Skeezix said:
I'm not worried about having the advocates of preserving Toronto's architectural history onside. I assume that would be the case. It's the government at Queens Park and the general public (particularly the public living outside Toronto's core) that I worry about.
Click to expand...

The only three things I remember from visiting Toronto as a child are the CN Tower, the Toronto Zoo and Ontario Place. I think this is one of the few sites a good segment of the general public outside of Toronto would care about.
 
AlvinofDiaspar said:
We are not preserving architecture from the 70s - we are preserving good architecture that happens to be from the 70s.

AoD
Click to expand...

In guess what you consider good architecture and I consider good architecture are diffrent things. Ontario place is ugly and not used for anything they should just tear out what they need to and start with a clean slate.
 
EastYorkTTCFan said:
In guess what you consider good architecture and I consider good architecture are diffrent things. Ontario place is ugly and not used for anything they should just tear out what they need to and start with a clean slate.
Click to expand...

Others beg to differ:

http://docomomo-ontario.ca/news-tor...ified-place-provincial-cultural-significance/

Design attributes
The following attributes are located in the core area of Ontario Place and represent the innovative and iconic elements of the site as reflected in the structures, the integration of the architecture with the landscape and the water features:

  • The highly geometric architecture of the Pavilion, the Cinesphere and the connecting walkways and bridges, composed of glass and steel detailing (such as columns, beams, braces) in modern architectural style.
  • The triodetic structural system of the Cinesphere with its iconic spherical shape and screen design to host the innovative IMAX projection system.
  • The Pavilion, with its five mast-hung pods, each projecting up out of the open water and connected by long-span suspended walkways.
  • The flexible interiors and usable roof spaces of the five pods.
  • The public gathering spaces connected to the three village clusters, with their modernist crystalline modular forms.
  • The varying scale of the complementary built structures — from the prominent Cinesphere to the more modest village clusters.
  • A public entrance with a connection to two west bridges and the presence of Ontario Place branding/wayfinding signage.
  • Designed localized microclimates, using landscaping, trees and indigenous plant materials.
  • The walkways, trails, lagoons and the two west bridges (linking to the west island and the Pavilion) that connect discrete activity areas throughout the site and encourage a pedestrian experience.
  • The design of the breakwaters, fashioned from sunken lake ships.
  • The water features— the marina, the pavilion bay, the inner channel — that help shape entirely new landforms, and that provide a setting for the movement of small watercraft.

AoD
 
Ontario Place was the first building to impress me through its architecture. I was about 5 years old and playing at the Lego pavilion, which was located in one of the pods. I looked out through the floor-to-ceiling glass to see the building suspended over the water below, which was turquoise and crystal clear. I was amazed by the uniqueness of it.
 
junctionist said:
Ontario Place was the first building to impress me through its architecture. I was about 5 years old and playing at the Lego pavilion, which was located in one of the pods. I looked out through the floor-to-ceiling glass to see the building suspended over the water below, which was turquoise and crystal clear. I was amazed by the uniqueness of it.
Click to expand...
I remember the lego room and the lego CN Tower.

I recall seeing the 1st gen Ford Taurus in the 1980s in the Pods, when every other car was shaped like a brick.
 
EastYorkTTCFan said:
In guess what you consider good architecture and I consider good architecture are diffrent things. Ontario place is ugly and not used for anything they should just tear out what they need to and start with a clean slate.
Click to expand...

Firstly, the Zeidler structures are excellent and rare examples of High Tech architecture and you would never remove them on that merit alone. I've never heard anyone describe Ontario Place as "ugly" before...very bizarre to hear that. But after last night, I suppose nothing will ever surprise me again.

Secondly, there is no practical reason to demolish them, as they are not structurally unsound, and they sit in the water...so there's no land to free up for future use by spending millions removing them.
 
EastYorkTTCFan said:
In guess what you consider good architecture and I consider good architecture are diffrent things. Ontario place is ugly and not used for anything they should just tear out what they need to and start with a clean slate.
Click to expand...
Ontario Place is ugly? Why? Because it is a one of a kind urban park with spectacular architecture on islands in a lake? What is there here that's ugly? I think it's probably the most beautiful park in Ontario! I will never tire of those amazing floating pods over the lake with boats, hills and trees in the background along with Toronto's skyline!

How someone can think OP is ugly, is just insane!
 
Torontovibe said:
Ontario Place is ugly? Why? Because it is a one of a kind urban park with spectacular architecture on islands in a lake? What is there here that's ugly? I think it's probably the most beautiful park in Ontario! I will never tire of those amazing floating pods over the lake with boats, hills and trees in the background along with Toronto's skyline!

How someone can think OP is ugly, is just insane!
Click to expand...

I was think more the buildings on the land part. The Pods if they get renovated and have something put in them are pretty neat look but the rest is just ok.
 
EastYorkTTCFan said:
In guess what you consider good architecture and I consider good architecture are diffrent things. Ontario place is ugly and not used for anything they should just tear out what they need to and start with a clean slate.
Click to expand...

That's a rather un-enlightened point of view.
 
The only thing I find objectionable at Ontario Place is the Molson Amphitheatre (The Forum was much nicer!) and the large cement parking lots but those things can be easily changed. Ontario Place has the potential to be an amazing attraction but it takes nerve, intelligence and creativity, which few politicians today, seem to have!
 
Torontovibe said:
The only thing I find objectionable at Ontario Place is the Molson Amphitheatre (The Forum was much nicer!) and the large cement parking lots but those things can be easily changed. Ontario Place has the potential to be an amazing attraction but it takes nerve, intelligence and creativity, which few politicians today, seem to have!
Click to expand...

The big difference between today and the 1960's is the focus on keeping taxes low. Many politicians have the same nerve, intelligence and creativity as back then. They just don't have the budgets. And just try raising taxes to build today's Science Centre or Ontario Place. They certainly were not looking to the private sector to build these kinds of things back in 1968.
 
You must log in or register to post here.

Back
Top