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

Look at all the residential elevators!

No one builds Arcos like Toronto!
 
They are part of the package posted on the previous page

So far it's six nearly identical towers with each one about as sweet as the LCBO tower. 5100 units. Only a heighter would see any good in it. Even someone only interested in skylines wouldn't be impressed. Keep your fingers crossed
 
Meh. So unimaginative boxes with zero embellishment. I suppose that is better than getting P&S down here. I wish Shim-Sutcliffe would be commissioned to design some towers in this city. Saucier & Perrotte and Teeple would also be a welcome relief. It would also be interesting to see a group like Partisans to design a tower. They had an interesting looking building concept for a design competition (more interesting than the majority of contemporary buildings in this city), but their proposal wasn't chosen. It would also be ideal in huge developments like this to have multiple architects involved. I'd rather see every tower be unique, instead of getting twin/triplet towers, etc. We already have far too much repetitive design south of the Gardiner.
 
Last edited:
Wasn't it mentioned that the plans were just there for massing and any design features weren't released at all? Why are we so quick to judge a design that hasn't even been designed yet?
 
am29 said:
Wasn't it mentioned that the plans were just there for massing and any design features weren't released at all? Why are we so quick to judge a design that hasn't even been designed yet?
Click to expand...
My comment wasn't based on the massing model, but aA's track record of producing nearly identical buildings with each development they design. Ice was a welcome departure from their usual neo-modernist buildings. I hope they have something more interesting in store for this location, compared to their usual monotony.
 
am29 said:
Wasn't it mentioned that the plans were just there for massing and any design features weren't released at all? Why are we so quick to judge a design that hasn't even been designed yet?
Click to expand...

Why I said "so far" and "keep your fingers crossed". However, there's enough detail that this is more than just massing models. Consider the developer more than the architect.
 
Armour said:
My comment wasn't based on the massing model, but aA's track record of producing nearly identical buildings with each development they design. Ice was a welcome departure from their usual neo-modernist buildings. I hope they have something more interesting in store for this location, compared to their usual monotony.
Click to expand...

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.
 
I'd be ok with some deconstructed stacked boxes. Though I'd take saucier and perrotte over teeple.

The architectural drawings are not the most exciting so far, but materials can go a long way, so I will hold my judgements for now. Wouldn't make sense for aA to not put their best forward for this site, even within a given budget.
 
I hear you guys, but I don't know.. I don't see anyone designing towers right now without even seeing how the city will respond to the density. They'll probably have to give up a tower or two.
 
Armour said:
I'd rather see every tower be unique, instead of getting twin/triplet towers, etc. We already have far too much repetitive design south of the Gardiner.
Click to expand...

If every tower were unique it would be a monotony of uniqueness. See: dubai, and every hipster ever.
 
also just my two cents: I highly doubt this scheme works in term of tower area ratio, which is probably the best measure of perceived density we have. If it's under 20% I'll be very surprised.
 
Armour said:
My comment wasn't based on the massing model, but aA's track record of producing nearly identical buildings with each development they design. Ice was a welcome departure from their usual neo-modernist buildings. I hope they have something more interesting in store for this location, compared to their usual monotony.
Click to expand...

That all depends on the developer and its desire to put its mark on the city - and how much it is willing to spend on the buildings - it's all about roi.

I think Menkes just scored the best piece of real estate in Toronto in many many years.

The fact that they only paid $260mm for the land would indicate they might be able to spend some money on the architecture - but marketing these towers would be a breeze, the lake, the park, the Path, proximity to union station and future transit line - wow.
 
You must log in or register to post here.

Back
Top