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.
