Toronto Waterfront Innovation Centre | 53.03m | 11s | Waterfront Toronto | Sweeny &Co

ProjectEnd said:
There's also the moral dimension to proposing something you know you can't build just to win a competition, then abandoning it entirely when costs start to rise. Menkes has a lot to answer for here.
Click to expand...

That's such an important point. If we're going to have a design competition, why is the winner allowed to keep the contract if they can't deliver on their winning proposal??
 
Unfortunately I think that's a bit of a weak argument as developers are not legally bound to deliver from an initial concept that technically doesn't exist. Reality (cold hard monies) in this case, trumps feeling (quality of space, aesthetics). And architects in the end usually care a lot about staying on a project (and paying the bills) more than their vision, which is unfortunate, really.

I would argue from the perspective of opportunity cost- would an AAA firm locate here if their building looked like it belongs in Markham? Would people come here if the spaces felt like Vaughan? What kind of retail is this space going to inspire? A Rexall?

Maybe also try to get some big names like Jennifer Keesmaat involved. Shame is never a bad idea.

I also wonder if they might be showing some new renderings tonight. Could be a surprise, or maybe not.

Waterloo_Guy said:
I thought it was the DRP who rejected it.
Click to expand...

I think they told Sweeny & Co to refine the project, and they came back with this. Onus is on the developer, not the DRP.
 
ProjectEnd said:
There's also the moral dimension to proposing something you know you can't build just to win a competition, then abandoning it entirely when costs start to rise. Menkes has a lot to answer for here.
Click to expand...

I thought it was the DRP who rejected it.
 
Waterloo_Guy said:
I thought it was the DRP who rejected it.
Click to expand...

Not rejecting it for this. It's like a student being told that D isn't good enough, and came back with an F- and then blaming the teacher for not accepting a paper of passing grade when it was on the offer.

The development was criticized first and foremost as being too similar in appearance to the Ryerson Student Learning Centre. The Panel also pointed out a disconnect in the two volumes of the building, with the eastern end articulated as a simple rectangular box that seemed underwhelming and did not relate to its surroundings, in comparison with the more angular western face of the building. Further comments criticized the intrusion of the western stair into the park space of Sugar Beach, the size of the connecting bridge between the two volumes, and the use of an all-glass facade in relation to the LEED goals of the project.

After the second review, the Panel strongly encouraged the team to "undertake a debrief meeting and a major re-thinking of the design," wishing for one that was more unique, sculptural, and contextual befitting the 'innovation' included in its name. They promptly rejected the design of the building.
Click to expand...

http://urbantoronto.ca/news/2016/09/revised-design-waterfront-innovation-centre-debuts-online

AoD
 
AlvinofDiaspar said:
After the second review, the Panel strongly encouraged the team to "undertake a debrief meeting and a major re-thinking of the design," wishing for one that was more unique, sculptural, and contextual befitting the 'innovation' included in its name. They promptly rejected the design of the building.
Click to expand...

EXCUSE ME?????

And they come up with this instead? I'm kind of encouraged that this hasn't been approved yet but at the same time, I don't have much faith that something great will be built here, given Waterfront Toronto's acceptance of the other glass clad boxes in the area like Corus and George Brown College.
 
MetroMan said:
EXCUSE ME?????

And they come up with this instead? I'm kind of encouraged that this hasn't been approved yet but at the same time, I don't have much faith that something great will be built here, given Waterfront Toronto's acceptance of the other glass clad boxes in the area like Corus and George Brown College.
Click to expand...

Hence given a D and came back with a F-.

AoD
 
AlvinofDiaspar said:
Odd to market a building like it's the airport corporate centre. I wonder if the Well or Bay Park did that.

AoD
Click to expand...

Yeah, I'm not sold on that excuse. You'd think they'd market the building with their shiniest and prettiest rendering. Not a cell phone picture of a Brampton office park.

IMG_0340.JPG
 

Attachments

  • IMG_0340.JPG
    IMG_0340.JPG
    189.2 KB · Views: 416
I was also at the meeting but left half way through the Q&A. There was almost nothing about this building, it was more of a general what's been happening, what's coming up, etc. But as Metroman said, it appears as if the current renders are only placeholders while the developer goes and recruit potential tenants. I do like the emphasis on finding good tenants that fit the (technology) innovation theme. I still find it odd that they would use a placeholder concept like this - is it a common practice? It's not particularly innovative and pretty terrible from a marketing perspective (IMHO!) - I mean, I don't think it'll entice companies to move/expand offices.
 
You must log in or register to post here.

Back
Top