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

Riseth said:
No amount of high quality glass will ever get me on board with this area. If the Sugar Wharf complex were built anywhere else in the city then I could care less, but this is right on the waterfront and blocking out much better architecture so I'm way more biased toward these developments than anywhere else.

Now if you took developments like Sugar Wharf, Pinnacle, Daniels, etc. and plopped them down further north near Aura or Bloor/Yonge for example, it would add density without destroying classic skyline views.
Click to expand...
Thing is, I don't think the city really cares about its viewing vistas anymore. That iconic skyline we once had with our landmarks being clearly visible, is just being drowned out by mediocre (at-best) waterfront builds, and eventually most of the classic views will just be lost.
 
Amare said:
Thing is, I don't think the city really cares about its viewing vistas anymore. That iconic skyline we once had with our landmarks being clearly visible, is just being drowned out by mediocre (at-best) waterfront builds, and eventually most of the classic views will just be lost.
Click to expand...

I am not sure how that "iconic skyline" is reasonably protectable - the issue is more the quality of the new builds. In any case, I think this will (taken as a whole) turned out better than LCBO next door.

AoD
 
ProjectEnd said:
On what site at Yonge and Gerrard or Yonge and Bloor would you propose Sugar Wharf?
Click to expand...
Purely hypothetical but you could demolish some of those low-rise blocks near the Coach Terminal and cram the towers there in the place of any future development.

Screenshot (2).png


Yonge and Bloor is trickier but I suppose you could demolish some of that low rise stuff along Yonge Street and cram them there as well. Sugar Wharf towers aren't exactly large but the podium would likely have to go. No clue about the office component though.

Screenshot (3).png


That was quite fun. Now you've got me imagining an alternate version of our skyline 😄
 
Amare said:
Thing is, I dont think the city really cares about it's viewing vistas anymore. That iconic skyline we once had with our landmarks being clearly visible, is just being drowned out by mediocre (at-best) waterfront builds, and eventually most of the classic views will just be lost.
Click to expand...
Of course, I was just lamenting the loss of it.
AlvinofDiaspar said:
I am not sure how that "iconic skyline" is reasonably protectable - the issue is more the quality of the new builds. In any case, I think this will (taken as a whole) turned out better than LCBO next door.

AoD
Click to expand...
You could pick and chose certain sites to develop tall towers along the waterfront. Mix in more low/mid-rise stuff along with more open spaces and parks to preserve at least some waterfront vistas. A greater use of materials and more variation in building heights/designs as well.

Of course this is purely fantasy as economics and politics would never allow that to happen.
 
ProjectEnd said:
Leaving the sheer site-size delta alone, the City Hall view corridor and OPA 183 would prevent both of those options. Alternate skylines are fun, but there's almost always a reason why things are the way they are.
Click to expand...
So stick them somewhere else than? Just making a point that tall condo towers could have been built elsewhere wherever the land was available.
 
Riseth said:
Of course, I was just lamenting the loss of it.

You could pick and chose certain sites to develop tall towers along the waterfront. Mix in more low/mid-rise stuff along with more open spaces and parks to preserve at least some waterfront vistas. A greater use of materials and more variation in building heights/designs as well.

Of course this is purely fantasy as economics and politics would never allow that to happen.
Click to expand...

To an extent it already is - pretty much the entire stretch of the waterfront south of QQ are mid-rise/public open space - north of QQ is a different story but even then the location of high-rises are fairly planned out (esp. in EBF) - there is only so much protectable in a rapidly growing city. As to vista - AFAIK the "traditional look" was never protected - and I am not sure what criteria one would use to protect it in the first place. This isn't some single view corridor to a single civic landmark.

AoD
 
Last edited:
Riseth said:
So stick them somewhere else than? Just making a point that tall condo towers could have been built elsewhere wherever the land was available.
Click to expand...
And my point was that there really isn't many other places to 'stick them'. No offense intended.
 
this site would've been a great location for a streetscape vision akin to Harris Square further east. Though high quality, the design doesn't scream "place-making" to me but maybe those details have yet to start appearing
 
I'm noticing the painted stippling on the windows of the podium. Can anyone tell me wether or not that will continue on all new builds? I've seen somewhat of an uneven evolution of it through various buildings and I also got the sense that some buildings did it and some didn't (presumably this is some city of Toronto mandate to protect birds?). There are a few buildings which have some obnoxiously dense stippling and I was always curious what the deal was with it.
 
ML555 said:
I'm noticing the painted stippling on the windows of the podium. Can anyone tell me wether or not that will continue on all new builds? I've seen somewhat of an uneven evolution of it through various buildings and I also got the sense that some buildings did it and some didn't (presumably this is some city of Toronto mandate to protect birds?). There are a few buildings which have some obnoxiously dense stippling and I was always curious what the deal was with it.
Click to expand...
That's called frit, and it's an enamel baked onto the glass. It's required on all new major buildings (not sure what the minimum thresholds are) to 12 metres above ground level, or higher if adjacent tree canopy is higher. Birds see it, so they don't tend to fly into it, hence the requirement. I believe that the dots must be no further apart than 10 centimetres, but designers have leeway with their specifications closer than that.

42
 
interchange42 said:
That's called frit, and it's an enamel baked onto the glass. It's required on all new major buildings (not sure what the minimum thresholds are) to 12 metres above ground level, or higher if adjacent tree canopy is higher. Birds see it, so they don't tend to fly into it, hence the requirement. I believe that the dots must be no further apart than 10 centimetres, but designers have leeway with their specifications closer than that.

42
Click to expand...

Thank you for this.
 
You must log in or register to post here.

Back
Top