Toronto Sugar Wharf Condominiums (Phase 1) | 231m | 70s | Menkes | a—A

Only thing decent about this proposal is the preservation of the warehouse building. Otherwise it's very uninspiring and will be an emotionless, glass void with a prime spot in Toronto's postcard shots.
 
mjl08 said:
Only thing decent about this proposal is the preservation of the warehouse building. Otherwise it's very uninspiring and will be an emotionless, glass void with a prime spot in Toronto's postcard shots.
Click to expand...
I have to agree, if it turns out like the renderings. There is hope that the condos will evolve, and be more inspiring. More blue/green boxes the core doesn't need.
 
bmiller said:
I have to agree, if it turns out like the renderings. There is hope that the condos will evolve, and be more inspiring. More blue/green boxes the core doesn't need.
Click to expand...

Not to beat a dead horse, but this is Menkes, so don't hold your breath (notwithstanding the excellent Harbour Plaza condos).

To me, the one minor bright spot is the presence of the low-rise retail strip fronting the park (provided they keep those units fine-grain); though, as someone pointed out, that bridge to it has got to go.
 
cd concept said:
Can some one tell me why are developers creating such cheap looking buildings downtown ?
Click to expand...

Scenario: You can make $100 million, but legislation allows you to do a cheaper design which will result in you making $200 million profit.

Which would you prefer? To make lots of money, or to make $100 million less?

I'm being slightly tongue-in-cheek, but I think it gets the idea across.
 
modernizt said:
Scenario: You can make $100 million, but legislation allows you to do a cheaper design which will result in you making $200 million profit.

Which would you prefer? To make lots of money, or to make $100 million less?

I'm being slightly tongue-in-cheek, but I think it gets the idea across.
Click to expand...
Please identify what legislation we can use to implement better design.

Or how one identifies 'better design'.
 
For starters: you can legislate stricter standards for materials, better energy performance targets, and protecting against ways of getting around said targets (a lot of sustainable design stuff in the code currently is a bunch of fluff).

I'm not talking about design in terms of people's subjective aesthetic ideas about a building. That cannot be legislated, and I would fear what that might look like, given that architects already have more and more of their design power and expertise taken from them by the process, tight timelines, and the over-involvement of planners and others on particular design matters.

But design in terms of performance and quality of systems - that is something that can absolutely be legislated, and in some countries, is done very effectively.
 
modernizt said:
For starters: you can legislate stricter standards for materials, better energy performance targets, and protecting against ways of getting around said targets (a lot of sustainable design stuff in the code currently is a bunch of fluff).
Click to expand...
You see, that is a double edged sword. Tighter energy performance standards would mean things like Ryerson's SLC would not be built as designed. The ground floor design of the SLC is incredibly energy inefficient, yet one of the greatest design buildings completed recently in this city.

modernizt said:
But design in terms of performance and quality of systems - that is something that can absolutely be legislated, and in some countries, is done very effectively.
Click to expand...
If you have examples or resources to that effect, I wouldn't mind learning what other countries have done.
 
We can also look at the effect that existing regulations, standards, and guidelines have on built form and material choices (among other things) and, in essence, back into a "solution" (in all its subjectivity, of course).

From a built form standpoint, for starters, I wouldn't mind doing away with (or at least curtailing) Planning's slavishness to podium-and-point towers, 25m separation distances, stepback and angular plane requirements, along with its obsessions around height.

Each of those requirements was, of course, intended to provide a framework within which to generally improve livability both within the buildings and in the area around them, but my personal opinion is many if not all of them aren't effective in accomplishing those goals.

Come to think of it, I also wouldn't mind a dedicated thread where we discuss specific gripes with and potential solutions to existing guidelines, if others are interested...
 
What do you mean "the ground floor design is energy inefficient"? A building is a collective system. One does not measure the performance of a single building level, and I can't think of a way in which the ground level of the SLC would have much different energy use than any number of academic/assembly occupancy buildings.
 
The SLC is literally just curtain wall. You can look at the top mullion and its clearly nailed into the ceiling with a gasket strip. The concrete slab is continuous from outside the building envelope to inside the envelope. That's not just thermal bridging but also a literal "cold" mass being thrust into the building. Before the panelling went up you could see this more clearly. Anecdotally, due to how cold it is, and how difficult it is to heat, they're only letting people go through 1 set of doors, despite the code mandating that there should be like 3 or 4.

One should look at the ground floor specifically because it is an atrium - a big space to regulate temperature and provide energy for. While a building is a collective system, you can certainly point to specific weakpoints in the system as bringing down the overall performance. The upper floors are wholly contained and are not the issue here.

Sure, one could say that the SLC is still an energy efficient building given the code and regulations at the time of construction, but the point is if we made even more stringent regulations, it can curb creative and innovative designs like the SLC.
 
Okay, random, but I have a bit of a problem with the new name.

Dictionary

wharf
(h)wôrf/
noun
  1. a level quayside area to which a ship may be moored to load and unload.
    synonyms: quay, pier, dock, berth, landing, jetty;
Click to expand...

This is not on the shoreline where a ship can be moored. This is on the north side of the road.
 
You must log in or register to post here.

Back
Top