TORONTO | Forma | 308 M - 266.5M | 82 & 72 FLOORS - Page 8

Automation Gallery · #**141** Posted **May 28, 2014, 3:44 AM**

Hmm, it shrunk but now has got taller

Mirvish+Gehry Toronto (ProjectCore, 92s-304 meters/998 feet + 82s, Gehry)

Mirvish, Gehry save Princess of Wales Theatre in scaled-down condo project
David Mirvish and world-renowned architect Frank Gehry have dramatically altered plans for their King Street West condo project, saving the Princess of Wales Theatre and heritage buildings on the block.

After more than 40 iterations, the latest plans include just two condo buildings, down from three, and are being welcomed by the city of Toronto planners who had objected to the density of the original design and its plan to demolish the theatre, and warehouse space they deemed to have historic value.
More....http://www.theglobeandmail.com/news/...board/follows/

New Mirvish-Gehry plan for Toronto’s King St. W unveiled
Now, two residential towers – 92 and 82 storeys respectively – will stand on King St. The towers are taller than originally planned, but more narrow, reducing the overall scale of the project by about 600 units.
More.....http://globalnews.ca/news/1357008/ne...st-w-unveiled/

yaletown_fella · #**142** Posted **May 28, 2014, 4:33 AM**

Wow, the podium is a vast improvement! Love the setbacks.

I love how the taller tower appears to employ similar curved metal cladding similar to 8 Beekman Street in NYC. Im just not a fan of the jenga boxes. Would prefer to see traditional setbacks throughout

isaidso · #**143** Posted **May 28, 2014, 5:12 AM**

What a disappointment.

Gresto · #**144** Posted **May 28, 2014, 12:45 PM**

Do we know the height of the east tower? Low-900s?

Ramako · #**145** Posted **May 28, 2014, 7:29 PM**

More photos from BlogTO:

Wooster · #**146** Posted **May 28, 2014, 9:32 PM**

I dunno...awkward.

DrNest · #**147** Posted **May 28, 2014, 10:02 PM**

I can't make out exactly from the photos. Is there a third, separate (apart from via a podium) shorter tower that's about half the height of the tallest, or is that part of the tower that gives it an L shape floor plate at the lower portion?

Chadillaccc · #**148** Posted **May 28, 2014, 10:14 PM**

I believe it is part of the taller tower.

Gresto · #**149** Posted **May 29, 2014, 1:29 AM**

Both towers have them. They're called "sentinels", apparently..

ATLksuGUY · #**150** Posted **May 29, 2014, 10:22 AM**

If it was in my city I might be excited. But having an outside perspective I can't help but think they look like crap. I wish I had a better word, and I am happy for Toronto. My family is from there, but the irregular non conformity just makes it look like the architect was "trying to be different" etc. Just seems odd and shouldn't be an anchor building for a city. Just my 2 ¢ but still happy for Toronto.

isaidso · #**151** Posted **May 29, 2014, 1:49 PM**

Quote:

Originally Posted by ATLksuGUY

If it was in my city I might be excited. But having an outside perspective I can't help but think they look like crap. I wish I had a better word, and I am happy for Toronto. My family is from there, but the irregular non conformity just makes it look like the architect was "trying to be different" etc. Just seems odd and shouldn't be an anchor building for a city. Just my 2 ¢ but still happy for Toronto.

It's a Gehry so the design is in line with everything else he does: Disney Concert Hall in LA, Bilbao Guggenheim, Beekman in New York, etc. The original design was wonderful and what we're looking at now is the compromise design necessitated by rather rigid Toronto guidelines.

I suspect (and hoping) we'll see more refinement of this rendering as it doesn't quite work for me either. The balance I see in his other work is absent here. It seems 'off'.

caltrane74 · #**152** Posted **May 29, 2014, 3:04 PM**

Don't forget this was the first version of the curvy Gehry Towers that were recently axed, so things will get better.

THIS

BECAME

333609543 · #**153** Posted **May 30, 2014, 3:33 PM**

Am I seeing a supertall proposal?? Which tower is 304 metres? And why were the design changes necessary?

caltrane74 · #**154** Posted **May 30, 2014, 4:42 PM**

Quote:

Originally Posted by 333609543

Am I seeing a supertall proposal?? Which tower is 304 metres? And why were the design changes necessary?

City Planning believed there was too much density on the site, in addition to some historic 19th century, and early 20th century warehouses and factories that would have required to be demolished for the new plan. One tower was axed, and the remaining towers were heightened. The tallest tower is now a supertall.

333609543 · #**155** Posted **May 31, 2014, 3:38 PM**

Well, I'm happy that they won't be tearing down many historical warehouses for this plan. It wouldn't be too bad to have a Gehry as a supertall.

TriWolf · #**156** Posted **May 31, 2014, 5:45 PM**

AUGH, just ONE METER! D: Come on, make this 1000+ft

so close D:

isotack · #**157** Posted **Jun 1, 2014, 2:42 AM**

These are too close to the CN Tower. Ruins the skyline of the city. Put them anywhere but here...if you must. My two cents

Gresto · #**158** Posted **Jun 1, 2014, 2:45 AM**

Oxford Place will be much closer to CN and, as supertalls, will likely partially block views of the CBD from everywhere except the Spacepod.

isaidso · #**159** Posted **Jun 1, 2014, 6:12 AM**

Quote:

Originally Posted by TriWolf

AUGH, just ONE METER! D: Come on, make this 1000+ft

so close D:

I doubt there are very many people around the world who will even notice. The planet is almost universally metric. 300m is the benchmark people look at, not 1000ft.

Innsertnamehere · #**160** Posted **Jun 1, 2014, 4:23 PM**

and even then, its only a few people on 2 websites that use it as a "benchmark". The thing that really matters is that this will be Toronto's new tallest building, that is something that more people keep track of.