SkyscraperCity banner

1 - 20 of 35 Posts

·
Moderator
Joined
·
34,274 Posts
I thought there was a thread for this already. I believe there are other renderings out there so I'll go try find them. I know the top has a staggered deco inspired crown.
 

·
planning inaction
Joined
·
2,032 Posts
I'm guessing this is mostly residential? The cladding is a bit staid - it actually reminds me of bad 1980's / 90's "mixed tone" buildings (like the one on Bay at Wellesley).
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
20 Posts
That looks awful. I hate it!
it looks like someone said "people will complain if we just make a box, so why don't we paint some random panels a different colour, so it it's art" God that awful.
 

·
Moderator
Joined
·
34,274 Posts
By that logic no effort at all should be made and we'll end up with Bay-Adelaide. I'll take a crown and this pattern on the facade over a plain box any day. And I doubt anyone is passing it off as art.
 

·
planning inaction
Joined
·
2,032 Posts
I'd rather have Bay-Adelaide, at lease the transparency of the facade offered some sort of interest. This just looks extremely cheap. And that crown! What is this, 1993?
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
4,496 Posts
I also think this one is a stinker. You would think at this stage in our development that we would be getting much better designs than this, for tall buildings. This is very disappointing for Yonge Street.
 

·
Moderator
Joined
·
34,274 Posts
I'd rather have Bay-Adelaide, at lease the transparency of the facade offered some sort of interest. This just looks extremely cheap. And that crown! What is this, 1993?
'Transparency of the facade' and 'offered some sort of interest' don't belong in the same sentence. Transparent is the complete absence of something to look at.

1993? If that's 1993 I hope it's 1993 for many years to come. As far as Bay-Adelaide goes I hope I never ever see a building like that again. It's depressing just looking at it. Regarding the finished product, like most things, it will come down to the quality of materials. That's the only thing about Bay-Adelaide that's nice.
 

·
planning inaction
Joined
·
2,032 Posts
'Transparency of the facade' and 'offered some sort of interest' don't belong in the same sentence. Transparent is the complete absence of something to look at.

1993? If that's 1993 I hope it's 1993 for many years to come. As far as Bay-Adelaide goes I hope I never ever see a building like that again. It's depressing just looking at it. Regarding the finished product, like most things, it will come down to the quality of materials. That's the only thing about Bay-Adelaide that's nice.
Thanks for looking up the plain meaning of the words I used in the definition in the dictionary. In design terms, many buildings offer the concept I suggested. That aside, you may find Bay-Adelaide depressing, but many will disagree based on the design concept offered (however simple), the heritage gains and the quality of materials you mentioned.

Back to this building. Dated (hence 1993), and at face value, it looks cheap.
 

·
Only More is More
Joined
·
1,383 Posts
I actually like this design - except for the incredibly ugly bottom. But the quality and colouring of the cladding have to be handled just right. If there's not enough contrast between the two tones, which I fear will likely happen, then it will just be another banal tower.
 
1 - 20 of 35 Posts
Top