TheKingEast
Senior Member
They could literally build a spandrel bunker and there would be people defending it.
- Thread starter AlbertC
- Start date
LUVIT!
Senior Member
A voice of reason. Thank you.
reteequa
Active Member
I am currently in Oslo airport about to leave, I was at the waterfront about 12 hours ago, sure there are some amazing buildings but there are also terrible ones. Currently under construction is a giant grey brick bunker with about three windows being constructed beside the Nobel Peace Center. Every where has their problems and some of you people really do not appreciate some of the beauty we have in Toronto.
TheKingEast
Senior Member
Name the “amazing” buildings along our waterfront. No one here is expecting greatness from each project but we are off to a crappy start and people have a right to be concerned. And since when did Oslo become the gold standard (even though we’re falling short of that)?
tkip
Active Member
Two my of friends are from New Zealand. They live in Wellington currently.
They told me that our towers are "prettier" than the ones being built in their hometown.
They told me that our towers are "prettier" than the ones being built in their hometown.
Dr. Snoot
Active Member
Wellington has a metropolitan population of 400,000, so I'm not quite sure it's a comparator. Even Auckland is tiny compared to Toronto. (I've been to both)
mburrrrr
Senior Member
4 more floors of balcony glass and it stills seems a little subdued. Hopefully the pattern is a little more crisp on the upper level as per the rendering. It looks great before sunrise. This picture taken by my wife. 
The Gardiner off ramp refurbishment is coming along. Working 24x7.
The Gardiner off ramp refurbishment is coming along. Working 24x7.
Waterfront
New Member
This thread really shows how much people care about our precious waterfront. Thats just fantastic! I am though quite confident about the waterfront development in east bayfront, and frankly optimistic that the Daniels project will turn out. I live nearby, and I feel it’s getting better and better everyday I walk by.
Let’s be honest, not every building needs to be an icon or a landmark, nor should they. ( just take a look at the modern day Vegases - eg. Dubai or Shanghai) Judging by what’s been built so far here, the two towers are well proportioned (height versus floorplate), and appropriately spaced and staggered to maximize sight lines and optimize sky view. Urbanistically, they fulfilled in their massing what has been outlined in the waterfront master plan by arranging taller buildings on larger street such as Jarvis and sherbourne (where monde and lakeview are) and stepping down in height on the blocks in between to form a gentle canyon that is suitable for animation and pedestrian activities. Architecturally, they are no statement pieces. However, the architects and developer clearly opt out for an idea of simple (some people say boxy) quieter tower form and much more playful, flamboyant podium. Anyone that has watched any starchitects (pei, pelli, foster, vinoly, piano, roger etc) talk about the key to succeed in any tower design they say is about how their towers come down to grade and address the public realm. After all, how many pedestrians will experience the tower by looking up, versus by traversing through them on the ground? Daniels seem to be much more Interested in creating public realm as spaces and a mixed use community formed by diverse uses(retail, commercial, institutional, residential) than a shiny statement beacon.
The two pedestrian only zones (extension of the sugar beach and the yard) is pretty unique in Toronto (much more prevalent in Europe). I am especially excited about the intimacy I see in the yard space which connects Jarvis with Richardson by a pedestrian only connection. I suspect if done right, it will be able to provide people some shelter and comfort walking in the harsh windy Toronto waterfront winter without going inside. I am also intrigued by the lakeshore elevation, which typically is treated as a back elevation as it faces the Gardiner and car heavy Lake Shore. (Eg. Monde) Instead, the heavily finned elevation comes down and meet the ground to introduce a ramp of some sort with a corner retail anchor. It looks too narrow for cars, but is it silly to think they are for bikes? Certainly we have not seen a glorified bike ramp in that scale in Toronto (again much more common in Europe)
Lastly, window walls are not great. We can certainly do better, but we see everyday how local designers and architects are trying to address that, whether with balcony shapes or balcony glass fritted patterns. This is a design strategy and has become a landscape only evident in Toronto (nowhere else in the world will you see 70 storey towers with balconies). This is innovation in the midst of economic and market constraint, we should not dismiss its effort so easily. We are also starting to see more diverse use of materials now with metal, sometimes even brick as spandrel retrofits in the window wall system. We complain so often about our glass towers, but would it be better if we have all metal towers or all brick towers? Yikes probably not.
I’ve taken some photos while I was out today (attached) but I urge all of you passionate urbanites to come down and take a walk (not drive) around the neighbourhood and soak up what’s to come. It’s still early, be patient! Finally, let’s not compare cities and their waterfronts. Cities are formed out of their unique social economic cultural typological parameters. We should be creating the best waterfront suitable for the lifestyles of our own citizens, not for the Norwegians. Cities should be more than a display of tall phallic objects.
Let’s be honest, not every building needs to be an icon or a landmark, nor should they. ( just take a look at the modern day Vegases - eg. Dubai or Shanghai) Judging by what’s been built so far here, the two towers are well proportioned (height versus floorplate), and appropriately spaced and staggered to maximize sight lines and optimize sky view. Urbanistically, they fulfilled in their massing what has been outlined in the waterfront master plan by arranging taller buildings on larger street such as Jarvis and sherbourne (where monde and lakeview are) and stepping down in height on the blocks in between to form a gentle canyon that is suitable for animation and pedestrian activities. Architecturally, they are no statement pieces. However, the architects and developer clearly opt out for an idea of simple (some people say boxy) quieter tower form and much more playful, flamboyant podium. Anyone that has watched any starchitects (pei, pelli, foster, vinoly, piano, roger etc) talk about the key to succeed in any tower design they say is about how their towers come down to grade and address the public realm. After all, how many pedestrians will experience the tower by looking up, versus by traversing through them on the ground? Daniels seem to be much more Interested in creating public realm as spaces and a mixed use community formed by diverse uses(retail, commercial, institutional, residential) than a shiny statement beacon.
The two pedestrian only zones (extension of the sugar beach and the yard) is pretty unique in Toronto (much more prevalent in Europe). I am especially excited about the intimacy I see in the yard space which connects Jarvis with Richardson by a pedestrian only connection. I suspect if done right, it will be able to provide people some shelter and comfort walking in the harsh windy Toronto waterfront winter without going inside. I am also intrigued by the lakeshore elevation, which typically is treated as a back elevation as it faces the Gardiner and car heavy Lake Shore. (Eg. Monde) Instead, the heavily finned elevation comes down and meet the ground to introduce a ramp of some sort with a corner retail anchor. It looks too narrow for cars, but is it silly to think they are for bikes? Certainly we have not seen a glorified bike ramp in that scale in Toronto (again much more common in Europe)
Lastly, window walls are not great. We can certainly do better, but we see everyday how local designers and architects are trying to address that, whether with balcony shapes or balcony glass fritted patterns. This is a design strategy and has become a landscape only evident in Toronto (nowhere else in the world will you see 70 storey towers with balconies). This is innovation in the midst of economic and market constraint, we should not dismiss its effort so easily. We are also starting to see more diverse use of materials now with metal, sometimes even brick as spandrel retrofits in the window wall system. We complain so often about our glass towers, but would it be better if we have all metal towers or all brick towers? Yikes probably not.
I’ve taken some photos while I was out today (attached) but I urge all of you passionate urbanites to come down and take a walk (not drive) around the neighbourhood and soak up what’s to come. It’s still early, be patient! Finally, let’s not compare cities and their waterfronts. Cities are formed out of their unique social economic cultural typological parameters. We should be creating the best waterfront suitable for the lifestyles of our own citizens, not for the Norwegians. Cities should be more than a display of tall phallic objects.
Last edited by a moderator:
tripwire
Active Member
K, I'm beginning to see the pattern from the balcony glass with the more recent shots. Gives me a bit of hope!
win3280
New Member
I hope so, too many glasses look like no frame, no brick at all.K, I'm beginning to see the pattern from the balcony glass with the more recent shots. Gives me a bit of hope!
It is upset, it looks so common
Jowblow333333
Active Member
The pattern is very interesting and unique. Looks good to me. Hope it looks like the rendering at completion.
Lyphe
Active Member
I think the idea for the pattern was good, but the execution may fall short. It's too subtle and becomes almost invisible, unless you look for it. I'd like to have seen them use an alternative tint for the pattern sections ... a dark color perhaps, but something to add boldness to it.
DSC
Superstar
and that when the inevitable few (?) balcony glass panels fail that they will remember or know how to have the replacement match the pattern!
Waterfront
New Member
Neat idea! Though I don’t mind not seeing it completely sometimes. Glass is a funny material, sometimes it renders completely solid, other times it’s incredibly transparent; depending on the times and weather of the day and how the light hits the glass. Maybe a bit of post rationalization, but it does give the building more life when it responds to its surrounding context and lighting condition.
3Dementia
Senior Member
Very thoughtful and written discourse Waterfront... thank you.
Most of it is above my pay grade but understood a few nuggets. More please.
Most of it is above my pay grade but understood a few nuggets. More please.