Wow..that's madness?

sw3.PNG
 
Yup ! What's with the blue, green, black and white facade buildings ! It seems to me they're trying create a metallic theme look in the downtown core ! I wouldn't be surprised cap the CN Tower with this colour theme.
 
Automation Gallery said:
Wow..that's madness?

View attachment 248566
Click to expand...

LOL

It looks like they designed one tower and Photoshopped the rest.

As general infill i don't mind them, but as prominent waterfront towers I find them disappointing.

We have a once in a generation opportunity on the waterfront and we're consistently settling for junk. It's such a "Toronto" thing to do.
 
If what we eventually end up is even close to that render, it's going to be a bland cookie-cutter gumbo of claustrophobic density. Ugh. Almost right on the waterfront, too. A clutch of tall buildings almost entirely devoid of character - that would be quite the feat.
 
They'll probably end up looking more blue once built, but that's not necessarily any better. Still, it remains incredibly bland, which is a huge shame, since this will be such a dominant feature in the skyline. I don't mind it being mostly residential, but it would be nice if the towers didn't have any balconies.
 
Agreed, it would definitely be nice if they would incorporate some architecture into this drab mass. It's a shame that the city can't somehow enforce some architectural guidlines, especially for such an important site.
 
It seems like Toronto's "plan" is to make Queens Quay East, almost just as bland architectuirally as Queen Quay West is as it currently stands. Asides from One Yonge and Monde, there's nothing really inspiring that we're going to see as it currently stands.
 
Big Daddy said:
Agreed, it would definitely be nice if they would incorporate some architecture into this drab mass. Its a shame that the city cant somehow enforce some architectural guidlines, especially for such an important site.
Click to expand...
A "design by committee" program can go either way.... provide fantastic guidelines for superior city-building or, perhaps more likely, create a bureaucratic nightmare of vague stipulations that satisfies no one save the bureaucrats themselves.
 
Lenser said:
A "design by committee" program can go either way.... provide fantastic guidelines for superior city-building or, perhaps more likely, create a bureaucratic nightmare of vague stipulations that satisfies no one save the bureaucrats themselves.
Click to expand...
Or..
Private equity can foist whatever crap they want on a city that worships finance, is highly reliant upon development fees for a significant part of their budget and is therefore in no position to dictate any terms over their own city.

Everyone knows that developers own Toronto - look around!

But by allowing the city to pretend that they have some vestige of control - knock off a couple of floors here, put a shite art thing there, include a crappy 'park' that no one will ever use on the periphery, developers get carte blanche.

Meanwhile, they complain about how difficult it is to build in Toronto "Oh the regulations!"

While there are cranes everywhere, building cheap investorbox after cheap investorbox..

It really would be effing hilarious, if it weren't so tragic
 
Last edited:
CityStay said:
Or..
Private equity can foist whatever crap they want on a city that worships finance, is highly reliant upon development fees for a significant part of their budget and is therefore in no position to dictate any terms over their own city.

Everyone knows that developers own Toronto - look around!

But by allowing the city to pretend that they have some vestige of control - knock off a couple of floors here, put a shite art thing there, include a crappy 'park' that no one will ever use on the periphery, developers get carte blanche.

Meanwhile, they complain about how difficult it is to build in Toronto "Oh the regulations!"

While there are cranes everywhere, building cheap investorbox after cheap investorbox..

It really would be effing hilarious, if it weren't so tragic
Click to expand...
What appears to be lacking here is the desire or will on the part of developers to rise above the true and tested as far as superior Toronto design architecture culture may be concerned. And there is nothing pushing them to change what works and makes them money. Simply building condos higher is just piling on more of the same standard product without the benefit of inspiring anything new to city landscapes. In Toronto we see a formula that works for well - heeled developers and the city planners playing out. In themselves, the projects are fine and would be envied by a lot of cities in North America, but simply repeating these workable models adds nothing, as we lament ad nauseum,
 
Last edited:
ushahid said:
So many balconies in one pic.?
Click to expand...

In addition to being aesthetically monotone, it’s not very practical, especially when every unit has one, 1000 feet above the ground, by the lake. Even Sky Tower’s balconies terminate 2/3rds the way up the tower.
Hoping for significant departure from this design language. The twins are too similar to phase I, and the south tower shares its DNA from Ice condos, minus the architectural crowns. These will have even more prominence from the lake than the One Yonge development, because of the unobstructed park space immediately to the south.
 
You must log in or register to post here.

Back
Top