ushahid
Senior Member
Looks like those panels are light grey and not mirrored like LCBO building and if I'm not wrong I see some grey spanderel too. Hard to judge from Cellphone screen.
Toronto Sugar Wharf Condominiums (Phase 1) | 231m | 70s | Menkes | a—A
- Thread starter ChesterCopperpot
- Start date
DtTO
Active Member
Either way, it's safe to assume that curtain wall cladding won't be what's used for the tower portions. Not like it matters, since aA's schtick is to wrap everything in balconies. I wish Hariri Pontarini designed this; they rarely let this city down and their design vocabulary has more than just 'wraparound balconies' in it.
ADRM
Senior Member
HPA has just as many duds as (if not more than) aA, but regardless, this is a comment that is better directed at the subpar developers they've worked for on those projects than it is at either of the architectural firms -- both of which have demonstrated the ability to do excellent work with developers who care.
ushahid
Senior Member
i agree. but something this prominent would have looked much better design wise if HPA designed it.
Right?! HPA did such an amazing job on Sixty Colborne and Fleur that you don't wanna mess around with an unproven quantity like aA.
42
ushahid
Senior Member
^So what happened to aA when they designed this project?
ProjectEnd
Superstar
Is that a truism? Nothing wrong with Novus, Ivory, The Code, etc. etc. etc...
ushahid
Senior Member
I guess u missed the Prominent part.Those are tiny little projects I'm talking about big projects like this one. Look at the design of this project and look at The well or One Yonge, well designed and well planned projects. Seriously tell me which one looks better? This or the latter 2?
I'm not saying the quality will turn out bad. I'm just saying design sucks and I know HPA would never screw up a project of this scale.
I'm not saying the quality will turn out bad. I'm just saying design sucks and I know HPA would never screw up a project of this scale.
Last edited:
Wait a minute, I’m now remembering that HPA did all the sides of PJ Condos.
Hmm, maybe it’s not only which firm is designing a building, but which one is paying for it too that has an effect on how a building turns out. HPA is great, but when the instances where the developers they’ve worked for have had to “find efficiencies”, they’ve been stuck with some not so great looking buildings in their portfolio too. It’s inevitable. aA normally produce great stuff too, but they’re all subject to developers wanting every square metre they can get stuffed on a lot, so we get some weird massings sometimes, and the frequent enough reworking of exterior finishes because the developer is either facing ballooning construction costs or just wants to make a bigger chunk of change.
aA created a great-looking pair of towers for Menkes at Harbour Plaza, and Menkes obviously wanted another variation on that theme here, so why wouldn’t they go with aA again?
42
Hmm, maybe it’s not only which firm is designing a building, but which one is paying for it too that has an effect on how a building turns out. HPA is great, but when the instances where the developers they’ve worked for have had to “find efficiencies”, they’ve been stuck with some not so great looking buildings in their portfolio too. It’s inevitable. aA normally produce great stuff too, but they’re all subject to developers wanting every square metre they can get stuffed on a lot, so we get some weird massings sometimes, and the frequent enough reworking of exterior finishes because the developer is either facing ballooning construction costs or just wants to make a bigger chunk of change.
aA created a great-looking pair of towers for Menkes at Harbour Plaza, and Menkes obviously wanted another variation on that theme here, so why wouldn’t they go with aA again?
42
ushahid
Senior Member
i agree with you Interchange and thats what i am saying that quality matters the most, more than anything but design matter too alittle. and in my posts have been talking about design, not quality . compare the design of this project to the One Yonge next door and tell me which one looks better?@interchange.
PJ condos are nice looking condos sadly Pinnacle is the one that screwed up on PJ(quality) not HPA.
PJ condos are nice looking condos sadly Pinnacle is the one that screwed up on PJ(quality) not HPA.
ADRM
Senior Member
The disconnect, I think, is arising from the distinction you're trying to draw here: design and quality are inextricably linked, the terms of which are defined by the developer, not the architect.
The conceptual design process is an iterative one and takes many different forms; in some cases, both design and material quality are strictly defined by the developer -- "you're going to give us a strictly rectilinear floorplate, a window wall system for the clear glazing, and aluminum panels for the opaque glazing, go" -- whereas in other cases, the brief is a bit looser; something like: "our budget for total construction costs is x, design me whatever you think looks nice that fits within that manifold."
There are of course many other ways in which that discussion unfolds, but the point is to say that it is fatally reductionist to say "developer defines material quality; architect defines design quality", because in reality those two concepts are not only inextricably linked, but controlled predominantly by the developer.
This is why both aA and HPA have done shit buildings.
argus
Active Member
condovo
Senior Member
That glass is looking pretty clear and high-quality to me. I'm wondering if it's low-iron. Does anyone know?
argus
Active Member
There is a dispersed pattern on the glazing - which is not clear in this image. It is clear glass.