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

syn said:
It's unfortunate so much of the waterfront is being shaped by Menkes.
Click to expand...

On the other hand, witness all the keyboard criticism of building that make an attempt, yet are still subjected to criticism because they somehow 'missed the mark'. 1 Yorkville is an example "the mullions are somehow slightly too grey (sobbing)...etc".
 
buildup said:
On the other hand, witness all the keyboard criticism of building that make an attempt, yet are still subjected to criticism because they somehow 'missed the mark'. 1 Yorkville is an example "the mullions are somehow slightly too grey (sobbing)...etc".
Click to expand...

That's fair - but in the grand scheme of things that's a very small group. If everyone in the city had that kind of passion for quality (or what they feel is quality) perhaps developers would be forced to raise the bar.

Menkes deserves the criticism they get, IMO.
 
Hi everyone !
Here is a new render from a Toronto Star article .
Honestly from this angle, it's not bad at all.
It's different from the render i saw on the article written today on Urban Toronto about Sugar Wharf .
I prefer the render below and i hope this one will be the final render .

sugar.jpg



The link to the article : https://www.thestar.com/opinion/sta...s-have-become-torontos-new-city-builders.html
 

Attachments

  • sugar.jpg
    sugar.jpg
    207.2 KB · Views: 436
  • sugar.jpg
    sugar.jpg
    207.2 KB · Views: 711
When I was at Menkes Sugar Wharf presentation center, i was told the park will have water feature and retail components (restaurants, fast food etc.) integrated instead of just a "pure" park. So, this rendering seems in line with what i've been told. Best part is, this park is not exclusive for Sugar Wharf's residents and will be available to the public.
 
Jowblow333333 said:
When I was at Menkes Sugar Wharf presentation center, i was told the park will have water feature and retail components (restaurants, fast food etc.) integrated instead of just a "pure" park. So, this rendering seems in line with what i've been told. Best part is, this park is not exclusive for Sugar Wharf's residents and will be available to the public.
Click to expand...
I was not suggesting that the pictures (artists' impressions) shown on renderings are not based on the thoughts/hopes/expectations etc of developers, only that the cruel reality of the market and the desire to maximise profit frequently sees these thoughts, expectations and hopes scaled back.
 
Jowblow333333 said:
When I was at Menkes Sugar Wharf presentation center, i was told the park will have water feature and retail components (restaurants, fast food etc.) integrated instead of just a "pure" park. So, this rendering seems in line with what i've been told. Best part is, this park is not exclusive for Sugar Wharf's residents and will be available to the public.
Click to expand...
Unless promises are put in writing on the agreement of purchase and sale, developers aren't really obligated to deliver the bells and whistles.
 
raptor said:
Unless promises are put in writing on the agreement of purchase and sale, developers aren't really obligated to deliver the bells and whistles.
Click to expand...

Quite right. I don't know why they bother publishing renderings any more. They rarely build what they show. All they do is set people up for disappointment and make consumers feel cheated.

That pathway won't be 20 feet wide with what looks like grey rectangular granite pavement blocks cut at an angle. The pathway might not even be curved and the border on the edge of the pond likely won't be that shape with those proportions. Will they use that shade of grey? Will it be grey at all? And that's just the pathway. Then there are the benches, the 'garden' behind the benches, the fountains, the number of fountains, the height they shoot water, which direction they shoot it.... one can go on and on. I haven't even gotten to the podium or building they're depicting.
 
Last edited:
I thought this park will be built by the City, no ?

Regardless, Menkes is one of the better builder in my opinion and they have so much skin in this strip (Waterfront Innovation Center), why would they want to jeopardize their goodwill and reputation. So, I am staying positive on this one.

Time will tell.
 
Last edited:
Interestingly, that render seems to show something that could really make the building look nice (in my opinion): it looks like the dark diagonal accent will actually be reflective (either metallic or glass), which would contrast really nicely with the white balconies. That seems to be a relatively unique balcony treatment and I think that could look really sharp.

And I agree with Jowblow, Menkes has every reason to build this one well - phase 1 is less than half of the residential that will be in this block (phase 2 will have three towers, each of which are the same size or taller than the phase 1 towers). If phase 1 sucks, it would no doubt impact the sales of phase 2.
 
Last edited:
This will definitely be a positive surprise, induced mostlyby how low our expectations are. I guess Menkes has perfected the under-promise and over deliver mantra. My problem is that I feel like we are designing City Place all over again. The colour scheme and general monotony is a far cry of what you'd see on the waterfront of a lot of other cities.
 
The criticism against aA is really tiring at this point. A lot of UTers don't understand how much of a short rope architects are kept on by most residential developers. Have you seen what other firms do for Menkes?
 
To some people aA can never be criticized. Anyways, I'm not sure who is at fault here but will base my opinion on the entire project. It is bland as hell. Whether that is Menkes or aA's fault, it's melba toast.

I'd say it's more a Menkes problem though because they build some really conservative looking buildings. Look at the projects they have done in the last little wild. As bland as can be.
 
Yegger said:
This will definitely be a positive surprise, induced mostlyby how low our expectations are. I guess Menkes has perfected the under-promise and over deliver mantra. My problem is that I feel like we are designing City Place all over again. The colour scheme and general monotony is a far cry of what you'd see on the waterfront of a lot of other cities.
Click to expand...

Just getting back from Chicago, we are really going about re-imagining this city the wrong way. We need to see better, bolder projects. Not the same old crap. Everything seems to be blue/green glass rectangle. We can't even change the shapes. Can't have stepbacks. Why can't we have a red or black tower? It's the same old shit. And you understand why sometimes the way people applaud this kind of stuff. Another forgettable project taking up important space.
 
Sugar Wharf will be the first project, maybe the only one that from the east of Yonge street that has direct PATH connection. Walking time from Sugar Wharf to Union Station would be approximately 10 minutes, to me, this is a big deal. With all the available components, location, retail, commercial, day care, elementary school, it will be a city in the city. This is a fantastic project.
 
You must log in or register to post here.

Back
Top