Sept 28

56101


56102


56103
 
Mongo said:
I really hate this criticism. What are the buyers supposed to do, pay twice the PSF to live in a corkscrew? Rectilinear designs are the most resource-efficient way to provide living space (which is better for the environment) and hence allow more people to actually live in those buildings for a given expenditure. It's easy to criticize a design for being "a box", but you should also inform the buyers that they have to pay substantially more for their unit, to satisfy your desire for non-boxes.
Click to expand...

You would have a point if most of the condos going up were architectural marvels. Most of the condos going up have no redeeming qualities and are certainly no architectural marvels. We have every right to call out cheap ass developers and lazy architects in this city who put up nondescript buildings like this all over the city. It's not even just that it's a box, it's also the materials used. It's not always about the price, good design does not have to be expensive. There are plenty of examples in Europe and places like Australia testament to this.


Torontovibe said:
Are you telling us that every building in Toronto right now is an architectural marvel? So it's OK for this building to not be great because we already have an over supply of the world's best buildings? I haven't noticed this massive collection of architectural gems, so can you post some pics and enlighten me.

I just can't relate to your statement at all. It implies that every building we have now is a marvel, so it's fine to have a clunker now and then. Are you familiar with "The Star Of Downtown"? Is that on your list of architectural marvels?
Click to expand...

Well said. Enough with all these nondescript buildings going up.


Stupidandshallow said:
Sometimes the end consumer/buyer doesn't always have to bear the burden... Seriously, how much did Great Gulf pay for this lot/land?

Also, I'm of the school that great design solves problems! I'm sure it's possible to create a resource-efficient buildings that don't look like clones/crappy Toronto towers.

Adjei, I'm with you.. this is a boring box. I am glad that it is adding density and more people to an area that desperately needs it.. but it is a forgettable tower. It could be anywhere in this city.
Click to expand...

This building looks like so many of the condos which have been built or are planned to be built. A total yawnfest.
 
I don't think this one is that bad...also given the area it's a nice addition. We need some of these kinds of buildings....now if we're talking about prime locations and areas then yes, my expectations would be much higher.
 
We have every right to call out cheap ass developers and lazy architects in this city who put upnondescript buildings like this all over the city.
Click to expand...

Well - what do you suggest we do about it? Besides anonymously complain about it on here?

For example, what would you have proposed for here?
 
ChesterCopperpot said:
Well - what do you suggest we do about it? Besides anonymously complain about it on here?

For example, what would you have proposed for here?
Click to expand...

Well what is the point of this forum? Is it not to discuss things like this? I don't know how much change I can have from here but I can still complain about things I don't like.

What would I like proposed here? How about something that doesn't look like every other condo in this city.
 
This was the first-to-market condo in a depressed part of town. Great Gulf saw an opportunity to build something inexpensive aimed at Ryerson students, priced it accordingly, and it sold well for them, proving that the right condo could sell here. No one knew that for sure before Pace went on the market that it would work.

Everyone is free to disagree about the architecture of course, but it's also fair to be challenged on your criticisms if you don't have a convincing alternative to offer.

42
 
I understand your frustrations about towers that look similar. I just don't think this is the project to really complain about this. This building is not an icon but it is not a clone project either.
 
Sorry this was probably the wrong project to vent on. Sorry for derailing the thread.
 
Torontovibe said:
Are you telling us that every building in Toronto right now is an architectural marvel? So it's OK for this building to not be great because we already have an over supply of the world's best buildings? I haven't noticed this massive collection of architectural gems, so can you post some pics and enlighten me.

I just can't relate to your statement at all. It implies that every building we have now is a marvel, so it's fine to have a clunker now and then. Are you familiar with "The Star Of Downtown"? Is that on your list of architectural marvels?
Click to expand...
Whoa, cool down. I don't know how you're reading all that into a pretty simple and straightforward statement of opinion.

I'm not saying that we have too much good architecture -- in fact, I just recently spent several posts arguing over in the 1 Yonge thread that Vancouver is embarrassing us with the quality of its recent architecture and that we need to step up our game. Of course Toronto could use more stunning buildings, but you're crazy if you think Dundas and Jarvis is where we're going to see the next Bjarke Ingels or Frank Gehry project. On the other hand, at the foot of Yonge, I'd expect to see something world-class. Is that too fine a distinction to make?

Do you actually, realistically expect that every single building should be an architectural gem? In any city, there are going to be some amazing buildings and some plain buildings. And my opinion is that this is a plain building, but not an ugly building, and I'm just fine with that.

Only on UT would I get yelled at for not complaining about architecture!

P.S. I think we can find some common ground here -- the Star of Downtown is a travesty and a part of me dies every time I have to walk past it. Seriously, how did a building that ugly get built?
 
Last edited:
Honestly, among all the forgettable condos built in the past 5-6 years, Pace is hardly one of the worst. It is slim, appears to be using good quality materials and even has some colours. If Dundas/Jarvis were a prime location like King/John or Spadina/Queen, probably the strong criticism would be more warranted, but I am very grateful that GG is experimenting with this area - in case you didn't realize, despite the condo frenzy, there had been no projects happening prior to Pace, and after it was successfully launched, at least half a dozen have been proposed along Jarvis between Queen and Carlton - the scary part of the street.

And you only have to turn to page 2 to see what a horrible nightmare that strip mall was. Pace literally transformed the intersection, despite being less glamorous than you wished.
 
not to mention Pace is still nicer than the first wave of condos in the entertainment district. (more recent projects have been much better) but Pace in my books beats any from that awful cluster around TIFF.

Wait until garden square tower gets built adjacent from Pace. That looks like it will warrant some complaining. Looks like it would be a bore in the 905 let alone downtown.
 
I wouldn't necessarily characterize the criticism of this building as "strong"... someone merely called it another box...

I think regardless of whether or not a building is in a prime location it should still be subjected to criticism. There are only so many potential development sites in the downtown core. As a catalyst for this intersection I find it disappointing.. I guess some of us just have higher standards? Also, yes the strip mall was terrible, however this building while an improvement is unremarkable.
 
Stupidandshallow said:
I wouldn't necessarily characterize the criticism of this building as "strong"... someone merely called it another box...

I think regardless of whether or not a building is in a prime location it should still be subjected to criticism. There are only so many potential development sites in the downtown core. As a catalyst for this intersection I find it disappointing.. I guess some of us just have higher standards? Also, yes the strip mall was terrible, however this building while an improvement is unremarkable.
Click to expand...

True, but how many of Toronto's buildings are remarkable?
Contrary to what you think, there are quite many potential development sites in the downtown core. Half a dozen at least within 10 minutes walk from Pace. Do I need to show you?
The truth is, Pace is far better than anything near it, and it is probably above average among the ones built in the past 5-6 years in the entire downtown. So what's to complain about? Yes, it is a box, but nevertheless a nicer box than, as someone pointed out, most in the entertainment district, or CityPlace, or the ones in Bay st.

It is one thing to have higher standards, it is another to have unrealistic ones. Aura is disappointing. Pace is not. Remarkable buildings only come once every few years, and it is true in any city, including Hong Kong or NYC. Plus we have plenty of chances to have remarkable buildings: One Bloor E, and W, One Yonge, the Gehry towers, Massey etc. PACE on the other hand serves another purpose - to revitalize an otherwise dead and sketchy area, instead of being an architectural marvel. If you expect every new building to be a new landmark of Toronto, you will keep being disappointed.
 
You must log in or register to post here.

Back
Top