Really? Wow. It's nearly 2015 and we're still trying to figure this out. Meanwhile, a city like Vancouver has a had a permanent design review panel since 1998.
 
P23 said:
Hong Kong is the financial centre of the Eastern world and it's filled with far worse buildings. There's plenty of crap buildings to be found in cities around the world, there's nothing special about Toronto in this respect.
Click to expand...

Somebody please post a link to a recently built set of towers, +60 floors or more, located in a postcard location of a major western city, as aesthetically underwhelming and architecturally undistinguished (designed by a 3rd rate local firm) as these brutally banal boxes.

These twins are going up next to the Skydome and CN Tower and will be among the most visible high-rises in the city. Bad architecture has a dispiriting effect on a city's self image and for a project of this size and prominence extra measures need to be taken to compel a positive result.

Yes, many Asian cities throw up reams of garbage--but is that what we're aspiring to be? Hong Kong has more skyscrapers than any city on Earth so of course they're going to have lots of clunkers. The city also has, arguably, the world's most impressive skyline and it would take dozens of sub-par 80 story towers to have any appreciably negative effect on it.

The cities that we typically envy and try to compete with--New York, London, Chicago, Sydney, SF--hell even Boston and Vancouver--do not desecrate their skylines with cheap, 3rd rate rubbish. A skyline is a city's--yes--"signature" (cue the irony!) it's logo and brand, and as such it has inherent and long lasting value. It shouldn't be cheapened by bean counting, carpet bagging developers like Concord. TPTB need to be able to step in and say "nope, this might be good for your bottom line, but not for our common interest."

If this project goes forward with no changes it may prove to be the final insult that provokes a more engaged response to architecture and design among the general citizenry. Having to stare up these uglies everyday from the Gardiner will have that effect. But common sense, and maybe a dash of anger, should kick in well before that.

I thought we'd learned from the Harbourfront debacle in the eighties the long term negative effects of building on the cheap, in prominent areas, and with no oversight. And for those bleating "Because capitalism!" or "they're doing it in Asia", you're not winning any economic arguments with those sorry excuses. A city needs stronger guiding principles than the free market can provide if it wants to succeed in the long run.
 
Last edited:
Please tell me there is still a meeting happening for this project. I will be there ready voice my hate for this project.
 
Irishmonk said:
Somebody please post a link to a recently built set of towers, +60 floors or more, located in a postcard location of a major western city, as aesthetically underwhelming and architecturally undistinguished (designed by a 3rd rate local firm) as these brutally banal boxes.

These twins are going up next to the Skydome and CN Tower and will be among the most visible high-rises in the city. Bad architecture has a dispiriting effect on a city's self image and for a project of this size and prominence extra measures need to be taken to compel a positive result.

Yes, many Asian cities throw up reams of garbage--but is that what we're aspiring to be? Hong Kong has more skyscrapers than any city on Earth so of course they're going to have lots of clunkers. The city also has, arguably, the world's most impressive skyline and it would take dozens of sub-par 80 story towers to have any appreciably negative effect on it.

The cities that we typically envy and try to compete with--New York, London, Chicago, Sydney, SF--hell even Boston and Vancouver--do not desecrate their skylines with cheap, 3rd rate rubbish. A skyline is a city's--yes--"signature" (cue the irony!) it's logo and brand, and as such it has inherent and long lasting value. It shouldn't be cheapened by bean counting, carpet bagging developers like Concord. TPTB need to be able to step in and say "nope, this might be good for your bottom line, but not for our common interest."

If this project goes forward with no changes it may prove to be the final insult that provokes a more engaged response to architecture and design among the general citizenry. Having to stare up these uglies everyday from the Gardiner will have that effect. But common sense, and maybe a dash of anger, should kick in well before that.

I thought we'd learned from the Harbourfront debacle in the eighties the long term negative effects of building on the cheap, in prominent areas, and with no oversight. And for those bleating "Because capitalism!" or "they're doing it in Asia", you're not winning any economic arguments with those sorry excuses. A city needs stronger guiding principles than the free market can provide if it wants to succeed in the long run.
Click to expand...

Yes, thank you! I wonder if P23 has ever been to downtown Chicago or Manhattan.
 
Of course the biggest problem is the developer doesn't live in Toronto and simply doesn't care what we or anyone else think about the aesthetics of these buildings - he's going to make a lot of money from them and that's all he cares about.

Developers like Mirvish (and a few others) developed something he would be proud of - something to add to the urban fabric at street level. This can't be forced - it has to be nurtured with a developer who is concerned about the city and his mark on it.

Not the case with this project,
 
junctionist said:
Why does MLS get so much criticism these days? When it was built, most people loved it. They loved the new public space, the mix of uses, the metropolitan scale and sleek modern design of the podium, as well as the thin glass towers. The only bad thing about it is the green glass.
Click to expand...

You're right, people did love it. I hated it from the start. I could never understand why people were such big fans.

After all these years this is close to the worst outcome one could have expected for these Signature towers. That said, it could be decent with the right materials (though this being Cityplace one has to doubt that possibility).
 
Yes, considering all Cityplace buildings disappoint with materials and execution, and generally do not live up to their renderings, we are in big trouble here.
 
I have to say, I'm less concerned with the form of these buildings than the materials which will almost certainly be used. Another way of saying this might be that I'm far more comfortable with rectilinear buildings than I am with mullions and spandrel. If this thing can be completed with Five / Thompson Residences / Distillery District -quality glass, I'd say that it's a bullet dodged.

In that vein, I could be among the few who consider the West One + N1 complex one of Cityplace's best.
 
Logan said:
Miami has a lot of garbage - http://www.picassodreams.com/photos/freedom/miami-skyline-blog.jpg
Click to expand...

And so you want Toronto to become more like Miami? I can't think of a major city that has a worse pedestrian experience. Have you ever walked around downtown Miami? It really, really SUCKS!

Concord needs to be taken to task because Toronto deserves much better than what they are offering. Once you build towers over 50 storeys, you are building a landmark, that will influence the whole area. It's pretty hard to avoid a 50 story tower. Buildings that tall should be looked at more closely and be subject to some kind of design guidelines or even forced to do a design competition. Developers do not have a right to do whatever they please, just because they can sell their shit to investors who live in foreign countries, who don't give a damn about the destructive impact it has on Toronto. Torontonians need to have some say in how we design our city and I will be contacting politicians to have my say.
 
Last edited:
Totally disagree. The fault lies entirely with the city. Doesn't matter where a developer is headquartered. When Concord Pacific was being proposed in Vancouver, the city demanded Concord build all the parks, the seawall, the community centre BEFORE one single resident moved in. No exception. Our problem is that the city doesn't have the balls to do the same with our local developers.

Besides, aren't these buildings designed by Toronto architects (Page+Steele)? Maybe the question about aesthetics should be posed to them instead.
 
"And so you want Toronto to become more like Miami? "

That wasn't the question. Read his question.
 
Logan said:
Totally disagree. The fault lies entirely with the city. Doesn't matter where a developer is headquartered. When Concord Pacific was being proposed in Vancouver, the city demanded Concord build all the parks, the seawall, the community centre BEFORE one single resident moved in. No exception. Our problem is that the city doesn't have the balls to do the same with our local developers.

Besides, aren't these buildings designed by Toronto architects (Page+Steele)? Maybe the question about aesthetics should be posed to them instead.
Click to expand...

You really have no idea how development in this city works, do you?
 
Explain what went wrong with Cityplace then? Or Liberty Village for that matter. Or Humber Bay shores. Or....
 
You must log in or register to post here.

Back
Top