Boo Hiss! In extremis.

Orinary, unimaginative, run-of-the-mill, if the elevations are any indicator. Eevn the much-vaunted height we've been waiting for is absent. I thought this one was held to a competition - (trying to think back....) and that a we should have received something more remarkable than another flat clone of almost every condo that has gone up in the last few years between Bay, Lakeshore, Ossington and Queen - particularly in the 'Entertainment District'.
 
Last edited:
Logan said:
Explain what went wrong with Cityplace then? Or Liberty Village for that matter. Or Humber Bay shores. Or....
Click to expand...

I can't stand McDevelopments like CityPlace but I certainly would never put Liberty Village in the same category.

I know a lot don't really care for it but Liberty Village does seem to be built on a more human scale with a far superior quality and variety of materials, designs, and styles. It is also built as being a pedestrian friendly area. It may not be your cup of tea but it is light years ahead of CityPlace in both substance and style.
 
ssiguy2 said:
I can't stand McDevelopments like CityPlace but I certainly would never put Liberty Village in the same category.

I know a lot don't really care for it but Liberty Village does seem to be built on a more human scale with a far superior quality and variety of materials, designs, and styles. It is also built as being a pedestrian friendly area. It may not be your cup of tea but it is light years ahead of CityPlace in both substance and style.
Click to expand...

City place is a much bigger failure Imo. LV is a bit of a mess but it's still a work in progress. While the buildings may be ugly, the quality is better. City place was such a large, important parcel of land that was completely ruined. It will be studied for ages on what not to do.
 
Liberty villages center is a parking lot... FAILURE!
City place is just a suburbs development in the middle of city.... FAILURE!
 
ham said:
Liberty villages center is a parking lot... FAILURE!
City place is just a suburbs development in the middle of city.... FAILURE!
Click to expand...

That's pretty much the attitude of a lot of people who post here.
 
TheKingEast said:
City place is a much bigger failure Imo. LV is a bit of a mess but it's still a work in progress. While the buildings may be ugly, the quality is better. City place was such a large, important parcel of land that was completely ruined. It will be studied for ages on what not to do.
Click to expand...

How is it a bigger failure? What is considered an ugly building? What is considered better quality? Hindsight is always 20/20.
 
Only in Toronto would a cluster of towers the size of CityPlace be considered "suburban". Toronto is amost unique among North American cities in its thousands of highrises spread across its suburban hinterland, any US city would have almost nothing but lowrise development with a few midrises here and there.

To call CityPlace "suburban" just demonstrates how parochial the person saying that is. You may or may not like its design and execution, but CityPlace is as urban as can be.
 
Mongo said:
Only in Toronto would a cluster of towers the size of CityPlace be considered "suburban". Toronto is amost unique among North American cities in its thousands of highrises spread across its suburban hinterland, any US city would have almost nothing but lowrise development with a few midrises here and there.

To call CityPlace "suburban" just demonstrates how parochial the person saying that is. You may or may not like its design and execution, but CityPlace is as urban as can be.
Click to expand...

I can't judge CityPlace since I haven't been there in a while, so I'm not defending someone calling CityPlace "suburban".

However, I do want to make the point that urban does not mean tall or large buildings, and suburban does not mean short buildings.

For example, here's a place with tall buildings:
http://goo.gl/maps/s7d3F

Here's a place with low-rise buildings:
http://goo.gl/maps/0DjEa

Which seems more urban to you?
 
ehlow said:
I can't judge CityPlace since I haven't been there in a while, so I'm not defending someone calling CityPlace "suburban".

However, I do want to make the point that urban does not mean tall or large buildings, and suburban does not mean short buildings.

For example, here's a place with tall buildings:
http://goo.gl/maps/s7d3F

Here's a place with low-rise buildings:
http://goo.gl/maps/0DjEa

Which seems more urban to you?
Click to expand...

Which one is located within walking distance of the downtown core?

If there is a place literally right next to the Rogers Centre and CN Tower, that is full of tall buildings with a very high population density, how could it possibly be considered "suburban", outside of UT?
 
Mongo said:
Which one is located within walking distance of the downtown core?

If there is a place literally right next to the Rogers Centre and CN Tower, that is full of tall buildings with a very high population density, how could it possibly be considered "suburban", outside of UT?
Click to expand...

Again, I'm not saying that CityPlace is suburban. Somebody else said that. I'm just saying that tall buildings alone doesn't make a place urban.

If CityPlace has things like mixed use with retail, is walkable, and pedestrian traffic, then to me those things are push it towards being "urban", but I can't judge it since I haven't been down there.
 
ehlow said:
Again, I'm not saying that CityPlace is suburban. Somebody else said that. I'm just saying that tall buildings alone doesn't make a place urban.

If CityPlace has things like mixed use with retail, is walkable, and pedestrian traffic, then to me those things are push it towards being "urban", but I can't judge it since I haven't been down there.
Click to expand...

I dont mind city place, its not the best architecture in the city but it is a lot better than the wasteland that used to be in its place. I do however sort of understand the idea of it feeling suburban. It still feels quite separate from downtown, winding streets rather than a grid, vehicle centric, rather sterile, not nearly as vibrant and gritty and the rest of downtown. A little more geared towards young families, a bit *cough* less cool than downtown, and not a far cry from the tower in the park format.
I however have no issue with it.

I just want more colour... and not a random pane of glass here and there.
 
cityplace feels less suburban every year ... with more restaurants and other retail opening ... but I'm sure regardless what changes folks who view city place has a failure from day one, who likely have never have set foot in it since then will never change their minds.
 
OK so during Nuit Blanche tonight there were a lot of exhibits in CityPlace, so I walked through for the first time in a few years.

Retail wise it seemed OK. If I remember correctly it's much better than it used to be, with the new bridge, Fort York connecting to Bathurst, and new retail. The restaurant there looked nice, and it seemed to have the essentials (grocery store, coffee shop).

However, I have to say that from what I've seen of the Pan Am Village aka West Don Lands, which is comparable since it's also an entirely new neighbourhood built from scratch, I think I will prefer that to CityPlace once it opens. Just based on the renderings and seeing what's under construction now, and the park that's open there now.

Maybe they could continue to improve Fort York in CityPlace more by adding more retail/restaurants.
 
You must log in or register to post here.

Back
Top