Sure you might, cranes (or the number of them) like many economic indicators gives an accurate portrayal of past conditions, typically 1-5 years in the past!

Ah but I know what you mean :p
 
Urban Shocker said:
Well it can't be both at the same time. Sensibly linking the waterfront to the rest of the city like this, by extending the existing streets south and building similar sorts of buildings to those found elsewhere, is appropriately Torontonian - and quite a different thing from a harbour consisting of open space with grandiose edifices scattered along it, which isn't our style at all because we're not Dubai or Shanghai.
Click to expand...

The problem is that you're assuming it has to be one or the other. Restrained and connected or iconic and aloof.

I think it's very possible to have an iconic building that's also well connected.
 
syn said:
The problem is that you're assuming it has to be one or the other. Restrained and connected or iconic and aloof.

I think it's very possible to have an iconic building that's also well connected.
Click to expand...

I totally agree! Of course you can have both. We just need to raise the bar and demand better quality.
 
Is there a second rate office building or a condo that doesn't have the word "iconic" scattered through its promotional bumf? Confusing modesty with mediocrity and setting up a false dichotomy where only spectacle has value won't elevate these places to significance.
 
This should be built instead of FWP:

ifpdg6.jpg


Not too in your face, reasonable, but does acknowledge the lake it stands on.
 
Hey it's Novi Beograd!! LOL, I see my building in the background =O!!
Many new buldings there now! I was waiting to see what would be built on that lot. Whenever I go to Belgrade, there is something new!
 
Urban Shocker said:
Is there a second rate office building or a condo that doesn't have the word "iconic" scattered through its promotional bumf? Confusing modesty with mediocrity and setting up a false dichotomy where only spectacle has value won't elevate these places to significance.
Click to expand...


Developers have their own dictionary and use all kinds of hyperbole to sell their properties. Just because they say it is iconic doesn't make it so, in any objective sense. What we are really ending up with is a mass of 'tasteful' square boxes, for the most part, which is lovely but a 'truly' iconic building at a featured waterfront location would not be the Dubai-in-the-making aesthetic catastrophe that is feared.
 
Glass goes up on Corus. More grey, of course. That's what Toronto needs, more grey!

CORUSBUILDING7.jpg


MARCH3-09CORKTOWN030.jpg


CORUSBUILDING8.jpg


CORUSBUILDING4.jpg


CORUSBUILDING5.jpg


MARCH3-09CORKTOWN013.jpg

xcvvxcvfdsfvxcvxcvcxcoruspics.jpg
 
Last edited:
i still miss the silver flubber-looking bean thing. reminded me of the silver flubber-looking bean thing in chicago.

the outdoor stage component is still part of the design right? southern downtown and the waterfront could really use something fun like that. i'd love to watch a show there.
 
Torontovibe said:
So why didn't they just move the stage to the east side? I don't think Sugar Beach is the real reason. I'm sure $$$ had a lot more to do with it.
Click to expand...

I'm sure that would've been just too much 'spectacle' for people to handle.
 
You must log in or register to post here.

Back
Top