[interchange42]

Our fourth day of Pug Award polls showed that UrbanToronto is somewhat favourable towards both the Bay Adelaide Centre and Bloorview Kids Rehab. 60 Richmond still ellicits the most love, while no one project really stands out as an object of derision. If you haven't voted yet for the first eight Pug Award nominees, those polls are still open. Today we present two more for your consideration.

Here's the ninth building up for this year's Pug Awards, which we hope you will take the time to vote for both here, and at the Pug Awards' official site. Our take on the Pugs is an experiment to see how our results will compare to the official results. The difference is that the official Pug Awards give you three choices: Love It, Like It, or Hate It. Based on suggestions from our members, we will give you five points along the continuum to register your feelings: Love It, Like It, Neutral, Dislike It, Hate It. Will that be too many options, or will that make voting easier? Please come back on a daily basis to register your thoughts!

Please click on the linked name of the building below to view more images and to read a description of the building and those who had a hand in building it. Please vote at the Pugs, and then come back here and register your UrbanToronto Pug vote too!

Chateau Royal

 

[grey]

LOL at the 5 people so far who didn't vote Hate It.

 

[wmedia]

LOL at you for thinking that everyone thinks the same as you

 

[grey]

*passes wmedia a bucket full of ridicule*

 

[CityPlaceN1]

Someone really thinks this is a good idea for 2010?

 

[wmedia]

Someone really thinks this is a good idea for 2010?

Yes. I've been a fan of this forum for a long time, but recently started posting as I noticed it was turning more and more into a neo-modernist/post-modernist internet nob-joust. What used to be a sound discussion of principles seems to have degenerated into a lack of understanding that appreciation of architecture is ultimately subjective. There is a place for ALL styles of architecture here in Toronto. This is an exciting boom time to be a part of. None of us are gonna see the city end up exactly as we would prefer, but variety is the spice of life.

 

[grey]

I think the warm reception of West Harbour City proves otherwise. I'm all for variety, but not at the expense of quality, and I will not give a passing score to this building just for being different.

This really isn't groundbreaking stuff if you look outside the downtown area.

 

[Thanos]

Wow for a second there i thought i was looking at a new condo in montreal. Seriously, this building is horrible. It ranks dead last from all the buildings in the pug awards.
Oh wait, i forgot to mention IN MY OPINION.........let the flaming begin.

 

[egotrippin]

Yes. I've been a fan of this forum for a long time, but recently started posting as I noticed it was turning more and more into a neo-modernist/post-modernist internet nob-joust. What used to be a sound discussion of principles seems to have degenerated into a lack of understanding that appreciation of architecture is ultimately subjective. There is a place for ALL styles of architecture here in Toronto. This is an exciting boom time to be a part of. None of us are gonna see the city end up exactly as we would prefer, but variety is the spice of life.

Fair enough, but that's no excuse for Chateau's clumsy proportions, awkward detailing, mishmash styling, poor quality materials, and general lack of elegance. These points aren't really my opinion as much as they are observations drawn from analysis. Oh, and Chateau Royal? Apart from mixing French with English, what an unnecessarily pretentious name.

 

[wmedia]

Fair comments. My point was more the nature of the discussion, rather than the topic at hand. Your response at least details your analysis, rather than just blanket ridiculing those who's views are different.

 

[hbl33]

Another tacky approach to faux-francais architecture. Too plasticky appearances. Can't we have something more refreshing down the Yonge strip? North York is having these lousy kinds of residential developments as well.

 

[egotrippin]

Fair comments. My point was more the nature of the discussion, rather than the topic at hand. Your response at least details your analysis, rather than just blanket ridiculing those who's views are different.

Thanks, and of course I respect your viewpoint as well. Variety is definitely an important part of urban texture. Though hopefully we can all agree somewhat, that regardless of our overall opinions of historicist architecture, this is a pretty mediocre example of it.

Can't we have something more refreshing down the Yonge strip?

*Mount Pleasant. Just a minor quibble.

 

[Second_in_pie]

Yes. I've been a fan of this forum for a long time, but recently started posting as I noticed it was turning more and more into a neo-modernist/post-modernist internet nob-joust. What used to be a sound discussion of principles seems to have degenerated into a lack of understanding that appreciation of architecture is ultimately subjective. There is a place for ALL styles of architecture here in Toronto. This is an exciting boom time to be a part of. None of us are gonna see the city end up exactly as we would prefer, but variety is the spice of life.

Ok, I guess that this kind of design could fit in with some minor tweaks in a certain area that has similar architecture. But for where it is, and the fact that I can't tell where it would fit in, I voted a nice big "hate it."

 

[kettal]

maybe it's a nice building on the inside?

 

[ganjavih]

And maybe it meets the street well.