xy3 said:
Overly thin supertalls often end up looking like smokestacks , especially compared to the larger floorplate buildings in the MINT core.

Thinner isnt always better.
Click to expand...
Some people like smokestacks profiles, besides this city could use something, anything really for a building to differentiate itself from the masses.
Art Tsai said:
No new renderings are updated in the database! The overall building storey count and building height remain the same. The minor change is the total unit count was reduced from 588 units to 569 units. The total parking count increased slightly from 92 parking spaces to 93 parking spaces.
Click to expand...
1 more parking spot? Lol why even bother
Koops65 said:
View attachment 379809
Click to expand...
So much potential, yet so much mediocrity.
 
Pshaw.... not every building can be a game-changer. Plenty of cities around the world have tall infill towers that are neither remarkably stunning nor horrendously ugly. Bemoaning both the present built form as well as most everything that's under construction or proposed, declaring this city as a bastion of mediocrity - the reflexive hand-wringing feels a tad anguished and overblown.

Could we be more daring or imaginative? No doubt we can. But I suspect we've been spoiled by the rate of change this city has undergone over the last two decades. The alterations to skyline have been wild over that time, and more is on the way. Not everything can or should stand out. I suspect some people want a Dubai-type clown show of very tall and odd-shaped buildings for the sake of an untested notion that it all signifies design excellence. In cities around the world, the vast majority of buildings amount to near-infinite variations of a shoebox stood on end; it's practicality and sheer economics that usually wins the day.

Our cladding and finishes though.... yeah, that could stand some improvement across the board.

Anyhoo... I quite like this building as proposed. I think it looks sleek and slim - ummm, at least the tallest component does. And if it does indeed turn out to be black as per the render, that would be dead sexy.
 
Lenser said:
Pshaw.... not every building can be a game-changer. Plenty of cities around the world have tall infill towers that are neither remarkably stunning nor horrendously ugly. Bemoaning both the present built form as well as most everything that's under construction or proposed, declaring this city as a bastion of mediocrity - the reflexive hand-wringing feels a tad anguished and overblown.

Could we be more daring or imaginative? No doubt we can. But I suspect we've been spoiled by the rate of change this city has undergone over the last two decades. The alterations to skyline have been wild over that time, and more is on the way. Not everything can or should stand out. I suspect some people want a Dubai-type clown show of very tall and odd-shaped buildings for the sake of an untested notion that it all signifies design excellence. In cities around the world, the vast majority of buildings amount to near-infinite variations of a shoebox stood on end; it's practicality and sheer economics that usually wins the day.

Our cladding and finishes though.... yeah, that could stand some improvement across the board.

Anyhoo... I quite like this building as proposed. I think it looks sleek and slim - ummm, at least the tallest component does. And if it does indeed turn out to be black as per the render, that would be dead sexy.
Click to expand...
I like the design, too. And we are spoiled here. Very spoiled. Most cities don't have this much development. And as you said, there's lots more on the way! 😃
 
Why is the go to UT position on any criticism of bland, mediocre Toronto architecture a scornful reference to the architecture of Dubai and/or Shanghai? This trope has been used by a number of members over the years and is just lazy. I’ve been to both places multiple times and there are some absolutely gorgeous buildings in those cities.

There seems to be a belief by some on this forum that the architecture of the west, specifically modernism and its siblings, is somehow superior. This is deeply chauvinistic. Both Dubai and Shanghai have hundreds of years of architectural history that informs many of their designs. In Dubai, references to the historical architecture of mosques is found in the crowns of a number of modern towers. The Burj Al Arab was designed to resemble the billowing sail of an Arabian dhow. The Burj Khalifa was designed using the stepped ascending spirals of traditional Islamic architecture. Calling the Dubai design preferences a ‘clown show’ is totally inappropriate. Is the Dubai style a fit for Toronto? Probably not and no one is saying that. However, there ARE many towers that would look great here and, clearly, many that would not. We have no real history of mosque, palace or fort architecture to use as references. Using the architectural preferences of designers in Dubai as a way of haughtily dismissing criticism of bland Toronto architecture is demeaning. Expressing preferences for a building like this one is, of course, fine. But assuming there is a de facto architectural superiority of one form over another is, in my opinion, not useful at all.
 
Last edited:
I suspect you've got an axe to grind. Nowhere have I disparaged Dubai on cultural or religious grounds. Nowhere have I made the fatuous claim that Western architecture is inherently superior. Nowhere have I said that Dubai has zero gorgeous buildings. I do however stand by my comments - but neither do I expect that I will be lauded each and every time I voice an opinion.

That is all.
 
Nobody's going to accuse this building of being architecturally brilliant however it does have some positives. One, and to me most importantly the street scape is maintained with a fair attempt of heritage preservation and public interaction. While I admire TD Centre and Commerce Court's minimalistic and imposing massiveness i'm not sure I would want a whole downtown core of this nor do I want the typical massive soul sucking podium that many recent buildings in this city have to offer. Second, I don't mind the mid tower style break. While I admit the top and bottom do not match (maybe add some of the bottom section's queues and colour to accent the top might go a long way here) I do take the top section as a nod to TD Centre. Third, this is not a bad place to have a tall tower moving the peak away from the waterfront towards University avenue sets up some real major possibilities for urban renewal at new heights in the area for decades to come. Now if they could just retain the pub on the first floor...
 
Lenser said:
I suspect you've got an axe to grind. Nowhere have I disparaged Dubai on cultural or religious grounds. Nowhere have I made the fatuous claim that Western architecture is inherently superior. Nowhere have I said that Dubai has zero gorgeous buildings. I do however stand by my comments - but neither do I expect that I will be lauded each and every time I voice an opinion.

That is all.
Click to expand...
I wasn’t referring to you directly with my comment as I mentioned that there have been a number of posters who use the ‘ would you rather Toronto be more like Dubai’ response when someone complains about the blandness of Toronto designs. I did however specifically take exception to your “I suspect some people want a Dubai-type clown show of very tall and odd-shaped buildings for the sake of an untested notion that it all signifies design excellence.” comment.
 
Perhaps it’s more offensive to stereotype an entire cities ‘blandness’ , as you put it, on a website that caters almost entirely to Torontonians and not expect blowback? I’m not a huge fan of some of the worlds new more ‘expressive ‘ architecture however I admire some also. Why aren’t we Dubai or Beijing? Because we’re not. We express ourselves as who we are. Plus I like this proposal.
 
LUVIT! said:
Perhaps it’s more offensive to stereotype an entire cities ‘blandness’ , as you put it, on a website that caters almost entirely to Torontonians and not expect blowback? I’m not a huge fan of some of the worlds new more ‘expressive ‘ architecture however I admire some also. Why aren’t we Dubai or Beijing? Because we’re not. We express ourselves as who we are. Plus I like this proposal.
Click to expand...
I wasn’t stereotyping an entire city’s blandness. Toronto has some great architecture. I was simply referring to those projects that have been rightly described as bland and the response was “would you rather have Dubai architecture’. I find THAT stereotyping an entire city’s architecture as evidenced by the ‘clown show’ comment.
 
Last edited:
Lenser said:
Plenty of cities around the world have tall infill towers that are neither remarkably stunning nor horrendously ugly.
Click to expand...
Yes, many cities have background buildings and I see no problem to this. However, many of our background buildings are very low-quality and do not create a sense of place. Iconic and background buildings should work together to create some sort of character. The latter can avoid luxurious expressions but they should have some level of quality and not be complete eyesores. Both should balance harmony and individual expression.
Lenser said:
I suspect we've been spoiled by the rate of change this city has undergone over the last two decades.
Click to expand...
Spoiled with quality or with quantity?
Lenser said:
In cities around the world, the vast majority of buildings amount to near-infinite variations of a shoebox stood on end; it's practicality and sheer economics that usually wins the day.
Click to expand...
Sadly, you are right. Should we continue building shoebox cities... every street and building alike?
 
This site likely wouldn't exist if there was unanimous agreement on what factors and qualities constitute blandness, excellence, world class, iconic, or any number of other terms that are commonly used in this place; we'd have nothing to talk about.

As cool as some buildings in Dubai doubtless are, in my view there remains some garish aspects to that city's skyline. Yes, that's a matter of personal taste - I readily concede that. No one is being forced to subscribe to my sensibility here.

Taking it back to the topic at hand, this building as proposed is hardly brilliant, but it just might fit in very nicely nonetheless. Not every new building is going to be exceptional. Yes, we should always aim high - but as I've remarked in the past, forum members plainly can't agree on an ironclad set of terms that would guarantee brilliant results. It's all subjective.
 
I always look forward to your posts Northern Light... but this day of dread served up by planning has left me with UT Post-planningTraumaticSkyscraperDysfunction. I'm upping my meds.
 

Toronto Model 08-06-22 212 King W.png
 
You must log in or register to post here.

Back
Top