A few tweaks but the end result is so incredibly "meh" and undeserving of a waterfront location. This is such a lost opportunity.
 
The building actually isn't "bad" per se - it's quite refined. It's an extremely solid background building. the problem many on this board have, I think, is that it is branded as an "Innovation centre", and it is certianly not innovative architecture.
 
They already wrecked the eastern waterfront when they allowed Corus and George Brown to set the tone for this shitty office park aesthetic.

They need to make a sharp U turn on this right away. Throw this out and follow a different direction with actual innovative design.

This pinch point is the first deal breaker:

Why is visual access to Sugar Beach cut off? It's the gem of this part of the waterfront and it's closed off.

wic_maydrp-19-jpg.144563


That's why the originally proposed design worked. The building was cantilevered over the corner, opening up vistas into Sugar Beach from Queens Quay and inviting people in.

15140-46714.jpg
 
Last edited by a moderator:
The older version didn't open it up any more, especially at ground level, where that staircase ignorantly intruded into the alignment of the main path. At least the building was a little more expressive, but after having seen the Diamond Schmitt competition entry, this one has never appealed in comparison in any form for me.

42
 
interchange42 said:
The older version didn't open it up any more, especially at ground level, where that staircase ignorantly intruded into the alignment of the main path. At least the building was a little more expressive, but after having seen the Diamond Schmitt competition entry, this one has never appealed in comparison in any form for me.

42
Click to expand...

So, the stairs were oriented in the wrong way. They should have opened up in all directions. But the building itself provided 3 times as much open air space towards the water than the current design which covers the vistas towards the water in an abrupt wall.
 
raptor said:
if you recall, essentially the WT DRP killed the design since it "looked too much like the Ryerson SLC"
Click to expand...
Heaven forbid :rolleyes:

interchange42 said:
The older version didn't open it up any more, especially at ground level, where that staircase ignorantly intruded into the alignment of the main path. At least the building was a little more expressive, but after having seen the Diamond Schmitt competition entry, this one has never appealed in comparison in any form for me.

42
Click to expand...
One would think that correcting the alignment of the staircase would be the job of a "Design Review Panel".

Instead, it appears to be to force Markham Office Park Design™ .
 
I can't believe anyone is seriously trying to lay the blame on the DRP for this abomination. As if the only response to "this looks too similar to another building" is to turn it into a generic office park building. A good architect working with a willing client would have been able to turn that feedback into something even better than the original submission.
 
You must log in or register to post here.

Back
Top