Toronto Daniels Waterfront - City of the Arts | 156.05m | 45s | Daniels | RAW Design

D21F4DE8-AC54-42DC-A675-D90A5B17D339.jpeg
 
bjrkz said:
It's amazing how poorly Toronto's waterfront is developing compared to other world class cities like Vancouver and New York. Yes, the industries are different in each city, but this project exemplifies how Toronto's becoming a product of cheap looking buildings due to very little developer regulations. I'm also not sure if Giannone Petricone knows how to work within a budget or understands the materials they work with, judging from their past projects and comparing the renderings to the final built form. I had high hopes for the pedestrian space here, and I'm aware that it isn't complete, but it looks like an excessively paved-over mess with little character. Unfortunately developers have defined Toronto's architecture by balcony patterns, overly-designed mechanical penthouses, and window wall, and architects are being forced to use a copy-paste method of designing the city.

In general, I question the expertise of Waterfront Toronto and city planners based on how poorly designed commercialized and residential spaces have been allowed to develop right up to the lakefront, creating a disconnected waterfront path. The amount of paved surfaces and the lack of green spaces with large trees shows how little investment and care goes into the public realm. IMO, the Music Garden and Trillium Park are the best public park projects along the waterfront but it's far too little.

Even though this building isn't right on the waterfront, it's another example of how developers invest little in architectural design and the public spaces around the site. Yeah I've heard it all, construction costs are high, the planning guidelines states this, bIah blah blah. If there's any hope for the waterfront and the rest of the city, it's time to heavily regulate developers to prevent things like paving over the entire property, slapping up curtain wall, window wall or precast and calling it a day.
Click to expand...

Not sure if I agree 100% with the Vancouver comparison - they certainly have their share of junk.

I wonder where the Design Review Panel is in all of this? How is the city approving all of these waterfront disappointments?

We have a once-in-a-generation blank slate and we're completely wasting the opportunity.
 
syn said:
Not sure if I agree 100% with the Vancouver comparison - they certainly have their share of junk.

I wonder where the Design Review Panel is in all of this? How is the city approving all of these waterfront disappointments?

We have a once-in-a-generation blank slate and we're completely wasting the opportunity.
Click to expand...
Excellent comment, I was very disappointed with the design of the building, no pride and cheap look. It said, by the lake but not match at all. It ruins everything and my expectation, totally not close to what I saw from the marketing materials. A failure project indeed.
 
win3280 said:
Excellent comment, I was very disappointed with the design of the building, no pride and cheap look. It said, by the lake but not match at all. It ruins everything and my expectation, totally not close to what I saw from the marketing materials. A failure project indeed.
Click to expand...
Though I absolutely agree that this building (or complex) is a great disappointment, it is not fair to blame the City (or in this case the Waterfront) Design Review Panel for what is there. Under the Planning Act, the City can (at least in theory) deal with issues of height and density but cannot deal with aesthetics or cheapness. (I say 'in theory" because, as we know all too well, even the City's best efforts in areas it is, supposedly, in charge of can be (and often are) shoved aside by the OMB/LPAT.) In fact, even if an application is not actually appealed, the City planners are often under pressure to accept less than ideal plans in case OMB/LPAT imposes something even worse.
 
DSC said:
Though I absolutely agree that this building (or complex) is a great disappointment, it is not fair to blame the City (or in this case the Waterfront) Design Review Panel for what is there. Under the Planning Act, the City can (at least in theory) deal with issues of height and density but cannot deal with aesthetics or cheapness. (I say 'in theory" because, as we know all too well, even the City's best efforts in areas it is, supposedly, in charge of can be (and often are) shoved aside by the OMB/LPAT.) In fact, even if an application is not actually appealed, the City planners are often under pressure to accept less than ideal plans in case OMB/LPAT imposes something even worse.
Click to expand...

And this project is on private land, which allows for even less leverage (not that WT is all that great at ensuring architectural excellence in their own development projects - ex. Waterfront Innovation Centre, Corus Quay, etc - but they are just disappointments, not eyesores).

In any case, aren't some calling for the project to be finished before rendering judgement? As it turns out, it wasn't necessary - it is clear from early on it's going to be an aesthetically wanting project.

AoD
 
isaidso said:
That's not a mindset I'll ever get behind. So people in Scarborough are less deserving of quality buildings that people in Downtown Toronto?
Click to expand...


I don't think it's not a knock on who lives there. It's a knock on what buildings there typically turn out like.
 
DSC said:
Though I absolutely agree that this building (or complex) is a great disappointment, it is not fair to blame the City (or in this case the Waterfront) Design Review Panel for what is there. Under the Planning Act, the City can (at least in theory) deal with issues of height and density but cannot deal with aesthetics or cheapness. (I say 'in theory" because, as we know all too well, even the City's best efforts in areas it is, supposedly, in charge of can be (and often are) shoved aside by the OMB/LPAT.) In fact, even if an application is not actually appealed, the City planners are often under pressure to accept less than ideal plans in case OMB/LPAT imposes something even worse.
Click to expand...
Understandable, but they need to take considerably to put the consumer best interest in the first place. We are the purchaser money out of our pocket.
 
win3280 said:
Understandable, but they need to take considerably to put the consumer best interest in the first place. We are the purchaser money out of our pocket.
Click to expand...
If you own part of a less than perfect building your investment will not do well. Sometimes you need to pay a bit more to ensure a really good return. Sadly, this developer cheapened out and it is the owners who will pay,
 
^^ I think the problem is that if you own part of a less than perfect building your investment will STILL do well. In this city, you DON'T need to pay a bit more to ensure a really good return. This developer cheapened out and the investor-owners WON'T pay and probably don't care. The end users may be unhappy but not the investors.
 
You must log in or register to post here.

Back
Top