I would've preferred a McDee's or McCafe over the Timmies, but having a cheap coffee option is fine by me. I know it's all subjective/personal bias, but I'm just glad there's no Subway there. I still feel the area is missing an affordable Chinese/Vietnamese food option.
 
One pic from above and one from a little less high, both from Dec 3:

IMG_20191203_095732-01.jpeg


IMG_20191203_221440.jpg
 
Redroom Studios said:
I actually kinda like the office building portion... the 2 towers as could be predicted from the renders have turned out to be utterly regrettable.
Click to expand...
I think we're all guilty of piling on this banality. It's time to move on and soon this project will assume it's rightful role of infill as taller towers take over. Let's hope a future skyline in this area ups the interest.
 
condovo said:
^^^ Except this tall "infill" is right on the lake and prominent in the classic, postcard view of the city. As such, expectations here are/were higher. I get what you're saying though. It's too late.
Click to expand...
Yep, exactly. This just reserved a 60-year slot in the Polson Pier family photo. Grim.
 
old boy said:
I think we're all guilty of piling on this banality. It's time to move on and soon this project will assume it's rightful role of infill as taller towers take over. Let's hope a future skyline in this area ups the interest.
Click to expand...

Nah, the guilt is from the party putting this up - banal meant forgettable; this isn't simply by the way of bulk and that seizure-inducing balcony "art".

AoD
 
The main thing is housing, affordable and in a good area. If it is banal so be it, functionality is banal. There will be homeowners (taxpayers and of course the omnipotent investors) living on land that previously housed a nightclub that rocked only on the weekend. Daniels gets a lot of stick for boring design but at the end of the day they are residential developers and the housing takes precedent. I don't like it, too dense, but I understand the drive behind it and look forward to see how it changes the east lakefront.
 
Rufus8 said:
The main thing is housing, affordable and in a good area. If it is banal so be it, functionality is banal. There will be homeowners (taxpayers and of course the omnipotent investors) living on land that previously housed a nightclub that rocked only on the weekend. Daniels gets a lot of stick for boring design but at the end of the day they are residential developers and the housing takes precedent. I don't like it, too dense, but I understand the drive behind it and look forward to see how it changes the east lakefront.
Click to expand...
I appreciate most of what you've said, but Daniels has put up some rather good looking towers in Regent Park, so the question remains why they couldn't have done it here too.

42
 
You must log in or register to post here.

Back
Top