Filip
Senior Member
Even that's more interesting than this.
Toronto 100 Queens Quay at Sugar Wharf | 117.34m | 25s | Menkes | B+H
- Thread starter themarc
- Start date
ChesterCopperpot
Senior Member
there's residential buildings still to be announced. I'm thinking they will be much, much taller
ksun
Senior Member
Yes, this is why I think a box at Jarvis and Dundas is OK but at the waterfront is completely disappointing.
Canadian Chocho
Active Member
Instead of a bottle it could perhaps be cylindrical and be shaped like a barrel/keg. Glass cylinder > glass box.
UrbanFervour
Active Member
That would require a developer who gives a sh*t about more than making the maximum amount of profit by building a bulky, large-floor plate, off-the-rack spec building. Also, it would require a city government that takes pride in its built environment by incentivizing creative architectural design - especially on its central waterfront. Or a voting citizenry that gives a shit about these things. Hate to be cynical, but here in Bore-onto, Cana-dull we seem to literally be incapable of thinking outside the box. The grey, glassy, faceless, generic box.
In the words of Banksy: “That building is a disaster. Well no, disasters are interesting... it's a non-event. it’s vanilla. It looks like something they would build in Canada.”
LUVIT!
Senior Member
Hmmmm. I agree that the design should/could be more exiting....the rest of the vitriol here is worse than the banal architecture often presented.
maestro
Senior Member
I just find the resemblance uncanny.
maestro
Senior Member
It's been mentioned a few times and I don't quite understand why the waterfront is deserving of better architecture than the rest of the downtown/city
UrbanFervour
Active Member
The waterfront is the beginning, centre and end of the city. Lake Ontario is literally the reason our city exists.
We can have the opportunity to shape something beautiful, memorable, attractive to locals and visitors alike, high in tax revenue potential, and the face of the city. Or we can build another ... what... South Core? City Place? Liberty Village? West Donlands (Grey Gardens)? The waterfront presents a HUGE opportunity for Toronto - I don't understand how people are indifferent about what gets built there.
ctimpy
New Member
I hypothesize that the architecture was driven by the fact that the LCBO wants an office tower on the land, but cannot afford rents to justify innovative design. RBC Waterpark Place and Eau Claire Tower (mentioned above) were basically build-to-suit projects (Eau Claire for MEG Energy).
If the LCBO were in an iconic tower, people would complain about the LCBO squandering public funds; perception is very important, I think. The perception of fund squandering would be even more critical given that they are defacto in the financial core and there is no good reason why they couldn't be in a more suburban location.
If the LCBO were in an iconic tower, people would complain about the LCBO squandering public funds; perception is very important, I think. The perception of fund squandering would be even more critical given that they are defacto in the financial core and there is no good reason why they couldn't be in a more suburban location.
UrbanFervour
Active Member
LCBO is not going to own the tower- they're just going to lease space in it. These buildings are not built-to-suit - they're spec towers built to be as flexible as possible- to catch as many tenants as possible in the short an long run. When the LCBO moves out, a bank, law firm, or ad agency can move in, and so forth. Which is fine if that's what the market allows for. But must they all be stubby boxes skinned in generic mirror curtain wall? Why can't they be more expressive? Why can't they be built of different materials? Apart from the efficiency and cost savings, I don't know why this seems to be the only model for commercial real estate in this country.
ctimpy
New Member
No - you don't understand. The LCBO can only pay $X. Therefore, the Developer can only afford to spend $Y building the building and still earn a return. If the LCBO rents space in an iconic new tower, people will question how much rent they spent. If their rent is low, they will claim that the government under-priced the sale of the land to compensate the developer for below-market rent. No developer worth their weight in salt is going to underwrite a building based on the rents paid by a law firm when LCBO moves out in 15-25 years. Side note: Each RBC and Eau Claire Tower were build-to-suit with sizable anchor tenants.
ChesterCopperpot
Senior Member
As much as we not like it ........... for the majority of large developers it's all about the bottom line
Filip
Senior Member
Well our pension funds are patrons of fine architecture elsewhere. Just not here.
Skeezix
Senior Member
Member Bio
- Joined
- Apr 25, 2007
- Messages
- 4,343
- Reaction score
- 2,688
- Location
- East of this, west of that
Not to mention much of it is in public hands. With public authorities in the driver's seat on sites such as this, where they can control who ultimately builds what, we should theoretically be able to insist on better results.