Theatre Park (244 King St W by the Royal Alex) | U/C | 47 st | 157 m | Entertainment District

Taller said:

Really? They look exactly like the rendering to me:

I see them as a visual effect that create a pattern, not an actual structural support system.

Click to expand...

They're intended to only be visual, but almost look structural in those renderings. In reality, they're far less prominent than what's depicted in those drawings. Even the glass is less prominent in the renderings; I suppose to focus the eyes on the lattice work.

^^ It is true; they did seem to "imagine" the glass would be all but invisible, which we know in real life is not the case.

If by "intended to look structural" people mean that they were supposed to look like they're holding up the tower or holding themselves up, that's not the case. They were intended to look like constraints, binding the tower tightly within its small footprint. This was done as a way to visually acknowledge and play with the fact that this is a very large tower sitting in the middle of a low-rise heritage block.

Project architect Adam Feldmann of architectsAlliance: “The site is on the tight side and the building is compressed, so the tower is wrapped in bands to appear like it’s held in. It’s a tiny floor plate, a point tower.”

http://www.thestar.com/life/homes/2011/04/22/theatre_park_lamb_is_acting_on_his_confidence.html


Accordingly it makes complete sense that the bands should appear very close to the glass, rather than several inches away. What might be adding to the confusion is that the renderings on the first page were preliminary. This was the one used to actually market the project:



http://www.buranocondominium.com/toronto-lofts--condominiums.html


It looks like exactly what we're getting. An A+ in my opinion, especially given the site constraints. And kudos to the developer, Brad Lamb, who probably would have had no trouble selling these units had he not bothered with the bands at all.

I think it is looking quite good.

Perhaps the issue some are having is that the angled lattice pieces are not connecting up with the balconies (yet) - they stop short. Once the balconies are done and the lattices are extended to them - it will look somewhat structural and quite interesting architecturally (even though it is just visual like the renderings)...

Ramako said:

If by "intended to look structural" people mean that they were supposed to look like they're holding up the tower or holding themselves up, that's not the case. They were intended to look like constraints, binding the tower tightly within its small footprint.

Click to expand...

That may be their explanation, but someone looking at that rendering could easily be fooled into assuming its structural. That lattice work flowing into the balcony doesn't look cosmetic, even though it is.

isaidso said:

That may be their explanation, but someone looking at that rendering could easily be fooled into assuming its structural. That lattice work flowing into the balcony doesn't look cosmetic, even though it is.

Click to expand...

I don't see how anybody could ever think that looking at the most recent rendering, but I can't speak for anyone else.

The preliminary rendering looks like there is no glass at all; just units open to the outdoor elements. That is not particularly realistic. I agree with Ramako here; there is no pretence that the building is structurally being held together by the bands, but rather it is supposed to be a suggestion. I prefer thin to chunky thick bands.

They clearly stated that it was cosmetic, but I the renderings make it look like they're structural. I prefer more honest depictions.

I can't see how anyone could possibly interpret the bands in the marketing rendering as looking structural. We'll just have to agree to disagree.

I am grateful of the random layout of them, as I would HATE to have a rip off of Foster's ubiquitous criss-cross bondage look. Really I wish he would move on past that rigid exoskeleton look that he has been fixated on for such a long time; they are all over the planet now.

Ramako said:

I can't see how anyone could possibly interpret the bands in the marketing rendering as looking structural. We'll just have to agree to disagree.

Click to expand...

I believe you mentioned that just 3 posts before that one.

isaidso said:

They clearly stated that it was cosmetic, but I the renderings make it look like they're structural.

Click to expand...

I believe you mentioned that just 3 posts before that one.

Ramako said:

I don't see how anybody could ever think that looking at the most recent rendering, but I can't speak for anyone else.

Click to expand...

100% with you. This tower would fold if those were structural. This tower is looking sharp. Everyday when I leave my office I have a clear view of it and it's amazing ribbons. I look forward to seeing more.

Toronto by Marcanadian, on Flickr


Theatre Park by Marcanadian, on Flickr


Theatre Park by Marcanadian, on Flickr


Theatre Park by Marcanadian, on Flickr


Theatre Park by Marcanadian, on Flickr


Theatre Park by Marcanadian, on Flickr


Theatre Park by Marcanadian, on Flickr


Theatre Park by Marcanadian, on Flickr


Theatre Park by Marcanadian, on Flickr


Theatre Park by Marcanadian, on Flickr

Awesome update. Thanks!

So, wonder how these will look from inside the units? Will they detract from the view, do you think? I've never been inside a place that had this sort of banding. Btw, I love the term "ribbons", Andrew; it reminds me of wrapping a present! :yes:

Man that thing is skinny!

I think having a couple "ribbons" running across your windows might be kinda cool in that it frames the view. Also, as a local landmark, I think it might have some cachet for people to be able to look out your window and know what building they're in.

I think the ribbons would be cool going across your window.... UNLESS it's one of the few ribbons that aren't angled so much and look to cut right across ones entire unit. The problem with that is what if this ribbon happens to be around the same height as yourself then it would pretty much obstruct your view unless you duck or stand on your tippy toes lol. And if you look at the rendering it does seem to happen on a few floors.

I still like this look though atleast from the outside hehe!

AndrewJM3D said:

This tower would fold if those were structural.

Click to expand...

You'd be surprised what today's civil engineering is capable of; have you not taken Statics? Even people who haven't realize that buildings like Beijing's Bird's Nest stadium already exist. Is that building collapsing?

By urbandreamer from UT.

urbandreamer said:

22 Feb 2014
skinny & fat

Click to expand...