Should the Queens Park view corridor be preserved?

  • Yes

    Votes: 168 43.3%

  • No

    Votes: 145 37.4%

  • Don't Know

    Votes: 15 3.9%

  • Don't Care

    Votes: 60 15.5%
  • Total voters
    388
maestro said:
I find the museum tower just awful ...
Click to expand...

It's certainly not a building that will appeal to traditional Torontonians that's for sure. Then again, we all know some of the negative labels people use to describe huge swaths of Toronto's built form. 90% of what they've endorsed over the past 40 years has been somewhat bland. Do we really want another 40 years of that design sensibility to dominate?

They've had their crack at it and don't have enough to show for it to warrant any more consideration. Time to move aside and make room for people with a little more flare.
 
Last edited:
What? There's no moving aside to be done. Toronto's buildings have more than proved themselves.

Anyways, let's stick on topic.
 
It's certainly not a building that will appeal to traditional Torontonians that's for sure. Then again, we all know some of the negative labels people use to describe huge swaths of Toronto's built form. 90% of what they've endorsed over the past 40 years has been somewhat bland. Do we really want another 40 years of that design sensibility to dominate?
Click to expand...

I'm hardly a traditional Torontonian and bland is not a word I'd use to describe 90% of the towers built during this boom. Clewes' brand is rather insignificant to the likes of Kirkor's commercialism. Bland is a step above most.
 
So you're saying that despite the number of bland Clewes towers going up, there are still more 'commericial' (meaning overly fussy?) Kirkor - NY Towers - type buildings going up? Just trying to understand...

42
 
Okay then,

For every so called modest, boring glass box there are at least five "fussy" tower designs inspired more by their easy marketability. One does have to leave the core of the city to see the complete picture though.

Contrived? You use that word in its pejorative sense because you cannot see anything good coming from an attempt to create a landmark? Certainly there have been failures to create landmarks, but there have been lots of successes as well.
Click to expand...

Most successes weren't conceived to be landmarks and of those that were, it's few and far between. Great artists are great because they know when enough is enough. Foster's a great example. His work shows great restraint. It just is what it is. It doesn't try to be. It's just my opinion that Museum Plaza simply tries too hard and crosses that fine line between great and, "what were they thinking?!?"
 
Last edited:
maestro said:
Okay then,

For every so called modest, boring glass box there are at least five "fussy" tower designs inspired more by their easy marketability. One does have to leave the core of the city to see the complete picture though.
Click to expand...

Fair enough. I agree that there is still more of the fussy stuff than the Clewes stuff. I do not agree that the Clewes stuff is boring on the whole.

Most successes weren't conceived to be landmarks and of those that were, it's few and far between. Great artists are great because they know when enough is enough. Foster's a great example. His work shows great restraint. It just is what is. It doesn't try to be. It's just my opinion that Museum Plaza simply tries too hard and crosses that fine line between great and, "what were they thinking?!?"
Click to expand...

I agree that Foster is someone who normally succeeds in creating landmarks when the budget is big enough. (Oh if only they'd had even one million more for the Dan Pharmacy building at the U of T.) Rem Koolhaas - Museum Plaza's designer - has had his share of successes too, but yeah, Louisville is the wrong place for what he has proposed there.

I just hope we get something better on this site. Whether you, Maestro, and I will agree on what comes down the pipe for it, well, we'll have to wait and see...

42
 
Thanks for the clarification!

42
 
I agree that a landmark design here would be nice given its location that could serve as a view terminus for Bloor looking west and the east/west streets in Yorkville. Nothing too tall but something that focuses on quality materials and design. Maybe with a clock tower of sorts that floats over the neighbourhood as a prominent element that could come to be identified with Yorkville.
 
gawd, typical nimby based article again...No good reasons for not having the buildings; one lady doesn't want noise or disruption for the last years of her life, and another person thinks it will somehow distroy the neighbourhood, even though it is getting rid of a tall building to put up a tall building... I think it would be less noisy once built as it is no longer a hotel and restaurant, and will have nice retail along both corners ...
 
The report’s attachment recommends the developer knock its application to maximum heights of 136 metres. There was debate as to whether this translated into 40 or 44 storeys. The developer’s current application calls for towers of 178 and 166 metres each.

Come on they are building a 200 meter plus building around the corner and a future 250 meter building at 1 Bloor east.I always thought that this midtown location area was the perfect place for a bunch of 180-220 meter skyscrapers,then again i may be wrong when they are debating about downsizing 30-40 meters here and there on every proposed tower.If i was an area resident i would be more worried about the design and impact of these projects in this ritzy area than the actual height.
 
You must log in or register to post here.

Back
Top