What a drab, ordinary, defensive and banal lump of a building.

This is a cruelly arrogant assertion of Toronto's mediocrity - a scandal in everything but appearance. Parsimonious, cheap, third-rate and blankly smug, it banks on us having been browbeaten by mediocrity into accepting it, yet insists on occupying an important civic spot where it can foist itself on us in order to disappoint for years to come.

Shameful and depressing.
 
The only postive thing i can think of to write about this building is that it appears as though it will be relatively easy to demolish at a more enlightened date in the future.
 
"What a drab, ordinary, defensive and banal lump of a building.

This is a cruelly arrogant assertion of Toronto's mediocrity - a scandal in everything but appearance. Parsimonious, cheap, third-rate and blankly smug, it banks on us having been browbeaten by mediocrity into accepting it, yet insists on occupying an important civic spot where it can foist itself on us in order to disappoint for years to come.

Shameful and depressing."
Click to expand...


Yeah. but do you like it? ;) (I agree btw)
 
Does this sum up the changes?

1. Ohh ahhh, wood-lined wings on the roof. Don't mind the banal box below.
2. An exciting central screen for the atrium. Enjoy our reruns. Re: Piano at Union Station
3. Added sliding doors to one side? Added some lounge with a bunch of chairs and tables? Can't even make out what they did for the last slide.

Personally I would scrap the entire project and start fresh - and get rid of diamond and his team.
 
Well, it's better than it was, thanks to the Design Review Panel, but is it what the citizens of this fair burg really want for their waterfront?

No, of course not. Barely passable does not a cherished building make.

42
 
Time to write this one off as the "mistake by the lake" (it's going to get built) and strengthen the panel by using this as a case study for future design reviews. Sorry, but we may be able to turn Jack Coal's evil to future good.
 
What a drab, ordinary, defensive and banal lump of a building.

This is a cruelly arrogant assertion of Toronto's mediocrity - a scandal in everything but appearance. Parsimonious, cheap, third-rate and blankly smug, it banks on us having been browbeaten by mediocrity into accepting it, yet insists on occupying an important civic spot where it can foist itself on us in order to disappoint for years to come.

Shameful and depressing.
Click to expand...

Perfectly put CN! Just what I was thinking, and I think it would be redundant for me to repeat it, so I will let your succinct post do the talking for me (if you don't mind?)

p5
 
I love Diamond's work with the Opera House, but this is a prime spot on the waterfront that calls out for something a little more flashy.
 
I guess it all depends on what they build around it now.

Diamond's made it plainly obvious that he won't be injecting any creativity into this (or is unable to) so as long as he makes a building that doesn't offend and doesn't rob its surroundings of space to improve on this, I think this little project won't hurt the waterfront.
 
Hard to tell. Depending on the materials used, it could well wind up being good, stylish minimalism against the grain of all naysayers...
 
If the City's own development doesn't even follow the precinct plan, I really question what the millions of dollars worth of planning and public consultation were for.
 
You must log in or register to post here.

Back
Top