nothing like the CN tower or the CBD or the centre of Yorkville to draw the attention away. oh and around 400-450m range.

caltrane74 · #56 Posted **Jan 5, 2012, 9:17 PM**

If we get a supertall in and around Yorkville or Dundas Square, all the whining should die down a bit.

DrNest · #57 Posted **Jan 5, 2012, 9:40 PM**

Yes, there are two thoughts to the placement of a supertall in Toronto. Amongst the other tall buildings in the vicinity of the Bay-Adelaide collection, or 'stand-alone' somewhere like Yorkville.

For me I would like it south of the rail tracks, but not too far from Yonge Street. This would make it very prominent, and give it a real sense of pride and importance. Like the International Finance Centre does in Hong Kong. It would compliment the CN Tower, being very prominent when viewed from the islands.

caltrane74 · #58 Posted **Jan 5, 2012, 11:24 PM**

Well if the rumors are true that's exactly where the supertall will go.

Gresto · #59 Posted **Jan 6, 2012, 5:01 AM**

Aesthetically, I would prefer a supertall slightly east of the financial district, and at the same latitude or slightly north thereof. It would impart some visual balance, at least when viewed from the north and south.

Vertigo3000 · #60 Posted **Jan 6, 2012, 5:20 AM**

I like the balance, but I really want something iconic. Something significantly taller than anything in the area, maybe Yonge-Eglinton or the Dundas area!