Toronto 2405 Lake Shore West | 109.6m | 33s | Winzen | Sweeny &Co

N

Northern Light

Superstar
Member Bio
Joined
May 20, 2007
Messages
33,455
Reaction score
95,605
Location
Toronto/EY
New application in the AIC for this prime western waterfront site, roughly at the foot of Mimico Avenue and backing on to waterfront parks.


1636628410706.png


Link: http://app.toronto.ca/AIC/index.do?folderRsn=l8cUfb8uBUMIGHj7fu3spg==

Streetview:

1636628311363.png


While none of the buildings are architecturally outstanding..........I'm rather saddened at the thought of losing Birds and Beans Coffee, which is a wonderful little spot (building on the right)

Aerial Pic:

1636628179879.png


Site Size: 0.6ha/1.5ac

Additional Comments, I would think it safe to assume that we are looking at an on-site parkland dedication here. These parks are very busy in the summer and would benefit from even a modest expansion.
 
I can see the whole south side of Lake Shore Boulevard being torn down. Between this development and Grand Harbour condos. To make way for highrises and skyscrapers. Which will have a stunning view of the marina, Lake Ontario and downtown Toronto ! As seen on Google Earth!
 
Sad to see Birds and Beans cafe go, hopefully they can find another spot to relocate to. But it's time for those dump buildings next to it go, i remember seeing a development proposal for it a few years back, not quite sure what happened to it.

I assume the 10s building would front Lake Shore, while the 33s would be behind it. But here i am again saying, 33s is too high for this area, trim it down to 2/3rd's of that and now we're talking.
 
innsertnamehere said:
someones finally deciding to take a stab at building in the Mimico Secondary Plan I see?
Click to expand...
Well the fire is already starting on the south side of Lake Shore Boulevard. With this one and another development near Grand Harbour condos. It seems to me it's going to be a domino effect happening here !
 
Looking at the proposal, even setting aside aesthetics.......I would say this one merits a refusal report.

The idea that the proponent will build a required new street by buying a strip of existing park space, which is already relatively narrow, is not reasonable.
 
What's the merit of building a new street on this site, anyways? Unless you're developing all the property up to the south side of Superior Avenue, there's no purpose it can have that a driveway wouldn't fulfill (besides, of course, passing responsibility off to the city).

Also is it just me, or does the tower in the first rendering look like it's tipping over?
 
north-of-anything said:
What's the merit of building a new street on this site, anyways? Unless you're developing all the property up to the south side of Superior Avenue, there's no purpose it can have that a driveway wouldn't fulfill (besides, of course, passing responsibility off to the city).

Also is it just me, or does the tower in the first rendering look like it's tipping over?
Click to expand...

There is a proposal to redevelop the apartments on Superior.

Though, the application has vanished from the AIC for the moment.

2 Superior | ?m | ?s

This application is new to the AIC as at December 30th, 2021. No description to speak of yet; but we can get a pretty clear picture right off the bat. First the app. http://app.toronto.ca/AIC/index.do?folderRsn=4WEziz2m4rAE1b3W7GvnxA%3D%3D **** This application covers 2 existing rental...
urbantoronto.ca urbantoronto.ca
 
My thoughts have been pretty much been echoed above. Why would the city be looking at having a useless road being built immediately adjacent to the west of this site? It doesnt make any sense; use the site conveyance for additional park space.

Honestly progression of this development should be halted so it can work in tandem with the Superior Ave apartment building development. Otherwise we're just going to get a hacked up mess of ideas that dont interact well at all.

Regarding the towers themselves, as i've mentioned before trim the tallest tower down by 1/3rd. Both towers themselves have lackluster designs as per usual with Toronto waterfront condos, i'm over it at this point.
 
Amare said:
My thoughts have been pretty much been echoed above. Why would the city be looking at having a useless road being built immediately adjacent to the west of this site? It doesnt make any sense; use the site conveyance for additional park space.

Honestly progression of this development should be halted so it can work in tandem with the Superior Ave apartment building development. Otherwise we're just going to get a hacked up mess of ideas that dont interact well at all.

Regarding the towers themselves, as i've mentioned before trim the tallest tower down by 1/3rd. Both towers themselves have lackluster designs as per usual with Toronto waterfront condos, i'm over it at this point.
Click to expand...

Sweeny is capable of much better. Like some of the recent also-ran stuff from BDPQ, it's bad enough when schlock firms produce what you'd expect; but when a firm capable of good product produces it........sigh.

Now, this is not the first time they've disappointed mind you.......but when you've seen some of the work they've done for Allied, amongst others..........this hardly seems like it's the same firm.
 
^Sweeny had a pretty big lull period filled with quite a few duds about 2-3 years ago, and they recently turned it back around to what we expect from them. Then all of a sudden they turn around and produce....this.

So really, I dont know what's going on with them but i'm starting to get a bit concerned myself.
 
Amare said:
^Sweeny had a pretty big lull period filled with quite a few duds about 2-3 years ago, and they recently turned it back around to what we expect from them. Then all of a sudden they turn around and produce....this.

So really, I dont know what's going on with them but i'm starting to get a bit concerned myself.
Click to expand...
🤷‍♂️ Maybe it's the client that's the issue and not the architect? There is a landowner involved here…

42
 
interchange42 said:
🤷‍♂️ Maybe it's the client that's the issue and not the architect? There is a landowner involved here…

42
Click to expand...

That may well be the case.

But I think we've often discussed here that many designs could be improved without vastly more expense, just a bit more conscientious creativity.

Very few clients, I imagine, ask for ugly and stupid, they just ask for a design on a budget where it's more challenging to turn out something better.

****

I've also said elsewhere though; if you have a good reputation and can bring in business (in any industry) you ought to be able to turn down clients who want you to do second-rate work that will damage
your reputation.

It may even be in one's financial interest to do so.
 
Northern Light said:
That may well be the case.

But I think we've often discussed here that many designs could be improved without vastly more expense, just a bit more conscientious creativity.

Very few clients, I imagine, ask for ugly and stupid, they just ask for a design on a budget where it's more challenging to turn out something better.

****

I've also said elsewhere though; if you have a good reputation and can bring in business (in any industry) you ought to be able to turn down clients who want you to do second-rate work that will damage
your reputation.

It may even be in one's financial interest to do so.
Click to expand...
I was once told by an architect that I interviewed for a story on UT years ago that the worst thing he ever had to do was lay off people back in 2008 when the economy tanked and no-one was building anything for a bit. I have also had other architects tell me over the years that they never turn down clients… and I also know from someone who was new in the industry several years ago now that, in a meeting with clients where they told the client that they couldn't do something, the senior partner at the architectural firm afterwards blasted them with "you NEVER tell the clients 'NO'!"

Firms have payrolls, and they have to have work to stay in the black, so there are exceedingly few of them that have the luxury of refusing a client. If you have someone who is able to pay your bill, then you tend to work with them. Ceasing that relationship is a last resort.

So, if an architectural firm that you know has a track record of producing good work, but in a certain case is presenting a clunker, what's the most likely variable to be causing the issue? 99 times out of 100 it's a client who is saying "I want all this and I only want to pay that" while clutching the purse tightly.

42
 
You must log in or register to post here.

Back
Top