AlvinofDiaspar
Moderator
The entire site was undevelopable - until the public (i.e all 3 levels of government) spent the money to floodproof the district and establish the required infrastructure.
AoD
- Thread starter DSC
- Start date
The entire site was undevelopable - until the public (i.e all 3 levels of government) spent the money to floodproof the district and establish the required infrastructure.
AoD
Northern Light
Superstar
Ok.....I'm going to join the pile-on here..........but after stating the obvious, I'm going to try a few different tacks.
Lets start with the obvious though:
1) The colour has shifted from warm, vibrant and interesting, playing w/over lapping warm tones that shift on the building face to monolithic charcoal grey/black. Dreary, Dull, Unoriginal, Unnecessary and NOT a response to any of feedback from the DRP so far as I can tell.
2) i liked the the 3-tiered height along the Bayview/Park frontage, I thought that did a good job breaking up the massing along w/the subtle colour changes over the course of the height. The simplification to two forms, short and tall(er) is too simple and a let down.
3) The balconies in the previous iteration did have some challenges in terms of practical use, but added nice aesthetic whimsy. I would reference Aqua Luna for how to bridge those two things.
Let me use this shot from @hawc in the relevant thread to illustrate:
Notice how you see the undulation (the in/out rhythmic movement to/away from the building, but they've done that while creating more functional layouts/sizes of balcony make them more than just a decorative feature.
******
There is no saving anything in this iteration. I didn't see the DRP in person and the video is not yet posted so I don't know what their take was...........but this is just a hot mess of garbage. I would 100% go back to earlier version and just move on.........
Failing that........lets bring back the original brick and colour scheme here if nothing else.......but also, just on the Bayview/Park elevation, for the love of.........ditch that flat-ness, and add back flavour.
******
The architect is unchanged here............ and they need to be told clearly that this is not okay, as does WT and DREAM
They won't like me for this..........but oh well:
Architect is Henriquez
Gregory can be reached by emailing nicolettewilliams@henriquezpartners.com
Shawn can be reached at : shawnlapointe@henriquezpartners.com
Let them know what you think!
To be clear, in my experience these guys are engaging, nice, and good listeners............I shouldn't have to say this, but just to cover myself, but please be polite and respectful, assume these are people who care
who just wandered from a good idea and need help realizing that.
Also let WT know by writing to Chris Glaisek, their VP Planning/Design: cglaisek@waterfrontoronto.ca
I'm not sure who DREAM's point person is on this project, but make sure and reach out to them too, here's the general contact for their residential side:
residentialreitinfo@dream.ca
Lets start with the obvious though:
1) The colour has shifted from warm, vibrant and interesting, playing w/over lapping warm tones that shift on the building face to monolithic charcoal grey/black. Dreary, Dull, Unoriginal, Unnecessary and NOT a response to any of feedback from the DRP so far as I can tell.
2) i liked the the 3-tiered height along the Bayview/Park frontage, I thought that did a good job breaking up the massing along w/the subtle colour changes over the course of the height. The simplification to two forms, short and tall(er) is too simple and a let down.
3) The balconies in the previous iteration did have some challenges in terms of practical use, but added nice aesthetic whimsy. I would reference Aqua Luna for how to bridge those two things.
Let me use this shot from @hawc in the relevant thread to illustrate:
Notice how you see the undulation (the in/out rhythmic movement to/away from the building, but they've done that while creating more functional layouts/sizes of balcony make them more than just a decorative feature.
******
There is no saving anything in this iteration. I didn't see the DRP in person and the video is not yet posted so I don't know what their take was...........but this is just a hot mess of garbage. I would 100% go back to earlier version and just move on.........
Failing that........lets bring back the original brick and colour scheme here if nothing else.......but also, just on the Bayview/Park elevation, for the love of.........ditch that flat-ness, and add back flavour.
******
The architect is unchanged here............ and they need to be told clearly that this is not okay, as does WT and DREAM
They won't like me for this..........but oh well:
Architect is Henriquez
Gregory can be reached by emailing nicolettewilliams@henriquezpartners.com
Shawn can be reached at : shawnlapointe@henriquezpartners.com
Let them know what you think!
To be clear, in my experience these guys are engaging, nice, and good listeners............I shouldn't have to say this, but just to cover myself, but please be polite and respectful, assume these are people who care
who just wandered from a good idea and need help realizing that.
Also let WT know by writing to Chris Glaisek, their VP Planning/Design: cglaisek@waterfrontoronto.ca
I'm not sure who DREAM's point person is on this project, but make sure and reach out to them too, here's the general contact for their residential side:
residentialreitinfo@dream.ca
ProjectEnd
Superstar
The Waterfront DRP, like the regular DRP, is a nonbinding advisory board. DREAM didn't *have* to listen to anything they say.
If anyone genuinely thought we were going to get Version 1 in today's market, you're smoking some strong stuff...
UtakataNoAnnex
Senior Member
Simplifying the colour doesn't mean making it all fargin grey! >.<
ProjectEnd
Superstar
Correct, but that decision is on DREAM alone.
innsertnamehere
Superstar
ugh. Why even bother with Henriquez if you are going to guide them to this type of product? Looks like something Wallman would have put out a decade ago for probably half of the price Henriquez is charging.
jxmyth_
Active Member
Just horrid. Especially how it faces such an epic little park. It’s like putting the garden of Eden against the far wall of a Costco.
UtakataNoAnnex
Senior Member
I get that. But at the end of the day if someone is making that sorry arsed excuse here, they need to hang their head in shame.
Irishmonk
Senior Member
Clearly, Toronto City Council's recent motion "Towards a Beautiful City," is not having its desired effect.
AlvinofDiaspar
Moderator
To be fair, going by their collective action as a guide, I'd say the council would be the last bunch I would consider the purveyor of good taste and beauty.
AoD
GenerationLee
Senior Member
Wow. It reminds me a little of E Condos and a little of Cityplace. Its a huge downgrade, and the tower will be a bit of a sire thumb, but shouldnt be too bad in 10 years when the other tower sites nearby are redeveloped.
ProjectEnd
Superstar
@AlexBozikovic sums this all up well:
evanb
New Member
I understand that it's extremely likely the downgrade would have happened regardless of the DRP feedback.
But I don't think it's incorrect to say that the developer technically listened to the DRP's request for a simplified design in this case. They removed color gradations, most of the articulation, the corner curve. Not only that, they did make it more complimentary to the KPMB building across the street: grey bricks! Everything was taken way too far of course.
If all of this would have happened regardless of DRP then it's a pretty unfortunate coincidence, because plenty of their feedback is plainly visible in the downgrade design.
But I don't think it's incorrect to say that the developer technically listened to the DRP's request for a simplified design in this case. They removed color gradations, most of the articulation, the corner curve. Not only that, they did make it more complimentary to the KPMB building across the street: grey bricks! Everything was taken way too far of course.
If all of this would have happened regardless of DRP then it's a pretty unfortunate coincidence, because plenty of their feedback is plainly visible in the downgrade design.
UtakataNoAnnex
Senior Member
It's not complimentary when it will standout like a sore thumb. Conversely, there is nothing wrong with contrasting if done in good taste. Ultimately, it should be both interesting and inviting even with a simplified design. Dream, et al, have failed in all 3 counts here, IMO.
syn
Senior Member
Wow. This has transformed from one of my favourite upcoming projects in the city to yet another forgettable, bland "Toronto" condo.