I second hawc and UrbanShocker's feeling that this one is a snore and a wasted opportunity. I often stare at it from Adelaide, think to myself: "WHAT?", and get the sense that my eyes can't capture it. Here's why:

Last year, I returned home to Toronto after a decade of working through my urban inferiority complexes in capitals of empires of yore, grand cities with established, romantic narratives. While jet lagged, a few friends took me to a concert at SkyDome (I know, I know...). Walking down Blu-Ray's Way, I was suddenly floored by the scale and broad shoulders of Toronto's downtown skyline.

To my eyes, Toronto's beauty is a very different one from Manhattan's archetypal grid and pre-war grandeur, precisely the type of grandeur I missed in my now receding youth. Our beauty comes from the fact that we have hoisted a flag in a rugged land of lakes, Carolinian forest and igneous rock as far as the eye can see. The lots and concession roads we've overlaid the land with impose very little on this infinite presence of nature, dominant weather and big sky.

Toronto's architecture stands up to these formidable natural conditions, partly confronting them, never escaping them. I think our best buildings take a strong stand, transparently and honestly. Ornamentalism - Shangri-la- or Burj-al-Trump-style - has a daintiness that detracts and feels flat to me, trying to make statements to an environment that washes them away. Despite their height and mass, there is simply nothing I can hold on to, no contribution with aesthetic legs.

Instead, I get my thrills watching towers pop up all over the grid, seemingly at random like mushrooms after a storm. There is a great, brash visual noise to this. Hence, for me, the metaphorical Toronto look is one of menhirs, of giants standing in fields. I believe that UrbanShocker has referred to these giants' broad shoulders as the sculptural aspect of our buildings.

Stylistically, I embrace diversity, but I don't think pine for "supertalls" or expressionist, extruded, orthogonal CAD statements. They're punctuation marks and engaging counterpoints, but to my eyes, they're not at the core of our evolving urban grandeur - or what makes our architecture fun. Instead of a "supertall", give me 20-30 more Toronto towers of whatever height (yes, vive la boîte, tabernoush!) by architects with an evolving local language. Full disclosure: I am a fan of aA certain firm and their growing oeuvre, but I own no shares and agree with VegetaSkyline's point (in the Florian thread) of judging individual projects on their merits. Given an either/or choice, I'd prefer to let Clewes/Wallman/Teeple etc do their thing for the next 30 years than to commission a 100-story tower by Zaha Hadid et al. Better Gehry's lovely blue AGO addition than a Walt Disney Hall / Guggenheim Bilbao on the waterfront. I suppose some would paint my attitude as conservative, but I don't think so: watching our home-grown identity evolve is a life-affirming blast (and cities are about life, not buildings).

Because a picture is worth a thousand words, let illustrate my perspective. With thanks to VegetaSkyline for the fine snap, I find this more thrilling and strong than any view of Shangri-La or Trump:
6274976975_aa08fba62a_b.jpg
 
Last edited:
seeing today's homepage preview of Shangri-la, i had no idea that box on the west side that sticks out is 2 storey units!... how awesome is that! a huge wall of glass hanging out the side of the building for residents... and the views from the tower are amazing.

IMO, this tower is the most well rounded condo in the city. amazing location, and views.
 
northto said:
Stylistically, I embrace diversity, but I don't think pine for "supertalls" or expressionist, extruded, orthogonal CAD statements. They're punctuation marks and engaging counterpoints, but to my eyes, they're not at the core of our evolving urban grandeur - or what makes our architecture fun. Instead of a "supertall", give me 20-30 more Toronto towers of whatever height (yes, vive la boîte, tabernoush!) by architects with an evolving local language. Full disclosure: I am a fan of aA certain firm and their growing oeuvre, but I own no shares and agree with VegetaSkyline's point (in the Florian thread) of judging individual projects on their merits. Given an either/or choice, I'd prefer to let Clewes/Wallman/Teeple etc do their thing for the next 30 years than to commission a 100-story tower by Zaha Hadid et al. Better Gehry's lovely blue AGO addition than a Walt Disney Hall / Guggenheim Bilbao on the waterfront. I suppose some would paint my attitude as conservative, but I don't think so: watching our home-grown identity evolve is a life-affirming blast (and cities are about life, not buildings).
Click to expand...

Our local design culture can't do anything else but express ... us. This point of view - the Toronto Style issue - has, in the past, drawn criticism hereabouts: Modernism, and the current neo-Modernism, being an "International Style", and the notion that all Modernist buildings wherever they're built on the planet are therefore "the same" etc. But that critique could be made of previous international styles - Gothic cathedrals, and Classical ( and Neo-Classical, and Baroque ... ) buildings for instance - yet we recognize the differences between French and Spanish and English and German examples of all of those distant modes of expression. At the heart of your argument is the idea that a city can be built of continuities rather than competing discontinuities, of establishing a handsome built form and expanding it ( Clewes/Wallman/Teeple etc do their thing for the next 30 years ) as a collective statement of our style, and I'm with you on that one too. We're living at a fortunate time, when thrilling opportunity ( our booming construction scene ... ) and talent ( The Talented Mr. Clewes, for one ... ) intersect.
 
Automation Gallery said:
Nice RM...looks like the last floor before the mechanicals
Click to expand...

If I read it correctly on the homepage and count up correctly, that is level 64 beginning now with the 65th & 66th two-storey penthouse suites to follow and then mechanical.
 
... watching our home-grown identity evolve is a life-affirming blast (and cities are about life, not buildings).
Click to expand...

Very nice contribution to architectural critique here on UT, NorthTo. I can't help but agree with the general thrust of your argument, and its continuation by UrbanShocker. The sensationalism of other major cities betrays their deep sense of lack (the "look at me"), denying a cogent and consistent aesthetic expression (of course our architecture on the ground is also a brash mixture, so perhaps the whole thesis here is incorrect, but I will continue with it anyway). While many decry Toronto's own inferiority complex, our lack of these ornaments reflects the general satisfaction we have with our 'middling' beauty - a beauty that may take a certain sensibility to appreciate, but one which negates a kind of commercialism of architecture embodied in the Dubai-cum-Shanghai ostentation, thereby continuing in the best traditions of modernism itself. Coming from Vancouver, I myself succumbed to the temptations of ornamentalism, wishing for something more to punctuate our broad shoulders with a wild head-dress (now, the CN tower does do this somewhat ...). I wouldn't say that a new supertall or Zaha Hadid would be completely unwelcome as a contrast to this sea of evolving subtle modernism, but in general my eyes become more pleased as I train them to perceive that simple beauty, to appreciate the essential Canadiana of Toronto, which like Canada itself might not be the most immediately impressive - but its aftertaste is never too bitter.
 
Last edited:
dt_toronto_geek said:
If I read it correctly on the homepage and count up correctly, that is level 64 beginning now with the 65th & 66th two-storey penthouse suites to follow and then mechanical.
Click to expand...

wait.. so this thing is basically 67 stories?.. never knew that... i honestly thought 64/65 were dedicated to penthouses, and 66 the mechanical.. good to know :D!. can't complain about some extra height (that was technically already there.. just i was living under a rock)
 
steveve said:
wait.. so this thing is basically 67 stories?.. never knew that... i honestly thought 64/65 were dedicated to penthouses, and 66 the mechanical.. good to know :D!. can't complain about some extra height (that was technically already there.. just i was living under a rock)
Click to expand...

Thanks for noting that steveve, I was incorrect. PH is 64/65 as you correctly stated. My bad.
 
agoraflaneur said:
Very nice contribution to architectural critique here on UT, NorthTo. I can't help but agree with the general thrust of your argument, and its continuation by UrbanShocker. The sensationalism of other major cities betrays their deep sense of lack (the "look at me"), denying a cogent and consistent aesthetic expression (of course our architecture on the ground is also a brash mixture, so perhaps the whole thesis here is incorrect, but I will continue with it anyway). While many decry Toronto's own inferiority complex, our lack of these ornaments reflects the general satisfaction we have with our 'middling' beauty - a beauty that may take a certain sensibility to appreciate, but one which negates a kind of commercialism of architecture embodied in the Dubai-cum-Shanghai ostentation, thereby continuing in the best traditions of modernism itself. Coming from Vancouver, I myself succumbed to the temptations of ornamentalism, wishing for something more to punctuate our broad shoulders with a wild head-dress (now, the CN tower does do this somewhat ...). I wouldn't say that a new supertall or Zaha Hadid would be completely unwelcome as a contrast to this sea of evolving subtle modernism, but in general my eyes become more pleased as I train them to perceive that simple beauty, to appreciate the essential Canadiana of Toronto, which like Canada itself might not be the most immediately impressive - but its aftertaste is never too bitter.
Click to expand...

While I like the spirit of this sentiment, I would like us to have both a satisfying vernacular and the most creative, ground-breaking work that the international greats have to offer. Dubai attracts a lot of attention, but I find that the most respected cities have architecture that satisfies diverse tastes. They have the quality vernacular without a 'bitter aftertaste' while not neglecting bold exclamation points for architecture in the city: those singular achievements that get attention from their residents and the world. Vancouver can keep the aesthetic of grey neutrality amidst a backdrop of mountains. We don't have the mountains; we must deliver on the bold architecture.
 
I agree that a posited organic relationship between the urban built form in Toronto and the Canadian wilderness is extremely overstated. What wilderness? Yes, there are the rivers, the ravines and the lake... all of which have largely been ignored in urban development here, including the lake which is only relatively recently being addressed in any substantial way. The looming presence of the Canadian wilderness is a romantic notion but the realities are quite the opposite.
 
wow, those were some very romanticized excuses for Toronto's banality and cheapness... some humans are quite efficient at deluding themselves.
 
Tewder said:
I agree that a posited organic relationship between the urban built form in Toronto and the Canadian wilderness is extremely overstated. What wilderness? Yes, there are the rivers, the ravines and the lake... all of which have largely been ignored in urban development here, including the lake which is only relatively recently being addressed in any substantial way. The looming presence of the Canadian wilderness is a romantic notion but the realities are quite the opposite.
Click to expand...

I don't see how we've ignored the ravine system. With the exception of a few creeks and rivers that were filled in many decades ago to permit extension to the street grid and development, the ravines are a vast network, cutting diagonally through the city, that can't be ignored. There's a counterpoint between the relentless grid and the box-like buildings that line it, and the natural world of the ravines, that defines us even more than our status as a city by a lake - a status we share with several other Great Lakes cities - does. In my neighbourhood, across the Don Valley, the more towers that go up in the downtown the greater is the contrast between the menhirs and the horizontal natural world. I think this duality has long been part of our consciousmness; when you look at those photographic picture books of Toronto that Victorian city-boosters published, they generally include images of the Don and the Humber to set up a nice contrast with the solid, respectable Gothic and Richardsonian Romanesque civic landmarks that were our pride and joy in those days.
 
steveve said:
Trump is not a box IMO. something with that many setbacks/varying floor plate, and with that onion dome is not a box.... if that is the case, anything built can be defined as a box if broken down enough....
Click to expand...

The setbacks are underwhelming, and the tacked-on roof feature no more transforms this building than the antennae on FCP transform that one. But you're right in that just about everything built here is a box - except for the Crystal and air-supported structures.
 
You must log in or register to post here.

Back
Top