[Canuck]

A frequent argument put forward by those who dismiss Toronto architecture is that our recent built form lacks when we look at comparable cities.

Frankly I'm not sure where this idea comes from.

Looking at Chicago for instance, they are building some fantastic skyscrapers/midrises in the Windy City, however, they're also putting up a lot of crap that North York would be embarrassed to have.

Sydney is also a frequent city in these comparisons, so on a lark I went to Emporis and extracted all buildings built since 2004 that have a picture (not rendering, since renderings do have a tendency to lie).
Looking through the pictures I'm again confused where this idea comes from that everything in Toronto is ugly and cheap compared to our counterparts.

In fairness there are two legitimate arguments that one can put forward about the general look of Toronto:
1) Due to Toronto's overwhelming volume of condo consturction, we have much more depth of the good, the bad, and the blah
2) Our public realm: streets & parks & avenues are quite shabby in comparison. This negative setting surrounding our structures no doubt can detract from our stock (and likewise a positive setting can add to another).

Here are Sydney's recent completions, again I can't see what all the fuss is about, but I'm willing to entertain the possibility that I'm dead wrong about this, and that in fact each and every building here is far and away better than our recent completions:


Great
http://www.emporis.com/en/il/im/?id=363669
http://www.emporis.com/en/il/im/?id=571846
http://www.emporis.com/en/il/im/?id=489673
http://www.emporis.com/en/il/im/?id=529263

Good
http://www.emporis.com/en/il/im/?id=341438
http://www.emporis.com/en/il/im/?id=500448
http://www.emporis.com/en/il/im/?id=552907
http://www.emporis.com/en/il/im/?id=588387
http://www.emporis.com/en/il/im/?id=275795
http://www.emporis.com/en/il/im/?id=483728
http://www.emporis.com/en/il/im/?id=423320
http://www.emporis.com/en/il/im/?id=503639
http://www.emporis.com/en/il/im/?id=549868
http://www.emporis.com/en/il/im/?id=529993
http://www.emporis.com/en/il/im/?id=423695
http://www.emporis.com/en/il/im/?id=542047
http://www.emporis.com/en/il/im/?id=450275
http://www.emporis.com/en/il/im/?id=414488

Blah
http://www.emporis.com/en/il/im/?id=457658
http://www.emporis.com/en/il/im/?id=376663
http://www.emporis.com/en/il/im/?id=588897
http://www.emporis.com/en/il/im/?id=256515
http://www.emporis.com/en/il/im/?id=374416
http://www.emporis.com/en/il/im/?id=366603
http://www.emporis.com/en/il/im/?id=573050
http://www.emporis.com/en/il/im/?id=467234

Bad
http://www.emporis.com/en/il/im/?id=285819
http://www.emporis.com/en/il/im/?id=605714
http://www.emporis.com/en/il/im/?id=382910
http://www.emporis.com/en/il/im/?id=473808
http://www.emporis.com/en/il/im/?id=544530
http://www.emporis.com/en/il/im/?id=396951
http://www.emporis.com/en/il/im/?id=450292

North York
http://www.emporis.com/en/il/im/?id=341433
http://www.emporis.com/en/il/im/?id=311026
http://www.emporis.com/en/il/im/?id=580177
http://www.emporis.com/en/il/im/?id=352319
http://www.emporis.com/en/il/im/?id=567748

WHAT THE HELL ARE YOU THINKING?!?!
http://www.emporis.com/en/il/im/?id=590333
http://www.emporis.com/en/il/im/?id=432656
http://www.emporis.com/en/il/im/?id=476953



Considering how many fewer completions per year in Sydney compared to Toronto, is it any wonder that we have more bads & blahs then them? Also consider most of the hideous buildings constructed in Toronto over the past few years are lowrises, of which there are very few Sydney lowrises shown here. But... am I missing the big picture here?

Every city is constructing buildings that fit into these categories. Can someone please demonstrate the point that our buildings are that much worse? Feel free to choose another city more to your liking.

 

[AlvinofDiaspar]

Thank you for this illustrative post. The hysteria on how Toronto has the worst architecture on the face of planet Earth demands this.

AoD

 

[junctionist]

We can improve, but there are so many buildings and structures which we can take pride in. It's always unfortunate to hear someone's hysteria on how there are no iconic buildings in the city or our buildings are ugly. Even looking at the photos of Paris in the threads in the world photos section, lining the clean and vibrant streets are thousands of fine looking yet ultimately forgettable buildings.

 

[Jayomatic]

While I think Toronto can hold its own in relation to some other cities, Toronto always seems to fall apart when it comes to completing the details. A great example of this would be the city room of the Four Seasons Performance Hall. While many other cities would connect the glass to the structure using some attractive brackets, ours come across looking unfinished. They look as if there are mullion frames waiting to be installed over them. There just doesn't seem to be enough of an effort to complete projects to the best of their ability and most of the time it comes to the excuse of budget and time. Examples of this would be the Bay Adelaide Centre, Four Seasons, Pure Spirit, and the Pantages Tower.


I can understand some frustration many commenters and residents of this city have when it comes to architecture. I think people just want to see Toronto really take one project by the horns and produce something thats original and innovative. Canadian's are too conservative to really push boundaries and take any chances.

 

[allabootmatt]

Toronto's architecture, strictly defined, is fine. Nothing wrong with it at all, and I don't mean that in a Bairdian sort of way; our stock of old, new, and medium buildings is perfectly comparable to any city of similar vintage in the world, less a few peculiarities (like Chicago's skyscrapers). We have some stunning modernism, a huge number of incredible Victorian houses and commercial strips, great pockets of Georgian homes, a rapidly-growing portfolio of contemporary starchitecture, and a condo-building culture that I argue has a median level of design as high as that anywhere in the world. In short, we're doing just fine.

But the problem, again, is in the details, which for me means the streetscapes. Too many streets are totally shabby, with cracked sidewalks, dead trees, and of course the ludicrous overhead hydro wires. One example: architecturally, there isn't that much wrong with Bay Street, which is actually a quite imposing if unspectacular Manhattan-style canyon (like, say, 3rd Av). But the streetscape is an utter shambles. Making the connection that this, and not the quality of the buildings themselves necessarily, is the single most important component of the public realm will be the next big step for Toronto.

Walk around north-central London and you will see what I mean. So many such areas have practically identical built form to TO's residential neighbourhoods (Hampstead, Islington, Belsize Park, etc.), but vastly better attention to the little things, the interstitial spaces. And it shows.

 

[Hipster Duck]

I agree completely with Matt.

I took a nighttime walk around Cabbagetown yesterday and was blown away by the architectural detailing on some of the streets, notably Winchester Avenue and the hidden gem of Alpha Ave. Some houses rivalled the most gorgeous Brownstones in Brooklyn for sheer beauty. The same could be said about the tiny Victorian commercial facades on Queen St. W which, if you'll believe it, remind me of Amsterdam. Finally, our recent crop of modernist condos are much more striking than what I've seen in Vancouver. The area around Victoria Memorial Park alone should be designated a heritage neighbourhood before they've even erected the cranes!

But none of this matters when you have cracked, uneven ashphalt paving; abandoned hydro poles hacked off six feet up; garbage cans with openings so small and filth-smeared that they encourage littering; giant acrylic backlit facade-obscuring signs, construction crews that don't remove pylons, sandbags two-by-fours or sprayed on markings; concrete tree planters cracked in half spilling soil; Sesame street looking giant street signs with a flattened acorn; ten different newspaper boxes for ten different papers (some of them defunct).

 

[alklay]

Matt, you wrote my post and I thank you for saving me those three minutes.

Our recent architecture is fine, for the most part. We missed out an some glorious ages for architecture (before WWII) but we simply did not have the money other cities did at the time. We have an abundance of 1970's concrete disasters and without the good stuff watering the 70's stuff down, one can get the impression that architecture is not a priority for this town.

That being said, if we improved the streetscape, it would do wonders for how people felt about the built environment in this town.

 

[Tewder]

I agree with all the above. What the city sorely lacks is the polish of detail and a pride in the urban realm. The rest is fine.

 

[allabootmatt]

What I would like to see is a very different approach to the Section 37 deals frequently made with developers, and for that matter to the percent for public art scheme. Instead of bargaining for one-off improvements or demanding some (usually) dubious piece of outdoor sculpture, I would much rather the city demanded from non-zoning-compliant developments a lump sum to be placed in a trust earmarked for the eventual overhaul of whatever major artery the building in question sits on. So the dozen or so new towers on, for example, Bay Street would each have made a contribution to a fund eventually large enough to provide the basis for replacing sidewalks, planting trees, and burying wires along the whole street using a consistent design. Little one-block interventions of the sort Sec 37s sometimes produce contribute to the inconsistency of streetscape which is part of the problem, not the solution.

I know that the City has done this a little bit before, on Jarvis with the Rogers campus, and that those monies are helping fund the renewal of that street. It should be rolled out everywhere.

There's another problem, which is a familiar one in Canada, of institutional fragmentation; too often the half-dozen or so private and public actors which influence the streetscape (Hydro, TTC, Transportation, private utilities, parks and rec) don't seem to co-ordinate their activities even slightly. Hence zebra stripes being painted onto decorative paving treatments, temporary Hydro poles standing in ridiculous places for huge lengths of time, and strips of asphalt aplenty. This is an example of how sometimes it's not money which holds us back (which it shouldn't, though that's another story) but rather dumb execution and planning which if corrected would probably end up saving and not costing us.

The good news is that I think we may, finally, be waking up to the importance of this sort of thing. The new AGO is really going to bring the problem into sharp, telegraph-pole-punctuated relief, and hopefully pending projects on Jarvis and Roncesvalles will demonstrate some of the possibilities.

 

[maestro]

There's another problem, which is a familiar one in Canada, of institutional fragmentation

That is the biggest problem and, IMO, can only dealt with by a very strong mayor's office. (and too many councillors for that to ever happen)

 

[Archivist]

What I usually find lacking in these discussions are actual comparisons with other cities. Two problems here: identifying problems in Toronto and assuming it is better elsewhere, or basing comparisons on only the best examples from other cities, often based on web browsing than an actual visit.

Here's a few things I observed from actual visits to other cities:

Tokyo is absolutely cluttered with overhead wires all over the place, so much so that I noticed it, when this is not generally something that usually bothers me. Public space in Tokyo is really badly designed - if you aren't shopping, you aren't doing anything. Their subway stops are blander than the Bloor-Danforth Line.

Paris has a tent city in the Place de la Republique and graffiti scratched into every available surface, as does apparently every European city and New York. Homelessness seemed rife in Paris, all over, including in tourist areas.

New York has tons of unbelievably bland and horrific recent architecture, and has far greater problems than Toronto does in getting projects off the ground. Where is New York's Gehry? Planned, and forgotten.

Amsterdam's waterfront redevelopment, which I have walked through twice in different weather, has some lovely features but is sterile in the extreme, and I actually came to the conclusion that the guiding principle of the whole project is to ensure that tourists never go there. The main circle where one waits for the tram to arrive has one bunker-like underground bar, and the ugly rear ends of several buildings, including dumpsters. As public space, it's a grotesque failure.

And by the way, I love all these cities and would go back to any of them in a millisecond. I can overlook some blandness / dirtiness / ugliness in light of the overall experience of being there. But I offer the same generosity to Toronto, even as I hope and agitate for better.

 

[Mongo]

Reposting what I wrote on another thread:

Originally Posted by suv
I wound invite those who disagree to visit Syndey, Viennna, Dubai, San Fran, Munich, and 50 other cities....and this day and age, the internet would second Hume's overall notion about this city.

I would respectfully disagree. In my travels in Europe, I had a chance to look at some of the architecture (and urban design) of a variety of cities, from Athens to Amsterdam to Seville. One advantage of the cities I saw over Toronto was obvious: a large stock of many-centuries-old monumental architecture. Obviously, Toronto cannot directly compete with that. In addition, the central cores of many of the cities I visited were still based upon pre-automotive street systems, which certainly provided a much more comfortable, human, feeling to those areas, with numerous pedestrian streets and plazas, built for humans instead of automobiles (no wonder that it seemed like almost everybody walked if they could). It truly was an eye-opener to realise how pervasive our own auto-oriented street system is, to the point that we hardly ever really consider its effects upon our built environment -- which while necessary in order to accomodate our automobile culture, are on the whole rather negative.

On the other hand, the more recent architecture, away from the historic districts looked little different from our own recent low- and mid-rise construction. The ultra-stylish buildings seen on websites make up a very small proportion of the more recent construction, with almost all of it being just as forgettable as most of what is being built here.

This is not to deny that a lot of great architecture is being built across Europe. But in general, I saw little difference between what is being done in Europe and being done here in Toronto (allowing for the obvious regional/cultural differences in building styles).

 

[BobBob]

The examples given at the start of this thread deal with the architecture of individual buildings. In that department, we are probably okay, but I've found that what gives a city a good, urban feel is consistency of some sort *across* different buildings, in size, massing, style, etc.

One thing that makes Toronto feel "messier" than a lot of great world cities, regardless of the architecture of individual buildings, is the total inconsistency of size and style. We have 30 storey glass condos next to 2 storey 19th century shops, next to 10 storey office buildings from the 50s. I personally have grown to enjoy this aspect of the city, but it does preclude the sort of grand feel that you get from Parisian boulevards and Manhattan canyons, due to their consistency. Even in Tokyo, where most individual buildings are forgettable, some areas achieve that grand feeling solely due to consistency of scale.

If Toronto started to move away from its fairly laissez-faire approach to scale to the extreme of designating certain boulevards to be exactly, say, 7 storeys, no more and no less, it might achieve that grand feel in places. Would that be make sense, or be worth it, I'm not sure.

 

[smuncky]

Where is New York's Gehry? Planned, and forgotten.

what about the IAC building in Chelsea?

or were you referring to a different one?

 

[Urban Shocker]

BobBob: There was plenty of similarity of scale in Georgian and Victorian downtown Toronto. The buildings were modest, extended the existing context as they were added, and worked by "fitting in" rather than "standing out". Freed appears to be doing a similar thing in his west downtown district today; Clewes's point towers - most are similar in proportions, as many here have noted - form their own, ever-expanding context on the skyline. So I don't think we've lost sight of how it can be done. One more large scale example might be how I.M. Pei swiped the scale and proportions of the TD Centre towers and extended them with his Commerce Court; the clever tweak being that he used contrasting materials.

There really are only two ways of doing it well. Either the one you describe or by creating dynamic design opposites ( the ROM Crystal / 1914 and 1933 wings contrast for instance; or the the tall/short, brick/glass, new/old contrast of the Distillery District ).