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

The park next to Monde is going to get a lot better as the trees mature. Some of the play features are nice for kids, and the water fountains look really good the few times I have actually seen them working. But honestly, if I'm walking there and want a park, I'm just going to walk a minute more and go to the nice new little one on the waterfront, or to Sugar Beach. Daniels will at least have reasons to go there once the Italian store and the retail open up.
 
The park next to Monde is going to get a lot better as the trees mature. Some of the play features are nice for kids, and the water fountains look really good the few times I have actually seen them working. But honestly, if I'm walking there and want a park, I'm just going to walk a minute more and go to the nice new little one on the waterfront, or to Sugar Beach. Daniels will at least have reasons to go there once the Italian store and the retail open up.
The park beside monde looks so sad, there’s never anyone there, the water features are always off and after the smallest rainfall it floods. The look and feel of Daniels public realm is much more positive to me as a regular Toronto resident
 
That makes sense, thanks for sharing. However, in theory this sounds lovely, but in execution, it fails in my opinion for this building. The public park beside Mode isn't one I'd want to visit (and hardly sees any visitors), but most importantly is the proximity to the highway. They should have designed the ground according to that. Even when retail starts to open up, I'd rather grab a bench across the street by the water, over a patio beside a highway. Daniel's knew what they were up against and designed a smart retail gateway, shielded from the traffic, with a welcoming design that draws you in (e.g. overhang installation), and not pushes you away (aka, like Mode).
I'd say the issue is that Monde and the park alone don't generate enough of the urbanistic conditions that encourage continual use. The area lacks a focal point, and the park and Monde's podium both have strong linear lines that draw unwanted attention to the unexpected view terminus- the highway. It's a space without a payout in terms of experiences (people-watching, activities, retail), or visuals (your eyes inevitably end up on backside of an ugly highway)- a neighbourhood park without a neighbourhood, hence the lack of use.

This of course, may change in the future once more developments come in and further urbanize the space.

IMO- the podium at Monde needed to be far more granular and variegated in nature as as a pioneer project- though I attribute this issue more towards Waterfront Toronto's planning and land subdivision (you see the exact issue with Aqualina and George Brown College further south). Conversely, at Daniels Waterfront, one might be able to make the connection to the Distillery District a decade ago, which shares an encapsulated pedestrian experience surrounded by large tracts of anti-urban spaces (brownfields, parking lots)- here, its quality of space doesn't rely on the hypothetical- it's self-sufficient and directed inwards.

Whether this duplication will work or not remains to be seen...
 
Last edited:
You are positing a false choice of excellence (if not competence) in the architectural expression of the tower precludes excellence at street level. That's a failure of imagination and execution.

I mean, do you really want to go down the route of comparing this to what's been put up in Hamburg, Oslo and Copenhagen - where excellence didn't come attached with the need to build a tower (much less two towers) of this calibre (if you will excuse my sarcasm) on top? Nevermind that - look at Monde next door - and then look at this - and then say with a straight face the architectural expression and materiality of this project is superior.

The excuse of how the mediocrity of these towers will blend in with the general mediocrity of other towers is also laughable - if not sad. A damning indictment of why things ended up the way they did really. These are like the Huang and Danczkay's of this round on the waterfront - and that's being generous. The execution of the crown are just the icing on the cake on this.

AoD
Not at all, I think there are striking looking towers that can and should have a fantastic base, I would want both. I am simply emphasizing that if I had to pick, i would much prioritize the base (first 12m) than what happens at 150m, and this is often missed in some of these discussions earlier when we are judging the merit of a building from far away. I think Monde is a fantastically executed building, and a strong addition to the waterfront skyline, but it's clear that it is designed as an object; setting back from the streets and park on all sides and terracing towards the top. I like the ultra high breezeway between the two lobbys, I think that is a good gesture to the park.

Daniels on the other hand intentionally positions and carves two different looking buildings to form a new urban idea. An idea that is not at all about affording views to the lake or accessing the shores, but rather about much finer, intimate and urban spaces in parallel to the lakefront. It proposes a "gateway" to this other alternative form of public realm on the waterfront, which I think deserves some credit. The other point that I think often gets overlooked is the diversity of the program for the development. Monde for example is mostly residential, with some base retail, quite typical in its Toronto Typology. Daniels between the two buildings has residential, office condos, two schools (george brown, and french university), artscape, and a lot of retail fronting three streets which in itself forms a complete self sustaining community. Not sure if everyone knows, but the amount of work that goes into stacking all these different programs in a building is significant. For starters, there are very different requirements for mechanical and structural parameters that sometimes come in conflict with residential uses. I would think the north building alone would need to have structural and mechanical transfers four times between grade and the typical residential towers just to stack all of those programs. Ownership of the building by strata is another entirely complex issue. This is additional time and money on its base infrastructure that is not so evident in its final cladding finishes however will create more holistic and wholesome communities in the long term. I might add the mixed use of program in new development actually is not so common in Copenhagen, Hamburg or Oslo. If anyone has ever walk around the 8 house by BIG knows that while it photographs well in a magazine, and a cool form to look at, it is at the edge of a bedroom community, surrounded by other not as great residential development and big boxed retails with not much access to transit.

Finally, it's clear on daniels where they focuses on architectural articulation and importance. If the towers are "boring" or "blend", then the podium is anything but. each elevation addresses a different condition, articulating stone or perforated metal volumes almost as distinct pavilions that are tact on to the larger base, with an overhanging finned apron. When one is standing on the ground looking up, the fine vertical motif on the balcony glass finds its way down to the syncopation of the glass fins, to the vertically articulated canopy fascia to the moving acrylic flaps and finally to the granite ground, that is mixed with both honed and polished pieces to create variation and shimmer. These are details only one can appreciate and experience in person. While I love dissing quality of window walls and complain about how projected balconies are energy suckers, let's also focus on areas where we are innovating in urbanism.
 
I wouldn't use the word "stronger" at base level - I would say it's a response to different contexts and requirements. The base of Monde has coherence - it was designed with a clear intent - providing a colonnade, particularly against a public park. It didn't try and hide the scale of what it is, and actually celebrated it with even a hint of monumentality. That's not a very common thing to do for residential architecture in Toronto.

AoD
That...pretty much sums it up. And one doesn't even have to like the Monde to realize this.

While the design is all over the place with Daniels Waterfront. And I am forced to use Herb Tarlek's suit choices once again as a reference to this. /sigh
 
That...pretty much sums it up. And one doesn't even have to like the Monde to realize this.

While the design is all over the place with Daniels Waterfront. And I am forced to use Herb Tarlek's suit choices once again as a reference to this. /sigh

I think some people might like Herb Tarlek's suits. Both Monde and Daniels represent very different approach to design and urbanism. I would say to have a lot of one thing over the other is never good for urbanity.
 
Today

68D6A037-D836-4625-92C9-E5FD04B7D1C9.jpeg


331DD86C-B78B-4A03-BA7B-D66A1BB1B141.jpeg


38EA9368-17F4-4F80-8034-E663EAB0AD77.jpeg
 
August 18, 2020

Did these really have to be built right on the waterfront?

View attachment 264061

View attachment 264062

View attachment 264063
Those building traumatize me every time I have to go shopping at Loblaws. Buildings like this, should never have been allowed to ruin our last pice of downtown waterfront!
God, I hate these towers with a passion! I still say, our central waterfront should have been focused on fun, meaning entertainment, retail, culture and leisure. It should have been a true destination, not a second CityPlace with some office towers thrown in. I see little there for Torontonians who don't live or work in the district. Couldn't we have built one single major attraction, museum, art gallery, music venue, shopping destination or some major tourist attraction? Our last chunk of central waterfront should have had a greater purpose than this. We have plenty of room for office towers and condos all over Toronto but we only have one downtown waterfront! Great cities have great waterfront attractions and destinations. It's another missed opportunity to take this city to the next level and have some fun!
 
Last edited by a moderator:
The buyers of this building should go together at Daniels office and throw up on their board room table. That would still be less worse than this building. I used to work in the office tower of this project and I saw these residential building being built from up close and tried not to look up while walking to my office building. Fortunately we had a south view so we didn't have to look at the abominations on the other side of the office building.
 
Those building traumatize me every time I have to go shopping at Loblaws. Buildings like this, should never have been allowed to ruin our last pice of downtown waterfront!
God, I hate these towers with a passion! I still say, our central waterfront should have been focused on fun, meaning entertainment, retail, culture and leisure. It should have been a true destination, not a second CityPlace with some office towers thrown in. I see little there for Torontonians who don't live or work in the district. Couldn't we have built one single major attraction, museum, art gallery, music venue, shopping destination or some major tourist attraction? Our last chunk of central waterfront should have had a greater purpose than this. We have plenty of room for office towers and condos all over Toronto but we only have one downtown waterfront! Great cities have great waterfront attractions and destinations. It's another missed opportunity to take this city to the next level and have some fun!
I really wish they kept this part of the waterfront low-rise or improved the architecture of the buildings rising taller. The area is improving but that's not saying much as it was extremely derelict beforehand.
 

Back
Top