Toronto Q Tower | 197.4m | 59s | Lifetime | Wallman Architects

"Given the location and the building's exposure, surrounded by other buildings in the busy Waterfront area, Brown further elaborated on the synergy between Moebius's art and Wallman Architects; "it was crucial to collaborate with an architect that could deliver a design the city would be proud of." He added, "When you Google Toronto, the first image is a view from the water looking towards the city. We're building a tower next to the CN Tower, so it had to be visually stunning.""

A design the city would be proud of? Which city exactly? Surely can't be talking about Toronto.
It had to be visually stunning? Stunning, like with its ugliness? Sure, consider me stunned I guess.

These developers are on a whole other planet from the rest of us.

He needs to look at what some other architects are doing.
 
AlbertC said:
From an email by developer:


View attachment 504608
Click to expand...
I don’t understand why we get the cheapest and most mediocre looking towers right on the waterfront skyline. i wish there was some sort of policy that would demand high quality architecture at least in key areas of the city like our main waterfront/skyline view. This tower looks like very other tower in the entertainment district, it’s infill quality but will be in every Toronto skyline photo. Sad. There’s no way to hide this in decades to come.
 
Last edited:
khris said:
"Given the location and the building's exposure, surrounded by other buildings in the busy Waterfront area, Brown further elaborated on the synergy between Moebius's art and Wallman Architects; "it was crucial to collaborate with an architect that could deliver a design the city would be proud of." He added, "When you Google Toronto, the first image is a view from the water looking towards the city. We're building a tower next to the CN Tower, so it had to be visually stunning.""

A design the city would be proud of? Which city exactly? Surely can't be talking about Toronto.
It had to be visually stunning? Stunning, like with its ugliness? Sure, consider me stunned I guess.

These developers are on a whole other planet from the rest of us.

He needs to look at what some other architects are doing.
Click to expand...
I agree. When developers make those statements and deliver these cheap projects it’s an insult to people’s intelligence. Toronto doesn’t have many developers who actually show they care and have civil pride for the city built environment. They just wanna make money, they rarely care to make a meaningful contribution to the city
 
Last edited:
DarwinP said:
I don’t understand why we get the cheapest and most mediocre looking towers right on the waterfront skyline. i wish there was some sort policy that would demand for high quality architecture at least in key areas of the city like our main waterfront/skyline view. This tower looks like very other tower in the entertainment district, it’s infill quality but will be in every Toronto skyline photo. Sad. There’s no way to hide this in decades to come.
Click to expand...
Wonder if it's because they spent all their money on the land and can't afford a good design?
 
DarwinP said:
I don’t understand why we get the cheapest and most mediocre looking towers right on the waterfront skyline. i wish there was some sort policy that would demand for high quality architecture at least in key areas of the city like our main waterfront/skyline view. This tower looks like very other tower in the entertainment district, it’s infill quality but will be in every Toronto skyline photo. Sad. There’s no way to hide this in decades to come.
Click to expand...


The Water Club Condos right beside this proposal make me gag every time I see them. They're in so many skyline shots.
 
Last edited:
I'm not a fan of this proposal - I think it's pretty mediocre. (Or as the kids say, "It's mid.") And the language from the press release is just off the charts cringe.

But folks, the hyperbole! Every time you see the Water Club Condos, you gag???

I wish we could have a better condo here, but you know what, it's not going to ruin the skyline view.
 
The lament is less of what is going up there and more of the missed opportunity of what could have gone up there. This is why the mediocre just won't cut it here nor should it.
 
Well, mediocre here will likely cut it, because mediocre will likely get built.

Whether or not it "should" is a different discussion - but considering how much people get worked up about the DRP, I suspect that no building design would make folks universally happy.
 
Parkdalian said:
Well, mediocre here will likely cut it, because mediocre will likely get built.

Whether or not it "should" is a different discussion - but considering how much people get worked up about the DRP, I suspect that no building design would make folks universally happy.
Click to expand...

I wish I can say that it is even mediocre - that would have required some effort.

AoD
 
Every once in a while Toronto's deep-seated culture of parsimonious, provincial-minded indifference rears its ugly head. The reluctance to rise to occasions that demand greatness (à la Daniels Waterfront, YC Condos, and countless others) speaks volumes about the continuing lack of confidence, pride, and a sense of self-worth in this city's cultural DNA. I don't know how spandrelized this will be (doesn't seem good from the looks of it), but "design" of this calibre is, in any case, entirely unworthy of such a prime location and skyline view.
 
We used to have greatness. There was a time when the "prime waterfront skyline" was dominated by some of the best architecture in Canada.

Toronto, 1994 by Matt & Kristy, on Flickr

Toronto skyline at dawn by Will, on Flickr

Unfortunately the waterfront was a desolate wasteland back then. Now that land is finally being redeveloped (rightfully so) but mostly by developers that just want to make money and couldn't care less about skyline impact or "architectural greatness". Daniels, Menkes, Pinnacle, Tridel (or whoever) are just there to make a profit. There are plenty of newer gems too but even they get drowned out by the mostly mediocre or just plain awful stuff littering our waterfront skyline, the face of the city so to speak.
 
Pointless to say perhaps, but I still bemoan the loss of the previous proposal. I thought the two towers would have a bigger impact on the skyline and I liked the gold (or gold looking colour) on the facade, thought that design was really nice. Sad to see something so boring be in such a prominent spot on the skyline. And then borderline insulting seeing how the developer spins it with their colourful language.
 
Off topically: Just keep in mind that picturesque scene gives way to a sea of surface parking lots and dilapidated warehouses upon closer viewing...

...although I agree, those eyesore spaces could of been far better utilized than the junk towers we're seeing today. /sigh
 
From an email by Austin Birch:


qtow.jpg
 
You must log in or register to post here.

Back
Top