CanadianNational
Senior Member
Pics from Sunday, July 15
A show-stopper:
Yet it must go on...
A show-stopper:
Yet it must go on...
|
|
|
A
artgeek
Guest
Where's the love?
(sorry for the big pic - my GIMP skills are not strong)
(sorry for the big pic - my GIMP skills are not strong)
SP!RE
°°°°°°
The Star of Downtown SHOULD go to hell. 
dt_toronto_geek
Superstar
Ah come on, it's not that bad. I give it points along with Tridel's project for creeping into some pretty grim territory between Jarvis & Parliament Streets. In the end they will bring some much needed new development to the area.
SP!RE
°°°°°°
Yeah, humour aside, it's always a nice surprise to see some mid-priced housing going in just across the street from St. Jamestown. It's a healthy idea, even if the architecture pains us.
egotrippin
Senior Member
In all honesty, I don't really think the building looks as bad as everyone here makes it seem. It's certainly nicer than anything currently in that area, and I'd say some detailing on the facade looks pretty nice.
The biggest issue with it (as evidenced by the defaced sign) is the location. It seems to me that a higher-end (for the area) development might not mesh so well with some of the surrounding areas initially. As previously mentioned though, hopefully this will start a rejuvenation of the area and lead to more developments.
The biggest issue with it (as evidenced by the defaced sign) is the location. It seems to me that a higher-end (for the area) development might not mesh so well with some of the surrounding areas initially. As previously mentioned though, hopefully this will start a rejuvenation of the area and lead to more developments.
A
artgeek
Guest
I don't mind the design, it's not that imaginative but it could've been worse. Worse still, it could also still be an abandoned, derelict construction site with a neglected public art project continuing to fall into disrepair. And I'm looking forward to welcoming our new neighbors.
The photo wasn't necessarily meant to be a comment on the design, I love photographing graffiti and this just tickled me. More likely to be the work of one of the local characters passing through the alley (then again, maybe the couple who were protesting the project's height increase found a magic marker!).
The photo wasn't necessarily meant to be a comment on the design, I love photographing graffiti and this just tickled me. More likely to be the work of one of the local characters passing through the alley (then again, maybe the couple who were protesting the project's height increase found a magic marker!).
adma
Superstar
Though as far as "unnice" stuff in the neighbourhood goes; is it just me, or has the Hugh Garner Co-Op gotten less of a bad rap than, to many a casual observer, its architecture might merit?
I guess that's a case where demographics mean a lot--whatever its architectural curiosity, Hugh Garner's been a well-run place (I guess)...
I guess that's a case where demographics mean a lot--whatever its architectural curiosity, Hugh Garner's been a well-run place (I guess)...
Archivist
Senior Member
McHugh on Hugh
Patricia McHugh writes, "Whether this colourful orange and blue ornamentalist design will continue to hold our attention is hard to say, but right now its looks are intriguing.". I'd say she's hedging her bets on this one. Years later, with the orange rather faded in most places, it remains, well, intriguing. I guess I too am hedging my bets.
As for the Star, I'd agree that it's more important to fill the gap in the hood than get worried about the fussy design.
Patricia McHugh writes, "Whether this colourful orange and blue ornamentalist design will continue to hold our attention is hard to say, but right now its looks are intriguing.". I'd say she's hedging her bets on this one. Years later, with the orange rather faded in most places, it remains, well, intriguing. I guess I too am hedging my bets.
As for the Star, I'd agree that it's more important to fill the gap in the hood than get worried about the fussy design.
Conrad Black
Senior Member
Design aside, putting a condo in this area rather than social housing can only be a plus.
H
Hydrogen
Guest
Agree, and it's not like the design is going to ruin the architectural beauty in the vicinity.
adma
Superstar
Where does a co-op (Hugh Garner or otherwise) stand within that sliding scale?
Zephyr
Active Member
I'm not trying to attack anyone specifically in what I am about to comment. It is the idea, more accurately the set of ideas, that bothers me - it is also an associated attitude that comes from it. I've seen what I am about to refer to, floating in posts here, and also other threads on the UT, with implications as broad as the city of Toronto itself.
It goes something like the following. Less than inspiring design should sometimes be excused, because in the area where something is to be built, good or certainly great design is already largely absent, and/or that a greater need should be addressed first. (If this is not what you are writing, then it doesn't apply to you.)
My quick response may equally trouble those who embrace these ideas: namely, where design is underwhelming or thought to be non-existent is where inspiring design has its greatest need.
While admittedly not nearly as often as is needed, I still maintain you can find some of the best examples in design coming to design-challenged areas throughout the world despite a groundswell of indifference. There are all kinds of reasons that can be found for why this happens, and not enough space or time to go into it in a serious way. But why not hold, say the topic of the moment, the Star of Toronto (as well as the next one that will inevitably follow) to a proper design standard that will encourage more inspiring efforts - regardless of budget, location or purpose. That standard must be expressed in our understanding, then our words or opinions, then our pocketbooks. Trying to do it by panel or committee may on some level be more effective, I would rather the acts of an informed populace, always demanding the best no matter how small the project, be the main element of push.
Obviously, I don't think we have inspiring architecture here or else I wouldn't have put that last paragraph in. I know the reality is that people with a need will less likely care about the architecture if the need is strong enough. But isn't that part of the problem as well - it encourages more of this kind of architecture. If you like or love this architecture, by all means ignore my view, it will be irrelevant to you anyway. But what about those that say its OK because design is not as important for this parcel of real estate as elsewhere. Love it or hate it, we both should equally question this type of attitude.
It goes something like the following. Less than inspiring design should sometimes be excused, because in the area where something is to be built, good or certainly great design is already largely absent, and/or that a greater need should be addressed first. (If this is not what you are writing, then it doesn't apply to you.)
My quick response may equally trouble those who embrace these ideas: namely, where design is underwhelming or thought to be non-existent is where inspiring design has its greatest need.
While admittedly not nearly as often as is needed, I still maintain you can find some of the best examples in design coming to design-challenged areas throughout the world despite a groundswell of indifference. There are all kinds of reasons that can be found for why this happens, and not enough space or time to go into it in a serious way. But why not hold, say the topic of the moment, the Star of Toronto (as well as the next one that will inevitably follow) to a proper design standard that will encourage more inspiring efforts - regardless of budget, location or purpose. That standard must be expressed in our understanding, then our words or opinions, then our pocketbooks. Trying to do it by panel or committee may on some level be more effective, I would rather the acts of an informed populace, always demanding the best no matter how small the project, be the main element of push.
Obviously, I don't think we have inspiring architecture here or else I wouldn't have put that last paragraph in. I know the reality is that people with a need will less likely care about the architecture if the need is strong enough. But isn't that part of the problem as well - it encourages more of this kind of architecture. If you like or love this architecture, by all means ignore my view, it will be irrelevant to you anyway. But what about those that say its OK because design is not as important for this parcel of real estate as elsewhere. Love it or hate it, we both should equally question this type of attitude.
Archivist
Senior Member
Indifference
Interesting post, Zephyr. I wonder if your comments signal a somewhat different angle of interest between some of us on this forum that lead us to be interested in new developments. For me, I have always been less interested in pure design and in critiqueing design than in city-building. The question, "is this a good building?" is to me fundamentally more interesting and important "is this an aesthetically pleasing building?". Is the Star a badly designed building? Aesthetically, yes, I am certain to find it unpleasant. On the other hand, a building in that location made up of owners, of that height and with street level retail seems just about perfect to me. Yes, the building may not be constructed with the best materials, and in a few years will likely need cladding improvements, etc., but unless it is intrusively hideous (which it is not) then it is a concern of the owners. Since the building will be owned by its tenants, I tend to assume their interest in their property values will ensure that some of the more ugly things that are possible (brown cladding on the top 2 floors only) are likely to be avoided.
So why not hold the Star to a "proper design standard"? Here are some questions or problems with that:
1) Who defines the standard and how is it enforced?
2) What is the effect of the standard on affordability, on speed of construction, on the chances of a building being built?
3) What is the purpose of the standard? Is it to make a liveable city or to make buildings that are more aesthetically appealing? What does "liveable" mean - encourage use of transit, encourage mixed uses, places poorer people can afford - there are many goals of policy in this area, and in most cases, aesthetic judgements are fairly down the list. To me, even broad goals are often suspect - for instance, not so long ago the segregation of commercial and residential was thought essential, now the city seems to want commercial on the ground floor of everything (even on buildings like 18 Yonge where patently it is unlikely ever to be successful).
So I have serious reservations about the reasons and methods of holding a building like Star to a design standard, for aesthetic purposes.
As an archivist, I find the built city around me to be immensely comforting. Take Queen Street West, which is quite often held up as Toronto's pre-eminent example of urbanity. That street is full of indifferent buildings of every era, from the sixties to little two storey 1880's shitboxes put up for speculative purposes. While dotted with exceptional buildings that draw the eye pleasingly, on the whole most of it from a purely aesthetic point of view could be bulldozed without harm to anyone. And yet ... such a great place to take a beer on a sunny afternoon.
If it makes you feel better, in all cities that I have visited, on all continents, I have taken the time to note that overwhelmingly buildings are of indifferent design. Builders tend to do what others are doing in their locality and essentially emulate that. Few buildings are outstanding, and few are truly and wretchedly horrible to their surroundings. Most fall somewhere in between. When we travel, we focus on the interesting and beautiful, and architecture magazines and books necessarily place buildings out of context. It gives a misleading impression, to say the least.
So, my final answer to your question about holding the Star to a standard is that I wouldn't bother, because no city in no era has been able to agree upon the purposes and applicability of such a standard, and we ought to accept that it's simply not going to happen here, or anywhere, so there is really no point banging your head against it.
Interesting post, Zephyr. I wonder if your comments signal a somewhat different angle of interest between some of us on this forum that lead us to be interested in new developments. For me, I have always been less interested in pure design and in critiqueing design than in city-building. The question, "is this a good building?" is to me fundamentally more interesting and important "is this an aesthetically pleasing building?". Is the Star a badly designed building? Aesthetically, yes, I am certain to find it unpleasant. On the other hand, a building in that location made up of owners, of that height and with street level retail seems just about perfect to me. Yes, the building may not be constructed with the best materials, and in a few years will likely need cladding improvements, etc., but unless it is intrusively hideous (which it is not) then it is a concern of the owners. Since the building will be owned by its tenants, I tend to assume their interest in their property values will ensure that some of the more ugly things that are possible (brown cladding on the top 2 floors only) are likely to be avoided.
So why not hold the Star to a "proper design standard"? Here are some questions or problems with that:
1) Who defines the standard and how is it enforced?
2) What is the effect of the standard on affordability, on speed of construction, on the chances of a building being built?
3) What is the purpose of the standard? Is it to make a liveable city or to make buildings that are more aesthetically appealing? What does "liveable" mean - encourage use of transit, encourage mixed uses, places poorer people can afford - there are many goals of policy in this area, and in most cases, aesthetic judgements are fairly down the list. To me, even broad goals are often suspect - for instance, not so long ago the segregation of commercial and residential was thought essential, now the city seems to want commercial on the ground floor of everything (even on buildings like 18 Yonge where patently it is unlikely ever to be successful).
So I have serious reservations about the reasons and methods of holding a building like Star to a design standard, for aesthetic purposes.
As an archivist, I find the built city around me to be immensely comforting. Take Queen Street West, which is quite often held up as Toronto's pre-eminent example of urbanity. That street is full of indifferent buildings of every era, from the sixties to little two storey 1880's shitboxes put up for speculative purposes. While dotted with exceptional buildings that draw the eye pleasingly, on the whole most of it from a purely aesthetic point of view could be bulldozed without harm to anyone. And yet ... such a great place to take a beer on a sunny afternoon.
If it makes you feel better, in all cities that I have visited, on all continents, I have taken the time to note that overwhelmingly buildings are of indifferent design. Builders tend to do what others are doing in their locality and essentially emulate that. Few buildings are outstanding, and few are truly and wretchedly horrible to their surroundings. Most fall somewhere in between. When we travel, we focus on the interesting and beautiful, and architecture magazines and books necessarily place buildings out of context. It gives a misleading impression, to say the least.
So, my final answer to your question about holding the Star to a standard is that I wouldn't bother, because no city in no era has been able to agree upon the purposes and applicability of such a standard, and we ought to accept that it's simply not going to happen here, or anywhere, so there is really no point banging your head against it.
Zephyr
Active Member
May I first compliment you on the quality and depth of your response. Not your typical emotional response that sometimes comes back on these threads when there is disagreement.
I’ll start by taking the edge off the higher standard argument that I am proposing. Every time that phrase “standard” surfaces, some of us rightfully think that here comes another form of elitism: 'my standards are better than yours' ego trip, or the more sinister 'let me set the standard(s) for you.'
I did make a point of addressing that in the post, although only slightly – not panels or committees but the people should be the source of a standard, is the gist of what I proposed. But the way I phrased it, at once acknowledged that organized groups will be more effective, only that they should be motivated first from the people rather than assuming what they believe. No response, or accepting whatever we get, can take our voice out of the equation by default, like so many other things in our world. And I don’t want us to be dismissive of an area because it is not rich in design at this time, which was actually where I had my headlights turned when I posted.
However, we are not voting on this here on this board, just using another outlet as people to express our views individually. What many of us here do not realise is that some of the influencers read or sample what we put out there as we go. We should also tap into this polilogue (a made up term) to challenge ourselves as to own positions – but again that assumes that all voices that should be heard will be here and that is the rub.
What is great about your post is that you gave us a thoughtful response about why others are not motivated in the design direction, without being indifferent. Point well taken. This changes my perspective to some degree, even though I was generally aware of this in principle. I guess I just needed to see more than just an emotional reaction.
Yes, I am interested in design, probably more than most, and view it as affecting people subconsciously as well as consciously, more than most. I have to guard against projecting too much of this interest onto what are called the “silent majorities” by American politicos. I am a bit of a design populist, in that I believe that it is there inside many if not most people, waiting to be prodded out of hiding.
Good design is affected by cost but it is oftentimes not determined by it, nor should it be. You and I have likely seen many ugly, uninteresting, or just dull buildings, which had surprisingly big budgets. Then there are also those gems that are squeezed into the urban scene that come out of seemingly nowhere that are also cost effective, maybe even better because the money was tight – a radical prospect. I don’t want to start listing these because individual taste will vary and take us on a tangent; I just want you to explore that idea as it relates to affordability. In the right hands we have to believe that every project can be made better. I think with the same budget as the people had here, they could, and more importantly, should have done better.
As to the chances of getting built - when does good or better design affect that negatively? If anything, the better the design, the greater the chance something will get built, because it attracts rather than repels prospective buyers. When you do this, you may inch into the affordability area again as the market will be affected - this can lead to a vicious cycle but one that will be better for us all in that good will probably spawn good rather than bad spawning bad.
I think I have dealt with the purpose of a higher standard already. But let me address it more specifically. You raise the standard for each building and you raise the standard for every area of the city, and ultimately for the city itself - regardless of the times that these efforts will come up short (that is why I reference the next Star-like building that may be in the process of being proposed). You lower your standards you slide down that slippery slope of mediocre buildings, mediocre neighbourhoods, and perhaps a mediocre city. That seems impossible in Canada's great city, especially during a boom period, but booms produce buildings that will be around long after, and we should look at each one in that fashion, or else wonder why this or that was built in the first place.
I am realistic in that I know there is no perfect city, nor a perfect time, nor a consensus that must be satisfied before any and everything goes up. But I think we as individuals can be more active, and through organization we can also be more effective, in making ourselves heard. If nothing else the developers would be on guard, ideally on notice, that somebody is aware they are trying to sneak in the backdoor, the bad, the worse, and the offensive. This is not a nimby argument, because the goal of standard raising in this context, is tempered by what is good for Toronto itself over the long haul.
Finally, let me point out that there is a distinction between aesthetics and design when I use the two in relation to architecture. I emotionally react to the visible part of the design of the building - the look - but that is only one component of design, the part that is closest to the aesthetic. Design also links into other non-aesthetic functions that make a building work as well. The Swiss born Modernist architect, who went by the name Le Corbusier, likened the design of a built structure to making a "machine for living in." That image zones into the other, non-aesthetic side of design, that makes a building work. If good to great design is down the list, in my mind, it becomes an excuse to do things badly on every level that design touches. What we need to do is pull everything up to something worthwhile (where I substitute words like "raising of standards") or otherwise, when the "more important" things, priortised higher but assembled in isolation, do come together, you may find that the very people to whom you supplied more important needs, may turn around and complain about the diminished result that ultimately didn't deliver what they truly wanted to live in.
I’ll start by taking the edge off the higher standard argument that I am proposing. Every time that phrase “standard” surfaces, some of us rightfully think that here comes another form of elitism: 'my standards are better than yours' ego trip, or the more sinister 'let me set the standard(s) for you.'
I did make a point of addressing that in the post, although only slightly – not panels or committees but the people should be the source of a standard, is the gist of what I proposed. But the way I phrased it, at once acknowledged that organized groups will be more effective, only that they should be motivated first from the people rather than assuming what they believe. No response, or accepting whatever we get, can take our voice out of the equation by default, like so many other things in our world. And I don’t want us to be dismissive of an area because it is not rich in design at this time, which was actually where I had my headlights turned when I posted.
However, we are not voting on this here on this board, just using another outlet as people to express our views individually. What many of us here do not realise is that some of the influencers read or sample what we put out there as we go. We should also tap into this polilogue (a made up term) to challenge ourselves as to own positions – but again that assumes that all voices that should be heard will be here and that is the rub.
What is great about your post is that you gave us a thoughtful response about why others are not motivated in the design direction, without being indifferent. Point well taken. This changes my perspective to some degree, even though I was generally aware of this in principle. I guess I just needed to see more than just an emotional reaction.
Yes, I am interested in design, probably more than most, and view it as affecting people subconsciously as well as consciously, more than most. I have to guard against projecting too much of this interest onto what are called the “silent majorities” by American politicos. I am a bit of a design populist, in that I believe that it is there inside many if not most people, waiting to be prodded out of hiding.
Good design is affected by cost but it is oftentimes not determined by it, nor should it be. You and I have likely seen many ugly, uninteresting, or just dull buildings, which had surprisingly big budgets. Then there are also those gems that are squeezed into the urban scene that come out of seemingly nowhere that are also cost effective, maybe even better because the money was tight – a radical prospect. I don’t want to start listing these because individual taste will vary and take us on a tangent; I just want you to explore that idea as it relates to affordability. In the right hands we have to believe that every project can be made better. I think with the same budget as the people had here, they could, and more importantly, should have done better.
As to the chances of getting built - when does good or better design affect that negatively? If anything, the better the design, the greater the chance something will get built, because it attracts rather than repels prospective buyers. When you do this, you may inch into the affordability area again as the market will be affected - this can lead to a vicious cycle but one that will be better for us all in that good will probably spawn good rather than bad spawning bad.
I think I have dealt with the purpose of a higher standard already. But let me address it more specifically. You raise the standard for each building and you raise the standard for every area of the city, and ultimately for the city itself - regardless of the times that these efforts will come up short (that is why I reference the next Star-like building that may be in the process of being proposed). You lower your standards you slide down that slippery slope of mediocre buildings, mediocre neighbourhoods, and perhaps a mediocre city. That seems impossible in Canada's great city, especially during a boom period, but booms produce buildings that will be around long after, and we should look at each one in that fashion, or else wonder why this or that was built in the first place.
I am realistic in that I know there is no perfect city, nor a perfect time, nor a consensus that must be satisfied before any and everything goes up. But I think we as individuals can be more active, and through organization we can also be more effective, in making ourselves heard. If nothing else the developers would be on guard, ideally on notice, that somebody is aware they are trying to sneak in the backdoor, the bad, the worse, and the offensive. This is not a nimby argument, because the goal of standard raising in this context, is tempered by what is good for Toronto itself over the long haul.
Finally, let me point out that there is a distinction between aesthetics and design when I use the two in relation to architecture. I emotionally react to the visible part of the design of the building - the look - but that is only one component of design, the part that is closest to the aesthetic. Design also links into other non-aesthetic functions that make a building work as well. The Swiss born Modernist architect, who went by the name Le Corbusier, likened the design of a built structure to making a "machine for living in." That image zones into the other, non-aesthetic side of design, that makes a building work. If good to great design is down the list, in my mind, it becomes an excuse to do things badly on every level that design touches. What we need to do is pull everything up to something worthwhile (where I substitute words like "raising of standards") or otherwise, when the "more important" things, priortised higher but assembled in isolation, do come together, you may find that the very people to whom you supplied more important needs, may turn around and complain about the diminished result that ultimately didn't deliver what they truly wanted to live in.