Parkdalian said:
I thought the Globe article was fine. It covered all of the bases, and there were a few things I could quibble with but they were overall minor.

I will say that the article's writing has a high level of annoyance with Toronto as a whole that makes it less enjoyable to read. But I suspect that this is part of being a critic of architecture in Toronto. Christopher Hume was constantly complaining about Toronto, too. It's just not my favourite form of criticism - I'd prefer something which seeks to understand rather than just shoots another volley in a political fight about Toronto's urban fabric.
Click to expand...
Well-said. Maybe other cities focus somewhat on being critical on their initiatives, but we just don't hear that much of this in Toronto. We are, after all, " Urban Toronto ". One of the things that we see a lot of here is the "artist" concept of developments which many times disappoints in the built product. I'm delighted when a project surprises, or just delivers.
 
IMG_1367.jpeg
 
There is an argument in my piece (which is deeply rooted in an understanding of, and love for, the city) that I hope will earn some discussion.

1970s Reform thinking was focused on protecting house neighbourhoods - assembled sites and “blockbusting” were the enemy.

That attitude continues to shape Toronto. But it pushes density into relatively few places, which generates megaprojects like this. By avoiding big buildings, Toronto gets huge buildings. Is this good?

C0D6E7CB-A61E-42C5-AA25-89339A264A9D.jpeg


79D74470-8D8D-48E5-8373-0392A68915C3.jpeg

CDA1EECC-ADE3-489B-9D3E-8C686531418D.jpeg
 
I'm going to vote yes, it's good, because it's more efficient and imo, more exciting. For example, would Enwave be as doable with "big" rather than "mega" projects? We can always slowly build out the low density areas too - indeed the barriers to do so are already coming down.
 
Last edited:
Checked it out today.

Impressive.

Architecturally it seems to be a mish-mash of everything, but it kinda works.

The scope of it is huge. Like it's got to be the biggest architectural undertaking since like the Eaton Centre?

Didn't even see the underground parking.


IMG_6592.jpg
IMG_6602.jpg
IMG_6655.jpg
IMG_6640.jpg
IMG_6628.jpg
IMG_6622.jpg
IMG_6619.jpg
IMG_6617.jpg
IMG_6615.jpg
IMG_6591.jpg
 

Attachments

  • IMG_6617.jpg
    IMG_6617.jpg
    294.8 KB · Views: 13
Last edited:
I think one of the big factors to keeping this indoor/outdoor mall feeling really 'high end' will be whether security can keep the people suffering homelessness out of it.

I'm not making a statement on whether that's right or wrong, I'm just saying that the plain reality of it is that if all the corners and staircases start smelling like piss and if the trip down to the underground parking garages is a disgusting one and if there are people lying around or begging for change it's going to have a really different feel to the place really fast.

Again, not saying we don't need affordable housing, services to help etc, but rather that the stark business reality is if you start getting people setting up little tents/shelters in here and pissing all over the place like you get at Yonge & Dundas or most of the downtown parks, this is not going to be a place anyone goes for very long.

However, given that this is 100% private property and not like a public park or public service (think TTC or Green P parking) I assume the security guards can basically treat people experiencing homelessness the same way they would treat them if they were pissing inside First Canadian Place or trying to sleep inside the Eaton Centre.

We'll see....
 
Last edited:
You must log in or register to post here.

Back
Top