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

enrigue8 said:
Here we are enemy of beauty.
Everything that is pretty will be rejected and history prove it many times.
So i m prepared to see ugly glass condos tower.
This is Toronto, the capital of ugly architecture.
Click to expand...

What specific examples of "pretty" towers being rejected are you referring to?
 
I know i trash Toronto.
I do it ,because i m desperate that our architects can t do a better job here.
It only glass condos tower without style and beauty.When i compare Toronto to other cities, i m just sad.
But there is some exception like 1 Bloor,1 Yorkville or L tower but they are rare.
 
What other cities? Don't get me wrong, Toronto hasn't built (yet) one that stands out as truly exceptional like other places but, the overall quality of all residential high rise development is hardly as bad as you make it out to be. Where are these cities?
 
ADRM said:
What specific examples of "pretty" towers being rejected are you referring to?
Click to expand...
There is more exemple than this ,but here, i will show you 4 cute designed tower that i love but had been redesigned or cancelled.

100-Davenport-Condos-Rendering-.jpeg
 

Attachments

  • 100-Davenport-Condos-Rendering-.jpeg
    100-Davenport-Condos-Rendering-.jpeg
    609.2 KB · Views: 1,557
I really liked 100 Davenport's original proposal. :(

Incidentally, I wouldn't mind a similar design to that on one of the towers here on the LCBO lands.
 
enrigue8 said:
There is more exemple than this ,but here, i will show you 4 cute designed tower that i love but had been redesigned or cancelled.

View attachment 87981
Click to expand...

Yikes. In retrospect, Sapphire was gaudy. I'm glad that Stinson wasn't able to build that thing. What was built instead actually looks quite good facing Nathan Phillips Sq.
 
I think one of Toronto's virtues is its pragmatism. Toronto's practical approach to architecture may be conservative and we are not a showy people. I would like some spectacular arcitecture but we are not Vegas or Dubai. To slag the whole city is immature and irresponsible. If one hates it so much MOVE!!!
 
I don t ask every tower to have an incredible design like Dubai .I just ask a little creativity and a prettier city.
I make that my concern because we keep building condos that will become ghettos in some years and that begin to fall.
Just build a box with big balconiesis not architecture.It was in the 70 s era,but we are not in the 70 s anymore. We are in 2016.
I want a pretty Toronto with more green space, more eyes pleasing architecture and better built condos.
The repetitive architecture make Toronto very boring and depressing .But a big problem for the city is OMB.
This organisation only serve interest of greedy developers.It a big reason why our city is like that.
The city has little impact on planning.
Make our architecture more eyes pleasing is not that difficult.
Just watch the architecture of Los Angeles, Miami ,Nyc ,Chicago or Montreal and you will understand.
Thank you for your time.
 
LUVIT! said:
I would like some spectacular arcitecture but we are not Vegas or Dubai.
Click to expand...

Vegas works because most larger structures over 40 years old gets demolished or a significant face-lift. You don't see the old crap from the 50's through 70's because it's already long gone.

I'm not yet sure if Dubai will age well.
 
Montreal is a terrible example of good architecture. They have a tacky condo with a hockey team branded on it. No thanks.
 
The Sapphire proposal was hideous, 1 Bloor West will look nearly identical to the photo of it posted above, we haven't yet seen a revised design of 100 Davenport, and that 27 Yorkville iteration was two rectangular boxes with some swirly bits pasted on.

I'm as strong a proponent of enhancing Toronto's architectural "quality" as any reasonable person is, but blanket statements like "Toronto is ugly" or "the city rejects all pretty proposals" or "we are the enemy of beauty" are inaccurate, misleading, and mostly unconstructive.
 
The LCBO office tower looks nice to me. I am all for unique architecture, and hope the taller towers will be more interesting, but this looks a bit like 1 york which is so clean and simple that it does wonders for the area. The mirror wall it creates is rather palette cleansing, and really opens things up. It creates a sense of space so that its not claustrophobic down there. This will probably do the same. Not to mention it will look great at sunset/sunrise and on days with blue skies.

I do really hope we get something more from the towers though.
 
stjames2queenwest said:
The LCBO office tower looks nice to me. I am all for unique architecture, and hope the taller towers will be more interesting, but this looks a bit like 1 york which is so clean and simple that it does wonders for the area. The mirror wall it creates is rather palette cleansing, and really opens things up. It creates a sense of space so that its not claustrophobic down there. This will probably do the same. Not to mention it will look great at sunset/sunrise and on days with blue skies.

I do really hope we get something more from the towers though.
Click to expand...

Problem:
1. It isn't the only "clean and simple" building in the area - in fact, arguably every commercial building in the neighbourhood built in the current cycle is;
2. There is nothing there right now;
3. Palette cleansing requires something to be cleaned. This is like someone craving meat having to drink a bottle of Listerine instead.
4. The issue with the area - now and in the future isn't claustrophobia from the towers - it might be agoraphobia from having multiple mirrored buildings.

AoD
 
You must log in or register to post here.

Back
Top