What was Stinson thinking? Those green stripes on the top of the building look terrible. It's sort of like toothpaste green. Maybe Crest should put their logo up on the top? The renderings showed a beautiful blue, not the toothpaste green. It makes me wonder if Sapphire (assuming it ever gets built) will become the Emerald Tower. If so, I hope he goes with tennis ball green, it's a step up from toothpaste green.

Yes it does have a tooth paste look going on, but I think it looks alright.

http://www.inclearimage.com/images/Toronto/february/P1020483.jpg

It looks OK in that picture. I think it looks worse during sunny days, because it has sort of a washed out look. Now, if those green stripes were glow in the dark, all would be forgiven!

1 King W looks f***ing awesome from dundas square at sunset!

Poor Stinson...every hates his building just because of the green glass. Won't they love him if he had developed this building in Vancouver? :(

I don't mind it because it complements the Canada Trust Tower.

I am disappointed that the building did not look like the rendering, though, since obviously the architect and anyone involved in the design knew what it would really look like, and should have made the renderings according to the design. Instead Stinson sold a design that wasn't going to be realized. For that reason alone I would warn anyone against investing in Sapphire.

^Indeed, I'm very worried about the outcome. The city should halt construction and force him to apply the rendering's blue glass in case we start seeing the "crest" green thing going on.

Supposedly there's going to be signage at the top saying '1 King' or something like that. IMO, no matter what freaking font they use it will look like crap. Might as well just have a big HOTEL sign like at the new Niagara Casino.

What a goof! Stinson talks about Toronto's 'mediocore' architecture and yet he's the one who cheaped out on 1 King. 5 years behind schedule to boot.

Also, that picture blows! Every building looks like crap. It's certainly not a better one of 1 King anyway.

I like 1KW but why does every tower in that pic look so crappy...the weather?

I like it for its slimness. Does look "cheaped out" though.
http://img82.exs.cx/img82/1351/toronto313rz.jpg

Now that's a good pic of 1KW!

I sort of like the colour - a good representation of oxidized copper (see top of commerce court north in picture)

And I do believe a modern mullion/sprandrel-free glass facade would be too pomo for this classic deco inspired building

And I do believe a modern mullion/sprandrel-free glass facade would be too pomo for this classic deco inspired building

Care to explain? Because as I see it this isn't a "deco inspired" building in the least. Where are the elements of a streamlined design? Where are the expensive materials? Where is the stylized decoration?

I like the buildings shape not the facade.

The colour is not that bad... you guys are making a mountain out of a molehill.

It actually blends well with the other buildings around it like the Canada Trust towers and Commerce Court West.

When the sun hits it it becomes see through.

"you guys are making a mountain out of a molehill."


Ah...but that's what we do best. If you were to only know Toronto by what you read here, you would think it must be the worse city ever shat upon the earth.





KGB

I agree with KGB

and you guys are all insane by the way!!! its a nice looking building the green glass...whuts so wrong with it it looks better then some other buildings in TO. Why would you be so worried about saphire, there is nothing to worry about, put yourself in his shoes for a sec, i know if i were him i wouldnt care much about whether or not im "cheaping out" on 1 King West cause i have something much bigger and more exiting on my mind...saphire tower, and no way would i cheep out on such a prominent building infact just to show people what im capable off id use expensive briliant blue glass on it, infact id have to be a complete idiot to cheap out on it, but since its stinsen who's the developer and not me he would have to be a complete idiot to cheap out on it, but hes not, hes gotten this far and hes not gonna make a fool of himself by making the tallest skyscraper in canada and putting shit on it for windows (why els would he call it saphire tower unless he actually is planing on and is going to put reflective blue glass on it morons). This building if built will be his pride and joy it will be his largest accomplishement ever it will mean so much to him and anyone with even the smallest sized ego would wanna deck this thing out with beautifull glass and make it look sexy and make anyone who doubted him look like an idiot (if it gets approved and built that is).

I dont know who or what allot of people take him for but if he does cheap out on it then i can say my 4 year old little causin is smarter then him and unless im an idiot myself i highly doubt he is as stupid as a 4 year old. People need to start supporting him in order to get this damned thing built and make him sign a paper saying we have the right to gang beat him with big sticks if he cheaps out!! other then that just support this project.

I don't think blue glass was ever intended for 1 King...and it would look silly if it were.

Not to say I like the specific colour of the glass or mullions that are there either. It all ends up a bit bland for some reason...the facade kind of blends too much and does't accentuate the contrasts enough. I'm sure they intended to have subtle changes...but I think it is too much so in the end.

I actually like the precast...it's of excellent quality...I had a good look at it when they were installing it....has a nice honed or buff look to it...very stone-like (not that you can notice it from far away).

I also like the wrap-around and horozontal banding of the corner windows. The windows running up the sides are totally boring though...in fact, the west side of most of the building is pretty boring.






KGB

Looks blue to me.

http://www.onekingwest.com/image/cross-section.jpg

"Looks blue to me."


So does the base of the old bank building...which we all know is the same limestone as the rest of it...it also shows the old Nags Head building...clearly a nonaccurate and low detail rendering.






KGB

Good lord - you people put far too much emphasis on a rendering.

A rendering is an artistic impression of what a building may approximately look like in the future. It is to give a general sense of the shape and appearing of what the building will look like. It is not some kind of time machine that depicts the exact copy of what the building will look like and it is absolutely ridiculous to think that it will.

Renderings are for marketing purposes - not for achitectural buffs or skyscraper geeks that are upset the glass of a drawing done 7 years ago isn't an exact representation of what was constructed. In fact when the renderings were done the glass colour and manufacturer was not even decided on. For example Minto Midtown has had rendering floating around for years and it was only 2 winters ago they put up tests of 4 different window types to make a decision long after the renderings were done.

Renderings are done in the early stages of development and are based on architectural blueprints and skematics - decisions on exterior materials and colours often take place at a much latter stage of development.

Therefore based on the logic of some people here Cassius is the actual architect for Sapphire because he did some renderings based on black and white scematics - Obviously when he was draing the tower based on those drawings he must have been making the decisions on the manufacturers and suppliers that Mr. Stinson would use as well as all the colours and types of materials used.

I'm sure Cassius would be the first to back me up and saw that this is all ridicolous - he based his renderings on the best information he had at the time - this is not a bash on Stinson - most developers are the same in that renderings and marketing takes place long before many crutial design and matterial decisions are made.

So please stop showing renderings from 7 years ago and complaining that the glass isn't a perfect representation and that it means there was a cheap out - maybe you should think that the rendering was an artistic impression that showed a general sense of what the final product would look like - and that's exactly what it did - that rendering very closely resembles what was built. Renderings are not an exercise of time travel.

For some reason, 1 KW looked much better today. Sort of reminds me of that Seinfeld episode where Jerry dates a girl who looks great one minute and ugly the next. From some angles, and in certain lighting conditions, 1 KW looks great, but under other conditions, or from other angles, can look rather crappy.

"A rendering is an artistic impression of what a building may approximately look like in the future. "


he he...it's not so much the buildings themselves that tend to have artistic licence....it's the way they almost always portray what's around the project....usually looking like a tower in the middle of Algonquin Park, when in reality, it's surrounded by other buildings.






KGB

The historic and tower part of 1KW should complement each other.
Both parts should be seen as one.
If the tower had BLUE glass, I believe there would be just too much contrasts.

Most of you sound like little old ladies.
You just spend your days bitching about everything.
I can imagine you sitting in 1KW with BLUE glass,
“Everything looks too BLUE when I look out the window”.
You would just bitch and bitch until someone threw you out that BLUE window.

There sure is a lot of bitching on this site. I would agree with that. Not pointing fingers, but lots of bitching to the point where a critical analysis is no longer evident, and all that is left IS bitching. hahaha :runaway:

Mike in TO,
You are absolutely right. They're artistic representations only.

sorry to drag you in Cassius... I think I've had to post practically the same argument every few months due to rendering hysteria and total misunderstandings about the development process.

Mike in TO,
You are absolutely right. They're artistic representations only.

I'm sorry but I disagree with this statement. You can't tell me the architect doesn't know if he designed the building with blue or green glass in mind.

The building is fine! The colour of the glass blends well with the buildings around it!

I'm sorry but I disagree with this statement. You can't tell me the architect doesn't know if he designed the building with blue or green glass in mind.

Actually, they're right. And in many cases it's the developer who has the final word over the rendering...not the architect. Things change quickly in the development biz and these are not to be looked at as blueprints of how the final product should look...they're marketing pieces.

And Mike is certainly right about things like glass colour not being decided upon till later on in the process. Once you have the schmatics you get a rendering done and start marketing...things can change along the way.

Actually, they're right. And in many cases it's the developer who has the final word over the rendering...not the architect. Things change quickly in the development biz and these are not to be looked at as blueprints of how the final product should look...they're marketing pieces.

And Mike is certainly right about things like glass colour not being decided upon till later on in the process. Once you have the schmatics you get a rendering done and start marketing...things can change along the way.

I'll take your word on it, but I just find it odd that the architects decision in terms of glass colour and detailing is not taken into consideration. I'm sure if aspects of a "starchitect's" (anyone else hate that word as much as I do?) design were changed in a developers renderings, lawyers would be involved.

I'll take your word on it, but I just find it odd that the architects decision in terms of glass colour and detailing is not taken into consideration. I'm sure if aspects of a "starchitect's" (anyone else hate that word as much as I do?) design were changed in a developers renderings, lawyers would be involved.

The developers hire the architects...the developers are their clients. The architect can design a masterpiece, but ultimately, like in all creative professions (graphic design, advertising, etc.) the wishes of the client are paramount. So, if a Frank Gehry designed project had a rendering released...which drastically changed for the final release, it no doubt was due to the wishes of the client, because of changes in cost, budget, or even because the developer requested something specific.

"I'll take your word on it, but I just find it odd that the architects decision in terms of glass colour and detailing is not taken into consideration"

Why do think they're always bitter