stjames2queenwest
Senior Member
‘Meh’ seems too generous.
Toronto Sugar Wharf Condominiums (Phase 1) | 231m | 70s | Menkes | a—A
- Thread starter ChesterCopperpot
- Start date
kotsy
Senior Member
I'd be happy if the balconies were actually white like they appear in this photo. We need more white on our skyscrapers.
TheKingEast
Senior Member
Couldn't have said it any better. This area should have knock-out developments...not the same old crap.
Stefan
Active Member
innsertnamehere
Superstar
to be fair Harbour Plaza is extremely well executed from an end buyer perspective. It's easily one of the nicest buildings in the city, even if it is a little bland. The amenities, finishes, etc. are second to none.
TheKingEast
Senior Member
It's nice but I don't think the interiors are all that special. Pretty bland and tiny IMO.
enrigue8
Active Member
condovo
Senior Member
I don't mind this. It's on a continuum with Harbour Plaza and Pure/Clear Spirit. I would've have liked more articulation of the towers/balconies though.
Yegger
Active Member
I am aghast at the level of sterility the team behind this project was able to achieve. For an area that is to become the face of the city for years to come, we should expect much better.
Amare
Senior Member
This proposal reminds me more of a Casa style condo (ie: Casa II and III) more so than a Harbour Plaza type building, and to be frank we really have enough of those in this city.
Jonathan Carruthers
New Member
For what it's worth, I have sent the following email to the Toronto Design Review Panel:
To the members of the Design Review Panel,
There continues to be concern by interested citizens at the quality of form and design in many of the new builds in the Toronto region. Architecture is a shared art form that defines a city's momentum forward. However it seems that the opinions of the millions that must engage with this art form on a daily basis are rarely considered.
If architecture is to create a sense of place and pride among those who live in the Toronto region then why is it not the mandate of the Design Review Panel to exert greater influence upon the experience of that form both at street level and from a distance. Instead, far too often new builds fail to meet the expectations created by submitted renders, fail in terms of the experience at street level and fail in terms of delivering iconic and/or unique vistas.
The most important vista the city should take pride in is the view from the waterfront. Three major developments in the area; The Hub, One Yonge and Sugar Wharf will significantly change the way the world will see Toronto. Therefore it is of primary importance that iconic architecture be sought for this critical region.
It is both my hope and the hopes of many who share my concerns that the Design Review Panel engage more forcefully in the massing and design features of these three projects. Though you have achieved some success with the One Yonge project the same cannot be said in my opinion for The Hub and Sugar Wharf.
Many I believe are very excited that Rogers Stirk Harbour and Partners have been engaged as the architects of record for Oxford Properties' "Hub" project, however the box-like massing is too generic falling well short of what this esteemed firm is capable of. A project like this needs to push the envelop and pull away from this all to common form. The tapered form of their award winning Leadenhall Building is world class architecture for a world class city. Toronto should expect nothing less as it's stature as a world class city grows.
The renders for the Sugar Wharf project suffer from a lack of creative initiative. Though the balcony treatment of Menkes' Harbour Plaza project is admirable, based on the renders for Sugar Wharf I am afraid that Menkes and aA are not taking seriously their responsibility in redefining the eastern waterfront. In fact in my opinion, this project is failing miserably.
Tax payer money has been used to plan out new infrastructure and sew new waterfront neighbourhoods together. Tax payer money has been spent setting the table for these three projects. Waterfront Toronto has worked extremely hard in redefining Toronto's waterfront experience. The city has made no secret of it's attempt to get citizens out of their cars and onto bicycles, into mass transit and out on their feet as pedestrians.
How then is it possible for developers particularly in this case to offer anything but the highest standards in terms of the architectural form. Many including myself are at the end of our tether as we watch powerlessly as the city is held at ransom by developers and architectural firms that continuously take Toronto to the cleaners for their own profit.
This must end.
If you are interested at all in how many concerned citizens feel about Toronto development, I invite you all to the urbantoronto.ca website where you will find threads that pertain to each and every development in the Toronto region.
Respectfully submitted by a very concerned observer,
Jonathan Carruthers.
To the members of the Design Review Panel,
There continues to be concern by interested citizens at the quality of form and design in many of the new builds in the Toronto region. Architecture is a shared art form that defines a city's momentum forward. However it seems that the opinions of the millions that must engage with this art form on a daily basis are rarely considered.
If architecture is to create a sense of place and pride among those who live in the Toronto region then why is it not the mandate of the Design Review Panel to exert greater influence upon the experience of that form both at street level and from a distance. Instead, far too often new builds fail to meet the expectations created by submitted renders, fail in terms of the experience at street level and fail in terms of delivering iconic and/or unique vistas.
The most important vista the city should take pride in is the view from the waterfront. Three major developments in the area; The Hub, One Yonge and Sugar Wharf will significantly change the way the world will see Toronto. Therefore it is of primary importance that iconic architecture be sought for this critical region.
It is both my hope and the hopes of many who share my concerns that the Design Review Panel engage more forcefully in the massing and design features of these three projects. Though you have achieved some success with the One Yonge project the same cannot be said in my opinion for The Hub and Sugar Wharf.
Many I believe are very excited that Rogers Stirk Harbour and Partners have been engaged as the architects of record for Oxford Properties' "Hub" project, however the box-like massing is too generic falling well short of what this esteemed firm is capable of. A project like this needs to push the envelop and pull away from this all to common form. The tapered form of their award winning Leadenhall Building is world class architecture for a world class city. Toronto should expect nothing less as it's stature as a world class city grows.
The renders for the Sugar Wharf project suffer from a lack of creative initiative. Though the balcony treatment of Menkes' Harbour Plaza project is admirable, based on the renders for Sugar Wharf I am afraid that Menkes and aA are not taking seriously their responsibility in redefining the eastern waterfront. In fact in my opinion, this project is failing miserably.
Tax payer money has been used to plan out new infrastructure and sew new waterfront neighbourhoods together. Tax payer money has been spent setting the table for these three projects. Waterfront Toronto has worked extremely hard in redefining Toronto's waterfront experience. The city has made no secret of it's attempt to get citizens out of their cars and onto bicycles, into mass transit and out on their feet as pedestrians.
How then is it possible for developers particularly in this case to offer anything but the highest standards in terms of the architectural form. Many including myself are at the end of our tether as we watch powerlessly as the city is held at ransom by developers and architectural firms that continuously take Toronto to the cleaners for their own profit.
This must end.
If you are interested at all in how many concerned citizens feel about Toronto development, I invite you all to the urbantoronto.ca website where you will find threads that pertain to each and every development in the Toronto region.
Respectfully submitted by a very concerned observer,
Jonathan Carruthers.
Last edited:
cd concept
Senior Member
I like the first rendering the balconies created a more rich looking facade like the Harbour Plaza ! I don't understand why the final renderings alway look cheap ! I can't even find the first rendering . If someone finds it displays it with the new one and tell which looks better !
.dwg
Active Member
The idea that architects are okay with the state of architecture in these types of developments is false. I think many people grossly misunderstand the power dynamic between condo developer and architect. Spoiler alert: architects have very little say and are as (or more!) frustrated by the situation as anyone on UrbanToronto. They also get knocked around by their clients who are constantly changing their minds but also expecting everything to be done quickly and cheaply.
Unless you think aA should walk off the job and let one of thousands of other firms take the project and do a crappier job (and risk layoffs or going out of business if this became a habit) then I’m not sure what some of you are suggesting.
Also, the Design Review Panel has no control over what Menkes does here.
Unless you think aA should walk off the job and let one of thousands of other firms take the project and do a crappier job (and risk layoffs or going out of business if this became a habit) then I’m not sure what some of you are suggesting.
Also, the Design Review Panel has no control over what Menkes does here.
Last edited:
Jonathan Carruthers
New Member
You have essentially defined the problem. That does not mean that we have to accept it. Who else is there but the Design Review Panel. If it is powerless then the city is at the mercy of sub standard developers. That is the intent of the message. Something has to give. The status quo is just not good enough.
Jonathan Carruthers
New Member
I will refer you to the Design Review Panel's stated mandate to advance this conversation:
The Design Review Panel (DRP) is comprised of private sector design professionals – architects, landscape architects, urban designers and engineers – who provide independent, objective advice to city staff aimed at improving matters of design that affect the public realm. This includes matters such as preserving the uniqueness of place, maintaining vitality, ensuring comfort and safety, and making new development compatible with its surroundings.
The Panel provides advice for both private development and public projects, including advice on new urban design policy. Advice is based on professional judgment, understanding of good design principles, conformance with the Official Plan and other related documents (design guidelines, secondary plans etc.), and the design quality of the subject project.
The Design Review Panel (DRP) is comprised of private sector design professionals – architects, landscape architects, urban designers and engineers – who provide independent, objective advice to city staff aimed at improving matters of design that affect the public realm. This includes matters such as preserving the uniqueness of place, maintaining vitality, ensuring comfort and safety, and making new development compatible with its surroundings.
The Panel provides advice for both private development and public projects, including advice on new urban design policy. Advice is based on professional judgment, understanding of good design principles, conformance with the Official Plan and other related documents (design guidelines, secondary plans etc.), and the design quality of the subject project.