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

It really is shameful the amount of sub par junk that gets tossed up in Toronto. Frankly, I don't understand what separates this city from other major centers that take architecture seriously enough to ensure that the really prominent developments have quality designs.

aA are among the worst culprits but they are not alone. The glass box template was not even cool or attractive 10 years ago; now it is so passe as to be a joke. Many major international firms have turned away from the sterile glass look, and are opting for something warmer and with more natural textures. (Course, this would be news for most of the local developers, architects and city hall big shots.)

A housing crash might be the best thing to happen to the city at this point. It could clear out some of the worst actors and provide a sufficient pause until glass boxes become so out of fashion that they won't even be economical to build.
 
I have forwarded the DRP email to Oxford, Menkes, and Pinnacle. If any of you wish to join me in expressing your concerns regarding this critical juncture in Toronto's development their addresses are the following:

designreviewpanel@toronto.ca
maxxsupport@oxfordproperties.com
info@menkes.com
info@pinnacleinternational.ca

If ten of us write the DRP and Menkes perhaps they will take notice. Honestly fellow urbantorontonians, is it not time to draw a line in the sand? Is it not time to express the concerns that so many of you have so eloquently described over the years to those that have the power to change things for the better?

Show your love to the city you love.

Peace.
 
Last edited:
Thank you for taking the time to express what we are all thinking and providing the emails below. I have also forwarded the concerns to all.

Jonathan Carruthers said:
I have forwarded the DRP email to Oxford, Menkes, and Pinnacle. If any of you wish to join me in expressing your concerns regarding this critical juncture in Toronto's development their addresses are the following:

designreviewpanel@toronto.ca
maxxsupport@oxfordproperties.com
info@menkes.com
info@pinnacleinternational.ca

If ten of us write the DRP and Menkes perhaps they will take notice. Honestly fellow urbantorontonians, is it not time to draw a line in the sand? Is it not time to express the concerns that so many of you have so eloquently described over the years to those that have the power to change things for the better?

Show your love to the city you love.

Peace.
Click to expand...
 
Stefan said:
Thank you for taking the time to express what we are all thinking and providing the emails below. I have also forwarded the concerns to all.
Click to expand...

Yeah,
Maybe many are not happy with the design of these 2 towers but look at the big picture
(park, school, new road, Path, retail, office, heritage retention, etc.)...no bad for a place that was a dump just a couple years ago

I'm sorry to say but this development is too far along @ City Planning for any ones emails to do much of a change here
sugar warf.jpeg


Once complete, Menkes says Sugar Wharf will stand as the largest mixed-use development on the Toronto waterfront, providing employment space for up to 4,500 people, and hosting a residential population as high as 8,000 people. To support the massive influx of residents brought on by Sugar Wharf and surrounding developments, the developer is working hand in hand with the Toronto District School Board to integrate a new school into one of the podiums. It is planned to be the board's first 'vertically-integrated' school. The development will also connect via the PATH network through Pinnacle's One Yonge development to Union Station and beyond.
Read it and see what else is in store...http://urbantoronto.ca/news/2018/01/condo-retail-complex-new-lcbo-hqs-dubbed-sugar-wharf
 

Attachments

  • sugar warf.jpeg
    sugar warf.jpeg
    73.9 KB · Views: 735
That's great that's it's has all those features . But where's the WOW factor ! They should have a clause that all buildings having a front row view of the harbour. Should have some kind of iconic appearance to it !
 
I actually...don't mind it *gasp* - at least the grey diagonal design gives it something unique. I would have liked an interesting balcony treatment, or going crazier on the diagonal design (maybe blue and white to add a splash of colour to the skyline, or even multiple colours). But I'm relieved it has something unique, and if done well it could look quite nice (the white + grey will have to be very clean though, and from the renderings the window glazing looks decently metallic/reflective which would look nice contrasted against the white balconies). I also like the look of the podium. All that being said, this is partly because I didn't have my hopes up given the previous renderings.

I'm willing to bet the northern-most two buildings of Phase 2 will be similar to this in that it won't be anything grand, but here's hoping the front (southernmost) building will be something truly eye-catching - that's the one that will matter the most.

I also agree with the poster above. The Sugar Wharf community itself looks to be shaping up to be great, albeit lacking striking architecture. I think that's the issue with the DRP - they're focused on the design not in terms of striking architecture but rather in terms of the built design and how it will impact those that live there.
 
enrigue8 said:
I have a new render.
For me, it's not the best building but i accept it .
It's really inspired from Harbour Plaza.

Source : talkcondo

View attachment 144857
Click to expand...

There is nothing "inspired" or inspiring about this. They are taking the same shameless approach to their "architecture" as a number of similar projects recently. A square box with a little balcony treatment. The city needs to do something to control the architecture with proposals as the developers in the city seem to have no pride. Especially with such a visible city site. this mess will never be hidden by future development - it will be there for many decades - a scar on the city's face.
Pretty sad how little these developers care about the city and their own image.
 
Everybody needs to look at the big picture here. These are only the 2 shortest residential towers, and will be off to the side. The 3 big towers may yet steal the show and make these 2 seem insignificant.
 
ChesterCopperpot said:
It will be deleted at 9:01am on Monday morning
Click to expand...

I am not here to be troublesome however there needs to be more clarity as to how the quote that will be deleted conflicts with the present Rules of Conduct. I have written nothing personally offensive. The comment was both "legible", "strong" and "meaningful to the thread." It was written in somewhat understandable English with somewhat "proper grammar." There was no "YELLING", "name calling", "trolling", use of "spam," "advertising" or "listing." It pertained to "the merits of certain developers, projects, or districts" and to "the merits of site plans, architecture, and local context."

This cannot be the first time that members of the site have expressed their concerns to the DRP and to developers. The merits of developers are discussed on a daily basis and the DRP is mentioned at least on a weekly basis. In fact it could be argued with appreciation, that this site has been the medium through which many of us have learned about the different players and governmental bodies that shape this city.

If we are venturing into new territory that challenges the mandate of this website then clarity is sought. It is both a natural and inevitable progression that those who share common opinions and a sense of powerlessness would want to take their formed opinions (thanks to Urbantoronto) to those who effect change in the city. The developers, architects and governmental bodies all have public email addresses through which the public are invited to make contact. If they do not want to hear the opinions of those who wish to reach out to them then it is upon them to state so explicitly. If not they can simply press delete.

To some what amounts to a small number of motivated members may represent a state of "anarchy" where for others it is a state of organization and anyone could be forgiven for thinking so.

If my motivations are under scrutiny then I would refer you to the letter I sent to the DRP (previous page) that invited DRP members to join and take part in the discussions. If anything I have promoted the site as the go to place where planners, architects and developers can get the temperature of the city's interested citizens.

Everything I say is respectful to other members and I hold no malice towards those who do not agree with me. I do so because regardless of opinion we all essentially want the same thing; a vibrant and livable Toronto.

On that note I will assume your directive was made without prejudice and was simply a heads up.

And for that I thank you.
 
You must log in or register to post here.

Back
Top