But perhaps Tewder the windswept sterile urban expanse being created down in that area is for the better. I certainly understand how we see progress in terms of urbanity as the creation of vibrant neigbhourhoods. I am one of the biggest critics of urban master-planning. But perhaps a true sign of urban maturity is to recognize that a city needs a mixture of vibrant and anti-vibrant environments. In a hyper dense city we would be searching for answers on how to create sterility, not create vibrancy. Vibrancy occurs spontaneously according to natural forces. The only thing that can block vibrancy from occuring are planning, design and legal constructs.
 
It doesn't concern me that the area is lacking vibrancy (mind you, it is) but rather that it's lacking warmth. You are so close to the lake and next to all this great historical architecture above the train tracks and all you have is this bleak blue canyon.

Queens Quay should be fixed soon, but I'd like a similar project (including streetcars and all) on Bremner.
 
TheKingEast said:
I'm not sure what all the criticism is about. Most office buildings are boxes. This one is a box. Life goes on.

Some seem to want soemthing iconic with every project.
Click to expand...

"Some want something iconic with every building?" lol What iconic buildings are you talking about? With all this new construction, we seem to have very few, if any, iconic buildings, so what are you talking about? Some people just say the silliest things. Hell, I'd be happy if 1 in 10 buildings were even remotely iconic. Another grey, glass building in Southcore is just unacceptable to me. These developers are just pathetic.
 
Tewder said:
The wider issue here may be the way in which South-bore is emerging as an urban area, which is to say not very urban at all. Once again, there is a very business-park approach to development here which to be fair is as much a fault of the developers and city planners as it is the designers and architects.

In Toronto we are proving ourselves fairly useless when given 'carte-blanche' tracts of land to develop, and especially when dealing with lands in the central city. Many areas are falling prey to this, including City Place, South-Snore and stretches of the Waterfront. On a brighter note Toronto does seem to be doing a much better job at in-fill and developing smaller scale, less central areas. Perhaps the existing/adjacent urban fabric is the helpful guide that is missing in larger undeveloped areas?
Click to expand...

The problem will always be because new tract developments are all of the same age, and therefore - barring some minor adjustments - are generally incapable of supporting a varied income group. This is not really a Toronto issue - it's a development issue. No one goes to London to visit Canary Wharf - they go to Soho and Oxford Street. The interesting commercial properties in our older areas generally became interesting because entrepreneurs started them - no entrepreneur can afford the rent or the risk of starting a business in a new area. That's why so much new condo retail is devoted to banks - they are one of the few retail operations that do not care about the "vibe" of an area and can afford the cost of a new building.

This area is not meant to be interesting, and it won't be, and it doesn't have to be.
 
Ramako said:
Just looking at the database on SSP for office towers over 100 metres, we've got 4 under construction (Bremner Tower, RBC Waterfront Place, Queen Richmond Centre and inevitably Bay-Adelaide East) and 6 proposals at various stages (16 York, 100 Adelaide West, 90 Harbour, 388 King West, 43 Simcoe and 45 Bay).

Calgary has 1 under construction (Eight Avenue Place II) and 3 proposed (Herald Square, City Centre I and Century Gardens).

What are we missing in Calgary? What other North American cities have 10 office towers either under construction or proposed, outside of New York?
Click to expand...

The Toronto Standard reported that after New York, TO is the largest office deveelopment site at the moment.
 
Agreed.

It's not enough to say that these buildings are creating a vernacular, a Toronto Style, an aesthetic consensus, a neo-modern constabulary, whatever. Stupidity, inarticulateness, vapidity, plagiarism, dullness, and monotony can have the appearance of a consensus too, if any of these appears widespread in a group.

Southcore - a city in it's own right, all from scratch, from Bathurst to Bay has been put up in about thirty years. And Toronto, architecturally, has blown it. From the fact that over two-thirds of the residential buildings in this zone are twins or triplets of each other to the relentlessly middlebrow architecture, Toronto has blown it. Aside from the CN Tower, there is not a single great or compelling architectural reason to visit the buildings of Southcore. Southcore's functions are saving it, not it's architecture.

Thank God Queen's Quay is being redone. From Bay to Spadina - not well handled at all. We've been looking at it naked and it isn't pretty, so we're bringing in the fig leaves by the truckload. Redoing the street should be an option, if the architecture is pleasing already. But it isn't. The street needs to be redone, just to make the built form enjoyable. That's what bad architecture does. That's the level of competence that southcore is running at and architecture here, generally.

The bar needs to be raised higher in this city. That does not mean that every building has to be iconic, nor could it be. But justifying all this flat-ass mid-level monotony as being acceptable or inevitable....or worse, that we should just be grateful for what we are getting, is ridiculous. If the developers can't afford to put up something that will be a true asset, something with brains and care and interest behind it, then they shouldn't be putting up anything at all, or reduce the scale of their project until they can afford something worthwhile. We have to live with what they do.
Crack open any architectural history book, and there are plenty of strands of modernism to choose from - robust, interesting, bold and engaging of kinds of building. Modernism has something in common with science - invention and adaptation - not stasis. The blank conformity lining the streets of Southcore is not necessarily fitting for Toronto, or good modern architecture at all.
At this point, if the other half of just about every building in Southcore was demolished and replaced with something new, it would be a huge improvement.


Between Karma, 501 Yonge and this building, aA is working real hard to make praising them groundless. I hope this building goes back to redesign. As it probably won't , I'll probably lean to accept it's minimal virtues. Minimal, absolutely. Nothing like living on a minimum to take the cheer out of things.
 
Last edited:
Saying that the area lacks vibrancy is certainly jumping the gun. The stretch of Bremner between the ACC and Roger's Centre is basically 3 blocks. It currently has under construction (prematurely counting 16 York) 2 office buildings, a major hotel, an aquarium, and a new retail space at the CN Tower. There are four new large condo buildings at ICE and Infinity under construction right behind Bremner. The area is a true mix of uses and will be busy at all times of the day and night during the week and weekend.

It is not perfect. The street is too wide. York Street has too much traffic (tough to fix that). While the office buildings have more retail than office buildings of old, they could have more. Maple Leaf Square, while one of the few real mixed use developments (retail, hotel, office, residential), is a bit sterile, especially inside. Infinity.

But in my view the pluses outweigh all that. Union Station access. Public spaces at both ends, including Roundhouse Park. Some (though not enough) restaurant patios. Wide sidewalks. True mix of uses, from sporting event, convention, tourist, office, hotel, residential, park, restaurants. While some may think the four office towers are too boxy, I don't understand the suggestion that this space is suburban. I'm curious to know what sort of "carte-blance" developments other cities have done that are vastly superior to Southcore. I'm not saying they don't exist, I'm just curious.
 
Good points, Grimace - and I agree with them. It's Southcore's functions that are saving it, despite the architecture. Because of the attractions (the park, the CN Tower, the mostly-hidden ACC, the convention centre) plus office and living space steps from major transit and the lake, Southcore is set up to do well. Go down there at any time, it's lively - with crowds of people and a generally good vibe going around.
My problem is with the architecture itself. Southcore could have all it has now - plus great architecture. Really great architecture, that would announce the city beautifully, be an attraction in it's own right, and show off what we can do in this place. Inspiration.
Toronto did that for me when I was younger - seeing the CN Tower being built, plus the new downtown core...Royal Bank Plaza, Commerce Court, The TD Centre. That was really inspiring stuff. Can you imagine how diminished the skyline would be if Royal Bank Plaza was another grey box? International names were hired. For the prestige, of course, but also because those buildings were the face of the city.
Southcore is the face of the city now, from the lake, and I find it's appearance to be of far lower quality than what we had before. Impressive in density, bulk and intensity - but not of great quality. I'm as glad as anyone that the city is finally starting at the lake's edge. But it makes me want to bang my head against a wall when I look at the quality and aspirations of what was being built then, and what we've settled for, now.
 
Last edited:
I love how the York and Bremner intersection has appeared, as if out of nowhere, in the past few years and become such a great platform for our best local firms. Twinsets abound as vertical statements for the residential market, and having the top half of this building knocked sideways gives us a matching grande horizontale to service the business community.
 
Urban Shocker said:
I love how the York and Bremner intersection has appeared, as if out of nowhere, in the past few years and become such a great platform for our best local firms. Twinsets abound as vertical statements for the residential market, and having the top half of this building knocked sideways gives us a matching grande horizontale to service the business community.
Click to expand...

Nice Koolaid, not drinking tonight though, sorry. This building is like the others around here - ice being the exception. Not to say alcoholics anonymous is a bad firm, they just aren't maybe getting paid enough to do exceptional work here...which appears to be often the case. If anyone is to blame, its usually the developers for this and other mediocre piles.
 
The shifted box is clearly referencing ICE's rotated floorplate, but it would have been nice if they at least tried some change in materiality.
 
The_Architect said:
I'd trade quantity of banality for quality.
Click to expand...

With a greater number of office towers, there will be greater competition for tenants. At some point -- and I'm getting the feeling that we're close albeit not quite there yet -- a new tower will want to set itself apart from the pack of its competitors with higher-calibre design.

The same thing happened with our condos over the past 20 years.
 
Last edited:
Parkdalian said:
This area is not meant to be interesting, and it won't be, and it doesn't have to be.
Click to expand...

Why? York and Bremner have potential to spare as a major intersection/hub.

I agree with comments on the uninspiring architecture but I also feel the problem is more than the sum of its lacklustre parts. The scale, composition and character of development here come together feeling more like Hurontario or MCC than it does other highrise areas of downtown.
 
You must log in or register to post here.

Back
Top