There is a huge difference between cyber-bug architecture vs. restrained, well-designed and detailed buildings with high quality finishing. This WIC proposal is neither.

AoD
 
The central waterfront has improved enormously in the past 5-10 years, in spite of the mostly mediocre buildings that have emerged along it. The present iteration of the WIC definitely falls into that category. It's a shame that the city doesn't push the private developers to up their game in this crucial area, but I think that WT is generally doing an excellent job with the limited funds it has for such a massive undertaking.
 
Amare said:
To be honest I think the way Toronto's waterfront attracts tourists is by virtue of the attractions that are present on the waterfront (ie: Harbourfront Centre). They act as hubs where people spend a significant portion of their day, and branch out to other areas of the waterfront to explore. HTO Park and Cherry Beach are similar, but albeit smaller attractions. I have trouble imagining a tourists deciding to walk along Toronto's waterfront for the entire day, since there are only so many interesting points along it. By the time one reaches Bathurst in the west, and Bay in the east, they would most likely just turn back northwards.

While architecture and vibrant waterfronts aren't necessarily correlated, buildings with strong architectural qualities along with attractive public realms strongly entice tourists to stay along the waterfront. I'll put it this way; with buildings like Corus Quay, one would just past by it without giving it much of a second thought due to its blandness and unimpressive pedestrian realm. The only reason one really explores that area is due to Sugar Beach (as small as it is). If Corus Quay was designed in such a way where the building was actually visually interesting, it would do fine on its own as an anchor/minor attraction regardless of if Sugar Beach was around. The Waterfront Innovation Centre is essentially a second version of Corus Quay without a Sugar Beach, which is why there have been so many complaints and criticism on this thread about this project.

Waterfront Toronto's mandate is to revitalize the waterfront through in their words "strategic revitalization as opposed to simple real estate development" and "re-establish a positive, meaningful relationships with the lake and to transform these underused lands into vibrant public and cultural spaces for all Torontonians". The Waterfront Innovation Centre doesn't exactly fit this bill in any way, shape or form. I'll go a shot further and say that asides from HTO Park and Sugar beach, none of the developments to date have really done that job either.
Click to expand...

Very well stated.
 
Minutes from the Jan WTDRP:

https://waterfrontoronto.ca/nbe/wcm...674d53/DRP+Minutes+Jan24_2018.pdf?MOD=AJPERES

It got ripped - but still got "conditional support". I will leave this here though:

The member also asked what aspect of this building expresses innovation. Mr. <name removed> replied that they believe the Nexus space is reflective of innovation and this would be a public space used to exchange ideas with a mix of users.
Click to expand...

How much more cliched can it get? When a member have to ask how this is innovative and the response is giving people a room with a fancy name (the Nexus...because no one told them about the odd/even Star Trek rule) counts as "innovation"? Really? Hell, everything is innovative then.

AoD
 
Last edited:
AlvinofDiaspar said:
Minutes from the Jan WTDRP:

https://waterfrontoronto.ca/nbe/wcm...674d53/DRP+Minutes+Jan24_2018.pdf?MOD=AJPERES

It got ripped - but still got "conditional support". I will leave this here though:



How much more cliched can it get? When a member have to ask how this is innovative and the response is giving people a room with a fancy name (the Nexus...because no one told them about the odd/even Star Trek rule) counts as "innovation"? Really? Hell, everything is innovative then.

AoD
Click to expand...
My condo is innovative then.. You should see the nexus of ideas when my buddies and I drink.
 
How this even got conditional support is beyond me. Actions speak louder than words, the DRP could have "shredded" this thing all night long but clearly that didn't show with the way they voted. They are not helping their reputation of late, as being lenient with generic box designs, while ripping apart innovative designs and slowly turning them into the glassy boxes that they are apparently infatuated with.
 
Amare said:
How this even got conditional support is beyond me. Actions speak louder than words, the DRP could have "shredded" this thing all night long but clearly that didn't show with the way they voted. They are not helping their reputation of late, as being lenient with generic box designs, while ripping apart innovative designs and slowly turning them into the glassy boxes that they are apparently infatuated with.
Click to expand...
I get the feeling that you're…
1) conflating the Toronto DRP and the Waterfront Toronto DRP, and
2) apparently unaware that the panels have little that they can do regarding architectural expression or style, despite it having been mentioned repeatedly in many UT threads. Like with planning department critiques, just about everything comes down to assessing planning issues with buildings as they can be reduced to mathematical formulae and spatial relationships. Legally, that's pretty much the only areas that the provincial government has put under the City's jurisdiction (other than engineering issues which are assessed by others). The DRPs can encourage architects and developers to think more creatively when it comes to expression, but that's it.

In regards to the vote, that's not the only thing that the developer and architect will be concentrating on from this review, so neither should we. There are all sorts of other comments that Waterfront Toronto will want the proponents to consider before they come back to the DRP in round four. You'll notice questions re: programming of the most public spaces, sustainability, and spandrel use on the exterior, along with the already mentioned "just what's so innovative about this building?" inquiry that's already been reported.

The WT DRP seems to be doing pretty much what it can to get improvements here.

42
 
interchange42 said:
I get the feeling that you're…
1) conflating the Toronto DRP and the Waterfront Toronto DRP, and
2) apparently unaware that the panels have little that they can do regarding architectural expression or style, despite it having been mentioned repeatedly in many UT threads. Like with planning department critiques, just about everything comes down to assessing planning issues with buildings as they can be reduced to mathematical formulae and spatial relationships. Legally, that's pretty much the only areas that the provincial government has put under the City's jurisdiction (other than engineering issues which are assessed by others). The DRPs can encourage architects and developers to think more creatively when it comes to expression, but that's it.

In regards to the vote, that's not the only thing that the developer and architect will be concentrating on from this review, so neither should we. There are all sorts of other comments that Waterfront Toronto will want the proponents to consider before they come back to the DRP in round four. You'll notice questions re: programming of the most public spaces, sustainability, and spandrel use on the exterior, along with the already mentioned "just what's so innovative about this building?" inquiry that's already been reported.

The WT DRP seems to be doing pretty much what it can to get improvements here.

42
Click to expand...
Appreciate the clarification on the amount of teeth, or in this case the lack of teeth, the DRP has in enforcing architecture and building design. It's ridiculous how developers can just get away with this kind of nonsense time and time again, especially on prime real estate along the waterfront. I don't know what the solution is, but clearly nothing has changed from the 80's/90's with what was going on along Queens Quay West.
 
Someone seems to like it. Word has it the WIC has been chosen for the new HQ of WPP.

Could be the beginnings of a rap melody. "Yeah, you know me, I'm down with WPP in WIC".
 
You must log in or register to post here.

Back
Top