DSC said:
The base is ok, if only because you can't see it for miles. The crown is an abomination and I still hope they may have more to do. It could only be improved.
Click to expand...

I agree on the unfortunate crown as it stands currently, but I refuse to judge a development’s merit based on how it appears from miles away or when viewed from someone’s balcony. For me, the architectural value of a project like this is how it participates in the city; and that can be from a skyline point of view (which in my opinion gets old very fast) or how it meets the ground and how it engages with the public realm (way more important). My experience as a pedestrian is what I will pay attention to, because good buildings address streets, carves squares and parks, and create memorable experiences. I’m looking for animation on the facade by breaking down to the intimate scales, creating shelter by means of canopies, attention to material and its detailing, and functional programming. This building so far has the potential to check a lot of these points.
It also forms half of a city block and has no rear, all four sides are considered and designed. Even on lake shore which is most hostile in its pedestrian activity, it makes a large gesture by the means of a bike ramp that I have only seen it done in places like Copenhagen. Best example by contrast is river city. It’s an incredible statement of architecture and composition seen from far away, but fails in so many aspects when you experience it up close. Loading areas are exposed to the street with narrow sidewalks. There are almost no retail at grade, with only small animation from the townhouses.

I also think the balcony glass of the west tower when experience in person is incredibly dynamic, because it is subtle and fleeting; as it plays on light and shadow. Depending on where the sun hits the building, it renders the building differently throughout the day. Great cities don’t necessarily all have great looking towers, but they all got to have buildings that make great public realm. The jury is still out for this project as it is not complete, but so far I like what I see.
 
Waterfront said:
I agree on the unfortunate crown as it stands currently, but I refuse to judge a development’s merit based on how it appears from miles away or when viewed from someone’s balcony. For me, the architectural value of a project like this is how it participates in the city; and that can be from a skyline point of view (which in my opinion gets old very fast) or how it meets the ground and how it engages with the public realm (way more important). My experience as a pedestrian is what I will pay attention to, because good buildings address streets, carves squares and parks, and create memorable experiences. I’m looking for animation on the facade by breaking down to the intimate scales, creating shelter by means of canopies, attention to material and it’s detailing, and functional programming. This building so far has the potential to check a lot of these points.
It also forms half of a city block and has no rear, all four sides are considered and designed. Even on lake shore which is most hostile in its pedestrian activity, it makes a large gesture by the means of a bike ramp that I have only seen it done in places like Copenhagen. Best example by contrast is river city. It’s an incredible statement of architecture and composition seen from far away, but fails in so many aspects when you experience it up close. Loading areas are exposed to the street with narrow sidewalks. There are almost no retail at grade, with only small animation from the townhouses.

I also think the balcony glass of the west tower when experience in person is incredibly dynamic, because it is subtle and fleeting; as it plays on light and shadow. Depending on where the sun hits the building, it renders the building differently throughout the day. Great cities don’t necessarily all have great looking towers, but they all got to have buildings that make great public realm. The jury is still out for this project as it is not complete, but so far I like what I see.
Click to expand...
While the pedestrian element is certainly valuable, these buildings are on the waterfront. There is never going to be anything that obstructs them from the postcard view of the city, and frankly, the towers look cheap. I think these would have been better received elsewhere maybe, but on some of the most valuable and prominent land in the city? It's a huge disappointment. The east tower looks like what happens if you tried to build One Bloor East in Soviet Russia. There was so much potential for this site, and what Daniels has built is worse than most of what they built in Regent Park. They are capable of better, and it's entirely fair to call them out on that.

Also, I'm not unconvinced that this isn't the final design of the tower crowns. The cranes are down. This is probably what we are getting. Which is absolutely hideous.
 
TossYourJacket said:
While the pedestrian element is certainly valuable, these buildings are on the waterfront. There is never going to be anything that obstructs them from the postcard view of the city, and frankly, the towers look cheap. I think these would have been better received elsewhere maybe, but on some of the most valuable and prominent land in the city? It's a huge disappointment. The east tower looks like what happens if you tried to build One Bloor East in Soviet Russia. There was so much potential for this site, and what Daniels has built is worse than most of what they built in Regent Park. They are capable of better, and it's entirely fair to call them out on that.

Also, I'm not unconvinced that this isn't the final design of the tower crowns. The cranes are down. This is probably what we are getting. Which is absolutely hideous.
Click to expand...

Communist Russia has pretty Funky/cool looking towers and skyline by the way (look at Moscow), so does cities like shanghai- probably the best post card skyline I have ever seen in person. That said, it is far from a desirable place to live and walk around - just the downward wind itself makes it unbearable not to mention the lack of retail frontages in pudong. I honestly would expect this depth of discussion to be reflected from the Late 90s skyscrapercity.com forum, but as Sophisticated torontonians we should be able to see beyond the shapey flashy towers. I see that people here mentioned Hamburg, Oslo and Copenhagen’s waterfront yet none of those cities have a “skyline” the scale of Toronto. One not so great looking tower will not affect the skyline as Toronto have hundreds of them taller than 45 storeys, but one not so great base will kill a street and the vitality of a community.
 
So with that...I'm revising my conclusion to a few hits with many misses in the hit and miss department.

...I can't help think that this project would be so much better with better materials and more refined crowns. But my overall impressions is disappointment and thumbs down with this.
 
UtakataNoAnnex said:
...I can't help think that this project would be so much better with better materials and more refined crowns. But my overall impressions is disappointment and thumbs down with this.
Click to expand...

Even an LED crown or a crown with some sort of light feature. It's on the waterfront where you'll get gorgeous reflections of light features. That cant have cost that much money right?

Light feature would have been enough for me to give this a pass despite how tasteless and bland it is, however there is currently nothing making up for that tastelessness and blandness. I suppose street level is ok though so I'll give them that.
 
Waterfront said:
Communist Russia has pretty Funky/cool looking towers and skyline by the way (look at Moscow), so does cities like shanghai- probably the best post card skyline I have ever seen in person. That said, it is far from a desirable place to live and walk around - just the downward wind itself makes it unbearable not to mention the lack of retail frontages in pudong. I honestly would expect this depth of discussion to be reflected from the Late 90s skyscrapercity.com forum, but as Sophisticated torontonians we should be able to see beyond the shapey flashy towers. I see that people here mentioned Hamburg, Oslo and Copenhagen’s waterfront yet none of those cities have a “skyline” the scale of Toronto. One not so great looking tower will not affect the skyline as Toronto have hundreds of them taller than 45 storeys, but one not so great base will kill a street and the vitality of a community.
Click to expand...

You are positing a false choice of excellence (if not competence) in the architectural expression of the tower precludes excellence at street level. That's a failure of imagination and execution.

I mean, do you really want to go down the route of comparing this to what's been put up in Hamburg, Oslo and Copenhagen - where excellence didn't come attached with the need to build a tower (much less two towers) of this calibre (if you will excuse my sarcasm) on top? Nevermind that - look at Monde next door - and then look at this - and then say with a straight face the architectural expression and materiality of this project is superior.

The excuse of how the mediocrity of these towers will blend in with the general mediocrity of other towers is also laughable - if not sad. A damning indictment of why things ended up the way they did really. These are like the Huang and Danczkay's of this round on the waterfront - and that's being generous. The execution of the crown are just the icing on the cake on this.

AoD
 
Last edited:
AlvinofDiaspar said:
You are positing a false choice of excellence (if not competence) in the architectural expression of the tower precludes excellence at street level. That's a failure of imagination and execution.

I mean, do you really want to go down the route of comparing this to what's been put up in Hamburg, Oslo and Copenhagen - where excellence didn't come attached with the need to build a tower (much less two towers) of this calibre (if you will excuse my sarcasm) on top? Nevermind that - look at Monde next door - and then look at this - and then say with a straight face the architectural expression and materiality of this project is superior.

The excuse of how the mediocrity of these towers will blend in with the general mediocrity of other towers is also laughable - if not sad. A damning indictment of why things ended up the way they did really. These are like the Huang and Danczkay's of this round - and that's being generous.

AoD
Click to expand...
At street level, this project is superior to Mode.
 
The "yard" (walkway between office and residential buildings) is finishing strong IMHO. I was quite worried, but with the plastic shingles and lighting I'm really digging it now. It's quite nice when the plastic shingle "shimmers" with the wind.

The glass pattern in the west tower is not bad but not as noticeable as I'd hope. The east tower is OK, but I think what makes the towers really fail is that the design language is so un-cohesive, nore do they encompass all sides of the towers.

From the picture above, I think the (west tower's) crown pattern is supposed to match the colouring of the glass pattern. It just doesn't match up/work.
 
TheSix said:
Interesting! How so? The quality of the base looks pretty great to me. Why is Mode stronger at street level? Could you please share some specifics?
Click to expand...

I wouldn't use the word "stronger" at base level - I would say it's a response to different contexts and requirements. The base of Monde has coherence - it was designed with a clear intent - providing a colonnade, particularly against a public park. It didn't try and hide the scale of what it is, and actually celebrated it with even a hint of monumentality. That's not a very common thing to do for residential architecture in Toronto.

AoD
 
AlvinofDiaspar said:
I wouldn't use the word "stronger" at base level - I would say it's a response to different contexts and requirements. The base of Monde has coherence - it was designed with a clear intent - providing a colonnade, particularly against a public park. It didn't try and hide the scale of what it is, and actually celebrated it with even a hint of monumentality. That's not a very common thing to do for residential architecture in Toronto.

AoD
Click to expand...
That makes sense, thanks for sharing. However, in theory this sounds lovely, but in execution, it fails in my opinion. The public park beside Mode isn't one I'd want to visit (and hardly sees any visitors), but most importantly it is beside a busy highway. They should have designed the ground according to that. Even when retail starts to open up, I'd rather grab a bench across the street by the water, over a patio beside a highway. Daniel's knew what they were up against and designed a smart retail gateway, shielded from the traffic, with a welcoming design that draws you in (e.g. overhang installation), and not pushes you away (aka, like Mode).
 
Last edited:
You must log in or register to post here.

Back
Top