C-mac
Senior Member
Agree. Anything that's literally not a green/blue glass box is good in my books.
Toronto Sugar Wharf Condominiums (Phase 1) | 231m | 70s | Menkes | a—A
- Thread starter ChesterCopperpot
- Start date
Agree. Anything that's literally not a green/blue glass box is good in my books.
emphurent
Active Member
I'd like to think we have more standards than that for design excellence. This is the type of statement that unintentionally absolves the developer of being unambitious with their designs. Besides, it's looking as if Menkes is a perfect candidate for most unambitious developers this city is stuck with, awarded to them simply based on their awful Phase 2 proposal alone. (not to mention the crazy fluctuations in quality of each build)
I hope I'm wrong about the balcony colours being too flat, but Menkes could've been more ambitious like examples I posted earlier in the thread.
On the topic of grey: I personally believe flat grey is the worst colour trend of the past five years that's unfortunately seen many (older) buildings painted or glazed in a colour that strips any real communication from the design. It's so flat, and is really depressing in a winter climate.
Grey cladding has also been attached to only the worst of the worst this city has seen: Design Haus, Strada, College Street Dorm Jail...
The other standard Toronto colours might not be great, but in no way can grey be defended.
Last edited:
TossYourJacket
Senior Member
The sad part is that least these balconies have patterns. Phase 2 doesn't even have that (unless things change before construction).
The reality is, that no one should have ever expected any level of iconic design for the waterfront when it is mostly owned by private developers who have no interest beyond making money. They don't care what the postcard view of the city is, hell, they don't care what the building looks like in 5 years as long as they have sold all the units and made their money. As long as we have a system that allows developers to build the cheapest ugliest crap wherever they want, with no consequences, then that is what we will get.
That said, this project is... fine. But we could have done so much better with this parcel of land.
The reality is, that no one should have ever expected any level of iconic design for the waterfront when it is mostly owned by private developers who have no interest beyond making money. They don't care what the postcard view of the city is, hell, they don't care what the building looks like in 5 years as long as they have sold all the units and made their money. As long as we have a system that allows developers to build the cheapest ugliest crap wherever they want, with no consequences, then that is what we will get.
That said, this project is... fine. But we could have done so much better with this parcel of land.
C-mac
Senior Member
Do you really think anyone from Meknes is reading this and cares???
They're going to do what they're going to do, so let's not making a mountain out of molehill over a academic statement on an internet discussion forum.
Last edited:
ciceror
Active Member
Almost all of New York's most beautiful buildings were created by private developers - They spared no expense to make something that was stunning, the difference is that after WW2 architectural philosophy and the general culture changed into becoming much more minimalist.
emphurent
Active Member
No, I would not imagine anybody at any development company takes the concerns of one person or even a group too seriously as long as it doesn't affect sales. Though going out of your way to say that expressing my opinion is pointless seems a bit pessimistic. If you've watched this forum for long enough you'd see developers and architects do occasionally browse the forum!
So making those opinions heard isn't pointless. Especially as there are developers who do care in this city. I just wish Menkes cared to try more. It's really not too much to ask for more than a pile of grey.
bmiller
Active Member
Developments tend to sell at a fairly quick pace regardless of design. Location and price are more likely to affect sales than better quality materials and world renown architects. There are exceptions of course. The One for example. There are a limited number of
people willing and able to shell out many millions for a condo, although one million certainly doesn't get you what it did just a few short years ago.
people willing and able to shell out many millions for a condo, although one million certainly doesn't get you what it did just a few short years ago.
UtakataNoAnnex
Senior Member
I think Mr. End had once indicated I believe that grey is easier and cheaper to produce when it comes to bottom line thinking of developers. That's why we're seeing a lot of it. And may see a lot more of that in the future. /sigh
Last edited:
TheKingEast
Senior Member
look at Menkes projects around the city. BORING! Thry are a boring developer that builds to maximize profits like any other builders. The difference is some builders may pay more attention to design while others couldn’t give a flying poop. As I said years ago, the waterfront would have been better served by having More design conscious developers. But this is Toronto my expectations were always low.
C-mac
Senior Member
Okay, but they don't care, so telling someone that made a comment that grey is at least a bit better then the countless the green glass rectangles in the city "absolves developers of having ambition" is reaching for straws and quite frankly uncalled for.
drum118
Superstar
Nov 20
stjames2queenwest
Senior Member
I prefer toothpaste green to be honest. But hopefully it will come together. If the pattern is interesting I may be able to appreciate it.
emphurent
Active Member
I just don't understand why so defensive, as you're speaking on behalf of another user. The reason I replied in the first place was because of the way they stated their feelings for the color; it implies they would've rather had neither, but grey was the lesser evil in their mind though they may actually want something different than those two options. In that case I'm encouraging a nuanced discussion which I think is beneficial. But they are totally allowed to enjoy the grey even if it's their first choice. I never said they shouldn't and you seem to be reading my tone completely wrong.
I just gave my two cents as I'm allowed to. I feel *personally* as I stated in my post that grey is an unambitious color. And other users agreed with at least one point in that post so I don't see it being a useless post. Most users don't tend to even flair their opinions (they shouldn't need to), but I generally do flair them as to not upset someone because they feel different.
There's really no reason to pick a fight like this over something quite small unless you just simply enjoy it. In which case I will no longer be responding as this forum is a place I come to enjoy my free time.
Last edited:
ushahid
Senior Member
^i've noticed it too. he gets a little aggressive some times. 
Bjays92
Senior Member
I generally agree.^i've noticed it too. he gets a little aggressive some times.
People are more than allowed to voice disagreements and I understand that some people enjoy being contrarian. This is a forum where we're allowed to express our opinions.
But to always default to defensive when someone doesn't agree with you just makes these threads a less enjoyable place to be.
That said, I think this building is like an anti Toronto. Normally buildings have seemingly good or even great designs that get squandered by "the great cheapening". In this case it seems like the podium, as well as tower glass and balcony cladding are seemingly high quality but suffer from poor and unambitious design choices.
Last edited: