Toronto 100 Queens Quay at Sugar Wharf | 117.34m | 25s | Menkes | B+H

lol "only" - 260 million is probably one of the largest transactions in Toronto's history for just land. You need a ton of GFA here to make a return on that.
 
^Yeah right

Only 260 million?
Sure, 800+ unit towers are certain to be a breeze to sell.

Menkes is just the face of the partnership. I'm sure the money players are sweating bullets until shovels hit the ground. I don't see much room for something different, design wise, here from any other large scaled development in Toronto.
 
maestro said:
LOL, You think Teeple would produce anything greater than six nearly identical towers of deconstructed stacked boxes? Sorry, but Teeple is the most overrated firm on UT.
Click to expand...
I'll take plenty of Picassoesque towers over aA's no frills philosophy (not that I don't enjoy any of their work).
 
Armour said:
Uniqueness and gaudiness aren't the same thing. New York is full of unique towers in close proximity to one another. I don't think anyone would complain about their building stock.
Click to expand...

That's true. But notice how their uniqueness is aptly framed by a stalwart amassment of fabric mid-highrise towers of generally high quality? We should be encouraging a general raising of the bar instead of demanding a repetition of singular (often non-contextual) edifices in my humble opinion.
 
Armour said:
I'll take plenty of Picassoesque towers over aA's no frills philosophy (not that I don't enjoy any of their work).
Click to expand...

No thanks. I like Picasso because it offers something different to the aA's and aA clones. That diminishes every time another gets built. I guess aA inspired mid century modernism is more subtle in the details than Teeple's deconstructionism but, I'd hardly call it "no frills". Like with any design factory, compromises are made.

Their design are no more repetitive than any firm with as many projects including multiple towers. I'm surprised how often this is brought up. Some of it comes from people reacting to design and playing favoritism. The demand for novelty architecture is huge in the forums.
 
I think it's possible to request a break from unanimity without demanding novelty. I agree that replicating a Picasso here (or anywhere) in the city wouldn't help matters, though I doubt that's actually in the cards.

Given that the height and placement of these residential towers will mean that they feature prominently on the skyline, it'd be great to have something that breaks the ubiquitous green or blue glass rectangle formula—imagine Mississauga's Absolute Towers on this spot; wouldn't that be grand? And before someone jumps on me, I'm also not advocating that those be replicated on this site—my point is that there's a limitless of potential tower designs that add something new and interesting to the skyline, and I sincerely hope that option is pursued with at last some of them here.
 
Sure there are 'limitless potential tower designs' but there aren't 'limitless' construction budgets or the ability to set 'limitless' prices to justify the expenditure on swoopy, groovy forms. You bring up Absolute (which I'm no massive fan of) but what everyone seems to forget is that to justify the cost of the two 'signature' towers, Mississauga has to endure the three hideous masses to the east of them (or the appalling bottlecaps on top).

Absolute.JPG
 

Attachments

  • Absolute.JPG
    Absolute.JPG
    283.6 KB · Views: 1,492
Yeah, I get all of that—and, as I said, I'm not hoping for a replication of that (or anything else), and simply pointing out that I, like many, am hoping for some ambition in design on this site and that it's not unreasonable to do so.
 
Skeezix said:
Well, in Mississauga's defence, a lot of the people in the three hideous masses have some of the best views of the two signature towers.
Click to expand...

Some do and some have to look at those three hideous masses. They cancel each other out I'd say.
 
You must log in or register to post here.

Back
Top