To be fair, it's not big honking advertising everywhere. It's 2-3 blocks of Toronto where it's not only been allowed but encouraged. Yonge/Dundas has long been a place with bright lights, billboards, etc. so it's in keeping with its historical role/feel.

Toronto's best asset is its diversity. If it all looked the same or appealed to a certain design aesthetic we'd lose something special. Dundas Square is likely the most photographed area of Toronto. For those that don't like it, there's the other 629 sq km of Toronto to roam around.
 
isaidso said:
To be fair, it's not big honking advertising everywhere. It's 2-3 blocks of Toronto where it's not only been allowed but encouraged. Yonge/Dundas has long been a place with bright lights, billboards, etc. so it's in keeping with its historical role/feel.

Toronto's best asset is its diversity. If it all looked the same or appealed to a certain design aesthetic we'd lose something special. Dundas Square is likely the most photographed area of Toronto. For those that don't like it, there's the other 629 sq km of Toronto to roam around.
Click to expand...

I'll be the first to oppose homogeneous genericity!

However, while architectural diversity may be laudable; and certain areas might vary in their ethno-cultural tinge, or terms whether they are more food-focused or fashion-based, or simply diverse 'local needs' shops.........that doesn't mean that every variation that is possible needs to exist.

That not every building need be Victorian or Art Deco is a given.

That that is an excuse for Brutalism I will never buy.

Likewise, lights which which use or mimic interesting gases (neon etc.) or which make other great use of colour, or offer cinematic/playhouse marquees can be welcomed for creating a lively atmosphere; its a completely different matter when the 'signage' is really just giant LED TV screens w/transient and un-inspired messaging of no public value.

Even more so when the lighting causes a disturbance to residents and wildlife well beyond the immediate area due to its immense brightness, and height.

You can't really compare today's media towers to an earlier era's marquee or even a painted advert for Coke on the side of a building.

The visual 'volume' is of another order of magnitude.

It lacks any real redeeming quality.

To each their own.......up to a point.

For me, what Yonge-Dundas has become, goes well beyond that point.
 
Northern Light said:
I'll be the first to oppose homogeneous genericity!

However, while architectural diversity may be laudable; and certain areas might vary in their ethno-cultural tinge, or terms whether they are more food-focused or fashion-based, or simply diverse 'local needs' shops.........that doesn't mean that every variation that is possible needs to exist.

That not every building need be Victorian or Art Deco is a given.

That that is an excuse for Brutalism I will never buy.

Likewise, lights which which use or mimic interesting gases (neon etc.) or which make other great use of colour, or offer cinematic/playhouse marquees can be welcomed for creating a lively atmosphere; its a completely different matter when the 'signage' is really just giant LED TV screens w/transient and un-inspired messaging of no public value.

Even more so when the lighting causes a disturbance to residents and wildlife well beyond the immediate area due to its immense brightness, and height.

You can't really compare today's media towers to an earlier era's marquee or even a painted advert for Coke on the side of a building.

The visual 'volume' is of another order of magnitude.

It lacks any real redeeming quality.

To each their own.......up to a point.

For me, what Yonge-Dundas has become, goes well beyond that point.
Click to expand...

I really don't see your point. Every advertising agency employs many designers to make their ads visually appealing. And I don't see how modern LED billboards are any different in value from neon or paint, it's just a different medium. In fact, with LED you can create visuals that would be totally impossible before, allowing complex animations and even interactive displays which people seem to enjoy.
 
P23 said:
I really don't see your point. Every advertising agency employs many designers to make their ads visually appealing. And I don't see how modern LED billboards are any different in value from neon or paint, it's just a different medium. In fact, with LED you can create visuals that would be totally impossible before, allowing complex animations and even interactive displays which people seem to enjoy.
Click to expand...

I think it's more referring to the fact that static, externally lit billboards are less *intentionally* distracting. Animated/LED boards prey on a lot of subconscious functions. Our brain sees bright light and movement and kicks into a stimulated mode. Yeah, we're used to it for the most part, but it still doesn't have the same effect that a static one does, and we are less likely to resist looking at them as our lizard-brain subconscious perceives them as a potential threat to watch out for. Times Square actually creates nervous and excited states in people (good or bad).
 
I find signage and the general world of semiotics super fascinating. Though I consider them separate from architecture. Though obviously they do exist in the same highly connected realm.
 
P23 said:
I really don't see your point. Every advertising agency employs many designers to make their ads visually appealing. And I don't see how modern LED billboards are any different in value from neon or paint, it's just a different medium. In fact, with LED you can create visuals that would be totally impossible before, allowing complex animations and even interactive displays which people seem to enjoy.
Click to expand...

The degree of invasiveness is different.

An unlit, painted building side, doesn't keep someone up at night, or cause problems for wildlife exceeding those caused by human building in the first place.

A neon sign, while certainly more invasive is still, typically, area-limited in its impact.

Where some of the LED boards up at Y-D cast light than can literally be seen more than 1km away, most neon-signage would have little or no impact more than 1 block away, and none at all if you weren't on the same street.

***

A further difference is first-party advertising vs third party advertising.

If the Imperial movie theatre has a grand marquis, it's advertising itself and the content therein.

Many of today's billboard-type ads bare no spatial relationship to the product being pushed. So as opposed to telling me that if I go in this door on the left I can see a 'x' movie, or this door on the right, I can buy coke, I see an ad for telco that has no particular relationship to that intersection or its adjacent properties.
 
Getting back on topic, the mall entrance was opened up today:

2edy26q.jpg
 
BTW. I thought I saw a sign back there when I passed by this morning that said UNI QLO opening end of September.
 
What a strange tunnel/hallway to Nordstrom. I bet a lot of "non-Nordstrom" types will use the store to shortcut to the rest of the Mall. I wonder if the store is designed with this in mind.

And I agree that this "atrium" is too big to be so empty, bland and purposeless. I realize that the mall doesnt want people to sit or linger, but the space could use a freestanding coffee shop with a few not too-comfy seats (like the grand hall of union station has) or some other small service/feature to soften the space and give it purpose.
 
LNahid2000 said:
Getting back on topic, the mall entrance was opened up today:

2edy26q.jpg
Click to expand...


I'm confused. Did Nordstrom open early or is there a walkway parallel to Nordstrom's internal storefront? I am looking forward to checking out Nordstrom when I visit Toronto for Nuit Blanche!
 
You must log in or register to post here.

Back
Top