Toronto River City Condos Phases 1 & 2 | ?m | 16s | Urban Capital | ZAS Architects

Xray_Crystal_Junkie said:
I reeeeally hope they don't paint them. It suits the look and adds character. It doesn't work on most projects, but here I think it's fitting.
Click to expand...
I have no idea whether they will be painting but it has recently been too cold to do proper exterior painting so I don't think any conclusions should be drawn just yet. As noted above, they certainly can paint after the railings are in place.
 
rdaner said:
IMG_3644_1-XL.jpg
Click to expand...

This is what the east side of Liberty Village could have been...::sigh::
 
Riverdale Rink Rat said:
In town for a quick trip, so I went for a walk around WDL and RiverCity looks great. Stopped by the sales centre, and the guy said they had moved in the first apartments last week! Is that true? It doesn't look anywhere near finished enough for move-ins.
Click to expand...

As per Waterfront Toronto's March Newsletter: "Residents are beginning to occupy 47 Lower River Street, one of two buildings in the development’s first phase. While the building is largely complete, there are still a few final construction activities underway including the installation of the last balcony railings."
 
It already looks stained and dirty. I can't believe they would leave it like that. As slick as this development is, I'm sure they will paint those balconies.
 
One thing that puzzles me is why all condo terraces in the city--whether on the ground or in the sky--seem to be paved with the most generic grey concrete tiles or pavers. It cheapens the space. To have a terrace is my opinion an excellent amenity that few condos have. The paving should reflect that.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
junctionist said:
One thing that puzzles me is why all condo terraces in the city--whether on the ground or in the sky--seem to be paved with the most generic grey concrete tiles or pavers. It cheapens the space. To have a terrace is my opinion an excellent amenity that few condos have. The paving should reflect that.
Click to expand...

True. But I have seen some terraces that has been decked over with teak or ipe which looks really nice and very comfortable to walk on.
Developers will not do this as it expensive and time consuming and will cost more to maintain.
Stained or coloured concrete pavers so that it looks more stone-like would be a more cost effective better looking alternative. Developers, are you listening?
 
From today, one of the local residents told me I was something like the twentieth person he'd seen photograph this building this week:

8624886203_0deb15edba_h.jpg
 
Last edited:
anonymous0024 said:
8624886203_0deb15edba_h.jpg
Click to expand...

From an urban form standpoint, this lane looks amazing! Such great layering. I hope it doesn't become filled with parked cars and dumpsters.

This is exactly the kind of development that should be encouraged in the suburbs rather than single highrise towers with cul-de-sac driveways.
 
Last edited:
Looks amazing. This is the kind of mid-rise form that I wish would take hold in East Bayfront.
 
The black cladding on this is amazing. I wish more developers would use it, instead of grey spandrel. This building is so sleek and stylish.
 
Anyone know what will happen to that triangular chunk of land between the king and queen bridge ramps that was the end of bayview ave for a while, but they have since ripped up?
 
innsertnamehere said:
Anyone know what will happen to that triangular chunk of land between the king and queen bridge ramps that was the end of bayview ave for a while, but they have since ripped up?
Click to expand...

That would be a great place for a proper, public square. We are already getting a large green space in Don River Park, so why do we need more of the same, so close by? Why not a great public square with a spectacular fountain or something monumental, creative and beautiful? We need more social spaces, where people come together. Our parks are more about being in your own space and I don't really see strangers communicating, the way I do in other cities, that build those types of public spaces.

I'd like to see something with intimate seating and a strong focal point, where people gather to either people watch or just talk to fellow Torontonians. Sadly, we never seem to build those kinds of social spaces. Dundas Square is probably the best place for that but even that is not very social. I don't see strangers talking the way I do in Paris or New York. I think our park design and lack of intimate spaces is partly to blame for that. Sit in Washington Square (NYC) for one hour and see how much easier it is for New Yorkers to start a conversation with complete strangers. It's very different than Toronto and I think part of that is the way the city is designed. It's much easier to start a conversation, when benches are grouped close together in clusters and there is a strong focal point, like a fountain or large piece of art. Toronto fails miserably in that regard and Don River Park will not change that. It also has the anti-social seating arrangements. For some reason, Toronto planners just don't understand how people interact in public spaces or maybe they just want to keep us separated. Maybe it's less trouble that way, we humans are prone to unpredictable behaviour but social public spaces are much more animated and interesting. (even if you're only watching and listening to other people's interactions)
 
Last edited:
I'd rather have public squares lined on a couple sides by buildings, not roads like this one would be on all three sides. An entry to the Don River Park makes more sense to me here.

42
 
You must log in or register to post here.

Back
Top