Lansdude
Active Member
Way too muscular and abruptly edged. I like the facilities for what they are but in shape and size it is horribly monstrous to me and overshadows in more than one way the demise of the row across the way.
What an obnoxious thing to say. I don't even remember anyone using the word 'depress'. And although I'm flattered you consider me a 'Toronto architecture critic' you should really try traveling a bit more if you think this city and it's buildings are the pinnacle of beauty and are infallible.Toronto's architecture doesn't depress me; Toronto's architecture critics do.
What an obnoxious thing to say. I don't even remember anyone using the word 'depress'. And although I'm flattered you consider me a 'Toronto architecture critic' you should really try traveling a bit more if you think this city and it's buildings are the pinnacle of beauty and are infallible.
What an obnoxious thing to say. I don't even remember anyone using the word 'depress'. And although I'm flattered you consider me a 'Toronto architecture critic' you should really try traveling a bit more if you think this city and it's buildings are the pinnacle of beauty and are infallible.
You said the tower was "ugly" - that is criticism of Toronto's architecture. Therefore, you are a Toronto architecture critic. And a depressing one at that. As for whether or not Toronto's architecture is the "pinnacle of beauty" - those ideas are nowhere contained in my post. I was simply expressing my dismay that someone could argue that the tower of this building is "ugly" - since it's not even close to being that.
And if you want to suggest that I should travel more (And how much traveling do you think I've done?) I'm going to suggest that you should travel less, and pay closer attention to what the buildings in Toronto look like - rather than what you think they should look like because of what you've seen in other cities. One's house doesn't have to look like every other house in order for it to be beautiful, after all.