Edit: whew!, looks like my initial information was just a case of lost in translation and marketing branding. :) It will be $$, but I'll wait for the official list lest I embarrass myself any further. :)
 
Last edited:
Hadn't seen this render before (via Tridel email):
aquabella_1.jpg


Am I imagining things, or has ye olde grey Tridel spandrel made an appearance here?
 

Attachments

  • aquabella_1.jpg
    aquabella_1.jpg
    169.4 KB · Views: 2,046
I referring to the darkend window sections? Looks like it... Oh why can't they use the same glass in these sections... So what if there's a wall or beam there, you never actually notice beams and wall edges that much on other buildings. Wich use similar glass, so... Why are these spandrel panels used... Realistically, cause they are not attractive on much of any of the projects I've been watching over the years.... By several developers but mostly this tridel company.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
Maybe it's just me but I find the idea that AQUABELLA be capitalized in every usage ridiculous. It's one thing to do it that way on marketing posters and in stylized uses of text but to use caps lock on every bit of text relating to the project looks ridiculous and amateur. Tridel should know better.
 
Scaled Model from the October 1st preview opening

The Bayside Community ...






Aquabella ...



The primary view ...




The prized terraces ...




Outdoor pool on floor 7 ...



East wing wall treatment ...



The ugly ducklings (back side ... aka 'Urban Collection')



North wing wall treatment ...



Riveting balconies add an interesting level of detail up close ...



The adjacent Aitken Place Park ...



Related Urban Toronto Article:
Momin said:
Latest update: AQUABELLA: 3XN Design Joining Tridel's Bayside Community
Click to expand...
 
Love all those terrace plantings that will likely never be there.

Grey spandrel? This is TRIDEL. It WILL be there.
 
Looking at those scale models is, to me, another reminder of the unfortunate dearth of remarkable architecture along such a prominent stretch of the skyline.

I can live with what we've got, but I hate, with a capital "h", the fact that we have planned a vehicular street on the south side of these buildings-to-be. How retrograde and unnecessary, to say nothing of stupid and dangerous, given that we're soon to start construction of a brand new park, the guiding principle for which was "connection to the waterfront", that will require mixing with vehicular traffic to facilitate that interaction.

This will be a very nice area in the not-too-distant future, but I'm so disappointed that it won't be more because it so easily could have been.
 
The vehicular street will help to bridge the gap between the time when the area is new and without established connections to the rest of the city and when it's a vibrant area. There should be businesses that front the street like restaurants. People will drive their Corvettes and Ferraris from the 'burbs on Saturday nights, and it'll be cool. Eventually, when it's a popular area year round, the street can be pedestrianized. There shouldn't be any garages with entrances fronting that street, so that the street is non-essential for the service/transportation needs of the surrounding buildings.
 
So is this going to have a generic, wall of glass retail, facing the lake? That's what it looks like to me but I'm not even sure if that's retail. Does anybody know for sure?
 
junctionist said:
The vehicular street will help to bridge the gap between the time when the area is new and without established connections to the rest of the city and when it's a vibrant area. There should be businesses that front the street like restaurants. People will drive their Corvettes and Ferraris from the 'burbs on Saturday nights, and it'll be cool. Eventually, when it's a popular area year round, the street can be pedestrianized. There shouldn't be any garages with entrances fronting that street, so that the street is non-essential for the service/transportation needs of the surrounding buildings.
Click to expand...

How will a short, waterfront-straddling street that has no garage access in any way forge connections to the rest of the city?

And why should we be planning our cities around the principle that it's "cool" to have luxury sports cars populating stretches of streets?

And why should we have to wait to do the right, progressive thing (pedestrianization)?

There are literally no good reasons I've heard anyone present as to why this street should come to exist, and if I was an investor or resident buying in any of the buildings along this stretch, I'd be right pissed off about this particular planning detail.
 
I agree! There is no reason to put a street along the lake. People can park a block away and walk to any restaurants or stores along the lakefront. It's not needed at all and it would be a lot more pedestrian friendly and animated to turn it into a public square type space along the lake.
 
I love the terrace units with the plantings, and the overall shape. But the North side is a bit disappointing, as is the street - there really is no good reason for the street to be there.

And the park...I'd love to see a proper playground there instead of just grass. Or at least, an off-leash dog area?
 
argus said:
Love all those terrace plantings that will likely never be there.

Grey spandrel? This is TRIDEL. It WILL be there.
Click to expand...

You can almost expect dull spandrel and a typically crappy ground floor treatment in a Tridel project- it should almost be a Toronto archetype alongside the Bay and Gable.

It's amazing how the Tridel touch can assimilate anything into itself, even Scandavian design.
 
You must log in or register to post here.

Back
Top