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

Photos from Claude Cormier's website:

www.claudecormier.com

Daniels Waterfront - CCxA

www.claudecormier.com www.claudecormier.com

lower-jarvis-56.jpg
lower-jarvis-57.jpg
lower-jarvis-58.jpg
lower-jarvis-59.jpg
lower-jarvis-60.jpg
lower-jarvis-61.jpg
lower-jarvis-62.jpg
lower-jarvis-63.jpg
lower-jarvis-64.jpg
 
Last edited:
Riseth said:
Having a nice unit has nothing to do with what this abomination looks like on the outside. Your unit could've been just as nice in a shorter building or one built somewhere else.

The complaints are all about aesthetics and location IMO.
Click to expand...

Are you kidding me?! A good chunk of the criticisms in this post has to do with how boxy/boring/relentless the shape of the building is. Guess what? The rectangular shape of the building that stacks on every floor has everything to do with how units are laid out efficiently and functional INSIDE! Yes developers need to make a buck but please consider the balance between functional unit layout, efficiency, and great public realm.
 
Waterfront said:
Are you kidding me?! A good chunk of the criticisms in this post has to do with how boxy/boring/relentless the shape of the building is. Guess what? The rectangular shape of the building that stacks on every floor has everything to do with how units are laid out efficiently and functional INSIDE! Yes developers need to make a buck but please consider the balance between functional unit layout, efficiency, and great public realm.
Click to expand...
Fair point but the units could have been just as nice in a better designed building or one that was shorter which was my original point. In a perfect world this development would have been built elsewhere or kept low-rise. There were other options for this site than foisting this abomination onto the waterfront and destroying the skyline in the process. I will never forgive the city or the developers for allowing this to happen to the waterfront.
 
adHominem said:
Replace the lipstick on that pig with new, better lipstick! That'll do the trick!
Click to expand...
Deadpool X said:
I don't remember anyone commenting on the shape of this building. The most loved building at this time - CIBC Square - is also a box with slight undulations on the surface. People are commenting on the aesthetics of this building - its design, its colour, its materials and so on.
Click to expand...
cibc tower is an office building. It has a completely different parameter of performance, Functional program, maintenance and financial return. It is not a box btw, because the undulating diamond shape curtain wall yields a floor that is slightly different than the one below; closest condo/residential example would be shangri la but there they could only do the east elevation. I get that people have their opinions whether it’s height, colour, density, design; but that’s call it what it is, which is an opinion. Eg. I don’t like the brown spandrel, but to legitimize it by saying something that is completely not true like interior function has no impact to the interior, this needs to be corrected. If not, that is just plain ignorance.
 
Has anyone seen any sign of the promised 're-covering' of the crowns yet? The sidewalk on Lower Jarvis was covered over several weeks ago but I can see no changes above (or any sign of work going on).
 
Waterfront said:
cibc tower is an office building. It has a completely different parameter of performance, Functional program, maintenance and financial return. It is not a box btw, because the undulating diamond shape curtain wall yields a floor that is slightly different than the one below; closest condo/residential example would be shangri la but there they could only do the east elevation.
Click to expand...
Well, slightly is the keyword here which is what I said in my previous post. The floors are mostly rectangular and the have to be so because it is an office building and they want to maximize efficiency. Why? Because office buildings have even more people per sq. ft. compared to residential. So yes, CIBC Square is still a box but a great looking one. I would call it a gift box!
 
My goodness all these wannabe architects, designers, etc keep tossing around "fancy terms" yet they do not truly understand design. Its almost laughable the group think I see on this forum and others as well. Example, " Functional program, maintenance and financial return". What kind of nonesense is that? Using terms vaguely like they understand the connection between these concepts. Its a bad sign when these people are using non descriptive wording like this to describe architecture.
 
Raymond123 said:
My goodness all these wannabe architects, designers, etc keep tossing around "fancy terms" yet they do not truly understand design. Its almost laughable the group think I see on this forum and others as well. Example, " Functional program, maintenance and financial return". What kind of nonesense is that? Using terms vaguely like they understand the connection between these concepts. Its a bad sign when these people are using non descriptive wording like this to describe architecture.
Click to expand...
That's a first post the Mods are going to remember.

42
 
It is what it is, but someones got to call it like it is .
"modicum of effort"? what does that even supposed to mean? its like people are trying to one up each other on the thesaurus without being able to express themselves coherently.
If you have a view, say it clearly and concisely. Not half gibberish. Did anyone take a proper English class here? Or was it all just engineering and architecture?
 
Raymond123 said:
It is what it is, but someones got to call it like it is .
"modicum of effort"? what does that even supposed to mean? its like people are trying to one up each other on the thesaurus without being able to express themselves coherently.
If you have a view, say it clearly and concisely. Not half gibberish. Did anyone take a proper English class here? Or was it all just engineering and architecture?
Click to expand...
Many members of UrbanToronto are engineers, are architects. Many more are simply enthusiasts. This is a community, and with any community, a lingo can develop. Not everyone's vocabulary covers the exact same ground, but we learn from each other. Internet searches are your friend if you run into unfamiliar terms. While there's no inherent harm in asking people to express themselves clearly, broadly criticizing UT members in your first two posts will not particularly endear you to most members here. How about a less strident tone in future posts?

42
 
Raymond123 said:
My goodness all these wannabe architects, designers, etc keep tossing around "fancy terms" yet they do not truly understand design. Its almost laughable the group think I see on this forum and others as well. Example, " Functional program, maintenance and financial return". What kind of nonesense is that? Using terms vaguely like they understand the connection between these concepts. Its a bad sign when these people are using non descriptive wording like this to describe architecture.
Click to expand...
Raymond123 said:
It is what it is, but someones got to call it like it is .
"modicum of effort"? what does that even supposed to mean? its like people are trying to one up each other on the thesaurus without being able to express themselves coherently.
If you have a view, say it clearly and concisely. Not half gibberish. Did anyone take a proper English class here? Or was it all just engineering and architecture?
Click to expand...

beg you differ. Msg me and I’ll show you my credentials.
 
You must log in or register to post here.

Back
Top