innsertnamehere
Superstar
I was just going to mention that their website is incredibly dated for a marketing company.
- Thread starter DSC
- Start date
That's the holding company website. The subsidiaries are plenty creative.
ADRM
Senior Member
WPP is one of two global marketing/PR/digital/comms conglomerates that own a good share of the world's most innovative companies in that space.
A WPP expansion (if that would be included as part of their tenancy here) would be a huge boost for the city.
marcus_a_j
Senior Member
Sure, no argument here about the positives of bringing these types of jobs to the City, and East Bayfront more specifically. My point was simply Ed's link directs you to a particular webpage that looks as innovative as this building. Though I try avoiding hyperbole-filled comments, that webpage (and building!) are straight outta 1999.
ADRM
Senior Member
For sure -- and just pointing out that WPP has plenty of genuinely innovative companies in their portfolio! I've lots to criticize about this building, but WPP as a tenant would certainly not be one of them.
MetroMan
Senior Member
This stood out to me as good news:
From what I understand, Conditional Support is essentially asking them to come back with the requested improvements. Non Support would have killed it. Full Support would have approved it as is. The fact that the entire panel unanimously agreed that the architecture should demonstrate innovation is the best we could have asked for.
However, the fact that they had the chutzpah to go back to the panel with this piece of crap after they were excoriated the last time, tells me that they just don’t get it. My concern is that they’ll return with some minimal flourishes added and the panel will just throw their hands up, sick of seeing this come before them and approve it because at least some changes were made.
From what I understand, Conditional Support is essentially asking them to come back with the requested improvements. Non Support would have killed it. Full Support would have approved it as is. The fact that the entire panel unanimously agreed that the architecture should demonstrate innovation is the best we could have asked for.
However, the fact that they had the chutzpah to go back to the panel with this piece of crap after they were excoriated the last time, tells me that they just don’t get it. My concern is that they’ll return with some minimal flourishes added and the panel will just throw their hands up, sick of seeing this come before them and approve it because at least some changes were made.
Non-support would not have killed the project: that would have been them rejecting everything about the design. I suppose the support part of conditional support can be read as the interior programming, while we can assume the conditional is the fix-what-we're-telling-you-vis-à-vis-lack-of-architectural-vision part. I would not have been against non-support.
42
42
AlvinofDiaspar
Moderator
From the May WT Board Meeting - CEO Report:
https://waterfrontoronto.ca/nbe/wcm...&CACHEID=59dbcb11-91bb-413e-a5f0-cf5b6bfea2fd (p. 18 of PDF)
AoD
https://waterfrontoronto.ca/nbe/wcm...&CACHEID=59dbcb11-91bb-413e-a5f0-cf5b6bfea2fd (p. 18 of PDF)
AoD
Attachments
AlvinofDiaspar
Moderator
It went before the WT DRP yesterday - no reports yet.
AoD
AoD
AlvinofDiaspar
Moderator
From the May WT DRP:
https://waterfrontoronto.ca/nbe/wcm...-b853-f42d5f909b14/WIC_MayDRP.pdf?MOD=AJPERES
More of the same, with a better sense of the materiality of the project. Still not much by the way of architectural vision.
AoD
https://waterfrontoronto.ca/nbe/wcm...-b853-f42d5f909b14/WIC_MayDRP.pdf?MOD=AJPERES
More of the same, with a better sense of the materiality of the project. Still not much by the way of architectural vision.
AoD
Last edited:
adHominem
Senior Member
Oh, it's innovative now because they added more retail to the ground floor! And it's contextual now because they put some pink umbrellas on the terrace! What a thudding missed opportunity this is. It's the John Tory's Mayoralty of waterfront redevelopment.
AlvinofDiaspar
Moderator
I am not sure if that's a compliment or a dig. I supposed it could have been Mel's, or you know who. Though the whole ensemble does look a little bit more prim and coherent than before, instead of some Transformer (tm) toy that some kid attempted to put back together and gave up halfway.
AoD
ProjectEnd
Superstar
It's definitely cleaner now (and for that, better). But it's hardly 'innovative'.
AlvinofDiaspar
Moderator
tripwire
Active Member
Since the building architecture has already been lambasted, I'll vent that it makes the entrance into Sugar Beach narrow and uninviting. I'd rather we keep the existing mound.