[Edward Skira]

Implement what law?
Government defined aesthetics?
well, it was already tried: USSR, North Korea, etc were the greatest enables of such approach.. nice outcome, great architecture!

Been to Melbourne? They have rules regarding design and their architecture is quite good. And I'm talking regular condos. Far superior to what we have here.

 

[Adjei]

You've both been on this forum long enough to know that Toronto has not been given the power to legislate aesthetics, the City only has the power to approve or deny buildings based on planning rules. They can encourage builders to up their game in the aesthetics department, but that's all, they cannot stop a building solely on its looks. (If they did, who would get to decide if something looks good enough or not? City Councillors, who may or may not have any sense of architecture and design? Or maybe give the Design Review Panel actual power to deny approval of a building? What if you don't agree with that year's panelists on what's a good design? Public opinion, and we're a part of that, may be the better way to influence building design to a degree.)

You've both also been on this forum long enough to know that the first thing we see often changes, sometimes only subtly, and sometimes completely. Because of that, it's way too early to treat this like it's a final plan…

…so go ahead and chime in, you're right that this isn't any good so far — but why drag the whole city into this already, this could still improve considerably before it's built.

42

The city may not have the power to legislative aesthetics but there is more than they can do the lackadaisical attitude they currently have. They can set an examples for developers to follow starting with city projects and our public spaces. Look at the Nathan Philips Square revitalization. Does the execution of this project show that developers should strive to do better? It's not even just the city, it's public organization, the province. We don't see a regard for good design and execution of projects.

I see all of this as a collective failing on behalf of everybody. From the politicians, when was the last time we saw the mayor focus on anything design related? When last the public realm, architecture, public spaces been part of a municipal, provincial election campaign even if it's as prominent. This does not even seem to on their radar.

The bureaucracy. Look at what Watertfront Toronto is allowing to be built on the waterfront. There have been 1 or 2 buildings which are good but the rest have been subpar. The waterfront should be what we show to the world like in other cities. Compare our waterfront to other cities particularly cities in Europe or Australia. I know it's a work in progress but what we have so far is lacklustre. Even when Sidewalk Labs wants to bring some innovation and fresh thinking, we have others fighting it, They would rather we get saddled with more suburban office buildings and spandrel condos. I know there is some privacy concerns with them which should be addressed but at least they are thinking out of the box which is something we don't see in Toronto. The different agencies don't seem to work together and each does whatever it wants without regards to the other. This is why we have sidewalks being dug up and patched for years without reverting back to how it was. One city spokesperson said that the city often patches up sidewalks with asphalt and that it is only temporary:

Asphalt is a poor replacement for missing sidewalk bricks

The decorative bricks were removed because of uneven edges that could trip up pedestrians, a common problem with sidewalk bricks, writes Jack Lakey.

www.thestar.com

You mean something which can be in place for years is temporary. How does the city define temporary..

The citizens don't seem to care much about how all these badly designed and clad condos going up. They would rather scream about too many condos and height than talk about their design.

The standard among the architects in this city who are designing 95% of the buildings here has improved but still lacklustre compared to what you find in other cities. They need to collectively raise their standards since they are designing most of the work .

The developers don't seem to care about how their buildings are helping to improve the look and feel of the city. They are looking to make a buck and move onto the next one. Most of the crap they are putting here they wouldn't dare put in other cities if they even had the chance to build there. I want to see then go put the crap they put here in a city like Amsterdam.

Sorry for the rant. I was also not talking about this building specifically. It is part of a collective problem in this city.

 

[Contra]

Been to Melbourne? They have rules regarding design and their architecture is quite good. And I'm talking regular condos. Far superior to what we have here.

Aussie architecture in general is miles ahead of Canada's. They seem to be much more openly welcome the more wild sign of design (ex. Melbourne 108, Eureka Tower, Wilkonson Eyre's new project in the Sydney CBD, etc). Some of them aren't for me, but as a whole their design rules have proven exciting.

 

[Adjei]

Been to Melbourne? They have rules regarding design and their architecture is quite good. And I'm talking regular condos. Far superior to what we have here.

Or even Amsterdam which I am more familiar with. Go even outside the city centre into the suburbs and the design standards for buildings, public is way above here in Toronto. I guess that's also government defined aesthetics. If that's what government defined aesthetics is I want that here. Most of the buildings being put here would never be allowed there period. The standard here is too low.

 

[Adjei]

Aussie architecture in general is miles ahead of Canada's. They seem to be much more openly welcome the more wild sign of design (ex. Melbourne 108, Eureka Tower, Wilkonson Eyre's new project in the Sydney CBD, etc). Some of them aren't for me, but as a whole their design rules have proven exciting.

Canada may be below Australia but even in Canada i find firms from Montreal to be doing better than Toronto based firms. They seem more to think outside of the box both for buildings and public spaces. I wish it was possible for them to get more work here.

 

[Contra]

Canada may be below Australia but even in Canada i find firms from Montreal to be doing better than Toronto based firms. They seem more to think outside of the box both for buildings and public spaces. I wish it was possible for them to get more work here.

For home architecture especially. I've become enamoured with Pelletier de Fontenay and Atelier Pierre Thibault. Hoping we see them move into larger builds (and into Toronto).

 

[interchange42]

The city may not have the power to legislative aesthetics but there is more than they can do the lackadaisical attitude they currently have. They can set an examples for developers to follow starting with city projects and our public spaces. Look at the Nathan Philips Square revitalization. Does the execution of this project show that developers should strive to do better? It's not even just the city, it's public organization, the province. We don't see a regard for good design and execution of projects.

I see all of this as a collective failing on behalf of everybody. From the politicians, when was the last time we saw the mayor focus on anything design related? When last the public realm, architecture, public spaces been part of a municipal, provincial election campaign even if it's as prominent. This does not even seem to on their radar.

The bureaucracy. Look at what Watertfront Toronto is allowing to be built on the waterfront. There have been 1 or 2 buildings which are good but the rest have been subpar. The waterfront should be what we show to the world like in other cities. Compare our waterfront to other cities particularly cities in Europe or Australia. I know it's a work in progress but what we have so far is lacklustre. Even when Sidewalk Labs wants to bring some innovation and fresh thinking, we have others fighting it, They would rather we get saddled with more suburban office buildings and spandrel condos. I know there is some privacy concerns with them which should be addressed but at least they are thinking out of the box which is something we don't see in Toronto. The different agencies don't seem to work together and each does whatever it wants without regards to the other. This is why we have sidewalks being dug up and patched for years without reverting back to how it was. One city spokesperson said that the city often patches up sidewalks with asphalt and that it is only temporary:

Asphalt is a poor replacement for missing sidewalk bricks

The decorative bricks were removed because of uneven edges that could trip up pedestrians, a common problem with sidewalk bricks, writes Jack Lakey.

www.thestar.com

You mean something which can be in place for years is temporary. How does the city define temporary..

The citizens don't seem to care much about how all these badly designed and clad condos going up. They would rather scream about too many condos and height than talk about their design.

The standard among the architects in this city who are designing 95% of the buildings here has improved but still lacklustre compared to what you find in other cities. They need to collectively raise their standards since they are designing most of the work .

The developers don't seem to care about how their buildings are helping to improve the look and feel of the city. They are looking to make a buck and move onto the next one. Most of the crap they are putting here they wouldn't dare put in other cities if they even had the chance to build there. I want to see then go put the crap they put here in a city like Amsterdam.

Sorry for the rant. I was also not talking about this building specifically. It is part of a collective problem in this city.

I'm sympathetic to the great majority of what you've said here, and in general I think we're all on UrbanToronto because we want to see a better Toronto come out this relentless building boom.

That said, I do not expect that the majority of buildings will ever reach the heights we're looking for: all demographics have to be accommodated by the new construction, so the majority of buildings are going to cater to (the closest they can come to) affordability: we're going to get builders going for dull and safe and inexpensive in any project where they don't think they can get top dollar… so that's going to be most of them. I only see an appetite out there to improve building standards in terms of sustainability, so insulation requirements are going to continue to be raised, for example (waiting for the day when builders are forced to introduce thermal breaks for balcony slabs—how do we not ave that yet?!) and because all of that costs more… I only see the upping of design standards coming from suasion, not legislation. Even at the Design Review Panel, comments about style and materiality for the sake of looks are secondary to practical planning issues they identify with the projects.

In terms of civic projects, we ave a mayor who was elected based on a promise to not raise taxes, and all he really does is annually chip away at services that might make the city better. Does Park & Rec have anywhere near enough in their budget to maintain our public green spaces? Not at all. How about road pavement? Sidewalk quality? Street furniture? Bike lane quality, especially in terms of protecting cyclists from motorized vehicles? TTC state of good repair? They don't have the money to keep any of these in good shape, and Nathan Phillips Square is another example of the penny-pinching that they practice all over the city… because that what voters have responded to. And the province? The guy running this province was basically voted in promising to be the biggest jackass ever, and not the kind that's worried about public realm.

Still, fight on for projects as they come up, like this one. I think our best bet for systemic change—between elections—is to continue to push for better with each project, and sometimes we'll get better, and gradually people will want better more often. We still have a chance to get better here. Fill in that questionnaire!

42

 

[maestro]

Australia architecture is not miles ahead of us. It's more daring. That usually doesn't make it better. The built quality is obviously better, Anywhere it's better than the predominance of spandrel glass and window wall from Toronto to Vancouver. Half the skyscrapers being built in Montreal are designed by lesser Toronto firms. The SSG curtainwall looks good.

It's easy to blame Ford and Tory for everything and not the system that has been in place long before their tenure. We aren't penny pinching based on our civic debt loads. The budgets are skewed towards salaries with little left for nice things and sometimes basic maintenance. Canadians tend to laugh at the US health care system paying the most per capita and having mediocre coverage and yet it's the same with our education system in Ontario. Our system is one of the most expensive without the accompanying results and yet here we think throwing even more money at it will change anything. Ford and Tory have been lousy. I don't care at all for the career politician with little experience in charge of the Conservative Feds. However, what Wynne and Trudeau have done is incomprehensible. Wynne has grossly mismanaged Ontario's finances. Trudeau has targeted middle class working Canadians to improve the standards of those in poverty "around the world" while protecting his own wealth and his rich constituents.

They are all the same. Elected dictators that place their party and longevity above all else and we just gobble it up. There's no dialogue anymore. It's always for or against. Binary code.

 

[Amare]

In terms of civic projects, we ave a mayor who was elected based on a promise to not raise taxes, and all he really does is annually chip away at services that might make the city better. Does Park & Rec have anywhere near enough in their budget to maintain our public green spaces? Not at all. How about road pavement? Sidewalk quality? Street furniture? Bike lane quality, especially in terms of protecting cyclists from motorized vehicles? TTC state of good repair? They don't have the money to keep any of these in good shape, and Nathan Phillips Square is another example of the penny-pinching that they practice all over the city… because that what voters have responded to. And the province? The guy running this province was basically voted in promising to be the biggest jackass ever, and not the kind that's worried about public realm.

All this is exactly the problem with Toronto, and why we keep ending up with tons of subpar and at best mediocre developments like this proposal. We elect individuals who dont change the needle on anything and keep things status quo; and when people finally vote for change, they elect people who literally destroy every transformative policy that exists in our system in the name of penny pinching.

Just as much as politicians and developers are at fault, Torontonians are equally at fault for what we've been seeing take place over the last 20 years. It wasnt too long ago where Toronto actually followed through with grand plans, but today we cant even install a simple set a street lights without bickering for years over: light pollution, commute times, excessive costs, # of pedestrians struck vs not struck, etc...

Toronto likes to think they want to be great, but there are far too many people in this city with a mindset that puts us on a consistent trend towards mediocrity.

 

[LUVIT!]

I don't believe I've heard one positive comment from Amare here. I wonder why you live here? We all want a better place to call home but come on!

 

[cogito ergo]

Been to Melbourne? They have rules regarding design and their architecture is quite good. And I'm talking regular condos. Far superior to what we have here.

As far as I know 'rules' and 'law' are two different things.
Government run, bureaucratic aesthetics control LAW is something I was referring to in my response.

 

[Amare]

I don't believe I've heard one positive comment from Amare here. I wonder why you live here? We all want a better place to call home but come on!

Yes, you can probably tell that i'm fed up with the way things have been going (or havent been going in this city) and it's because Toronto has been going backwards for the past X years. Even though this is the case I know we're capable of much greater things, which is why I pine on the city for being laggards with just about everything these days.

Why would I be happy with mediocrity when we can do so much better?

 

[TrickyRicky]

Evidently mediocrity rules. If it didn’t why is Toronto becoming increasingly prominent, particularly in the Western world? Low standards, sucky leadership, complacency, no direction, cheap out mediocrity...success! Go figure

 

[3Dementia]

Possible influence/input on building design and planning issues from outside the decision-makers purview, seems to largely consist of 1. Design Review members "the professionals" and 2. Community meetings "the folks who want a voice in their neighbourhood".

No idea what an impact audit of those 2 influencer groups would reveal in the built form and design of the city in the last decade.

There's a third potential core outside voice which presently exists largely in the safe harbour of anonymous forums, that consists of varying degrees of brief insight, complaining, whining, documenting and even occasional thoughtful, informed, even brilliant alternative takes on design/planning.

It would take some serious culling by "gifted" editors (censors?) to identify the best of the best of these talented "amateurs" to create a new 3rd voice: informed, well-researched "arm chair" designer/planners who typically just may see, and be more passionate about small (individual projects) and big picture planning issues. Yes, an elite volunteer corps to storm the beach.

I realize UT has done a fine job of inserting itself into conversations. And I also realize that membership includes some professionals and there is likely even a City part-timer reporting anything worth reporting from UT discussions.

Membership applications now being accepted for this new voice/collective. If your application says curtainwall beats windowwall, you may not receive a call back.

 

[cogito ergo]

I personally find it funny when people are implying that design mediocrity is a new phenomena in Toronto.
90% of Toronto streets are lined up with shoddy buildings, some ugly as hell, yet considered a "natural fit" in this town.
Examples from other world locations are somewhat relevant, but recipes, or solutions proposed are usually based on a premise that our brave elected officials can "fix it".
My humble view on the subject is that as long as market(clients) will not be willing to prefer good design over bad, also willing to pay extra (if necessary) to get quality over mediocrity, nothing will change.
Mandating aesthetics by the City, Province or other public institutions will never ever produce freedom of design expression, even if setting standards to some uniform 'normality' will seem satisfactory at first, it will just stiffen the process and slow down natural progress.
In the end, as we all know the true "beauty is in the eye of... ".. (hopefully not) City Hall bureaucrats.