How much is the name "innovation centre" creating preconceived notions of how this building should be? (Not necessarily defending the architecture, just curious.)
 
greenleaf said:
How much is the name "innovation centre" creating preconceived notions of how this building should be? (Not necessarily defending the architecture, just curious.)
Click to expand...

None whatsoever - what does "innovation" really translate into architecturally speaking anyways? No one is realistically expecting the truly bleeding edge here. At issue is that it is being sold as good architecture and turned out disposable.

AoD
 
Last edited:
I disagree. I think the name "Innovation Centre" does set up an expectation for the building's exterior, that it should look bleeding edge. The WT DRP criticized the previous version of the plan for just that issue, focusing on the long, relatively unarticulated east potion of the building for being the antithesis of innovative.

42
 
Last edited:
I think the "Innovation Centre" naming just adds insult to injury. Even without that branding, I wouldn't be happy with the proposed design.
 
Unfortunately, today's "innovation centre" is tomorrow's call centre and Menkes is just looking after its bottom line by building something that could accommodate and anticipate different types of tenants in the future. Who knows what they were thinking..clearly not forward looking from a design perspective.
 
As uninspired as this design already is, just wait until they value engineer the thing.
 
Ramako said:
As uninspired as this design already is, just wait until they value engineer the thing.
Click to expand...

Like they still have stuff to value engineer out? Perhaps they can do the Gehry chickenwire, plywood and corrugated panel trick (oops, KPMB used the latter already).

AoD
 
The banal glass storefronts along Queens Quay punctuated by blank walls are quite concerning. They're generic and uninspired. This project will not contribute to a great public realm on Queens Quay in that regard. It needs more architectural detail along the streets and fewer blank walls. It should be designed with restaurants in mind to animate the street on evenings and weekends.
 
I have to admit that I don't care as much about the Queens Quay retail frontage as I do about just about every other frontage in the area. Queens Quay will have the streetcar and the bike path along it, and a wide sidewalk for sure, but I would rather that the water's edge promenade and the walkways alongside the parks (Sherbourne Common, Sugar Beach North) be the real attractions for pedestrians down here, with them having more restaurant patios facing the lake or parks/public squares. Not that I'd want Queens Quay to be devoid of pedestrian life—it should have some shops on it—but I'd rather draw pedestrians in a more recreational or dinerly mood away from where the bike path is.

42

I know that dinerly is not a word, but I didn't want to write "of a peckish predicament" in its place. Seemed OTT, and better to coin a word.
 
The same Design Review Panel that killed the previous design because "there was a confusion of identity with the Ryerson Learning Centre" and "the identity of the building needs to be unique" also stated that "it’s an Innovation Centre and should be the most Innovative building in Toronto".

I hope that they're happy with the box that they got instead. The result is what happens with design by committee. This crap cannot be allowed to occupy such a prominent space on our waterfront.
 
MetroMan said:
The same Design Review Panel that killed the previous design because "there was a confusion of identity with the Ryerson Learning Centre" and "the identity of the building needs to be unique" also stated that "it’s an Innovation Centre and should be the most Innovative building in Toronto".

I hope that they're happy with the box that they got instead. The result is what happens with design by committee. This crap cannot be allowed to occupy such a prominent space on our waterfront.
Click to expand...

Ugh, yeah, good context - "this pretty-close-to-swell proposal is too similar to this amazing existing building, make it as bland and unexciting as possible (in effect) to mitigate that supposed problem."

<Frustration level with the DRP increases substantially yet again>
 
You must log in or register to post here.

Back
Top