Eh, I think it's okay. It's definitely not going to win any awards for design but it provides some much needed density. The nature of a city that can grow organically is that you'll end up with buildings that are nicer than others.
 
its_Caffeine said:
Eh, I think it's okay. It's definitely not going to win any awards for design but it provides some much needed density. The nature of a city that can grow organically is that you'll end up with buildings that are nicer than others.
Click to expand...

Right but in this case it's the location that's issue for most. I mean at least there is a building going up in front it so it should block most it out, but for now this thing is the backdrop to our "Times Square" so it's pretty embarrassing.
 
The tower is bargain basement in appearance with a hostile street interface. It's also 160 metres tall. This would be embrace by Calgary and Edmonton forumers. There's just as bad and not as tall being embraced in Alberta right now. Vancouver forumers may over look the obvious design deficiencies to have a real skyscraper height on say the Broadway corridor. This is beneath Montreal.

Those hoists are still up!?!
 
its_Caffeine said:
Eh, I think it's okay. It's definitely not going to win any awards for design but it provides some much needed density. The nature of a city that can grow organically is that you'll end up with buildings that are nicer than others.
Click to expand...
Of course some buildings are 'nicer than others' and clearly what is 'nice' is personal (and very dependent on how well the building 'fits' into its location) but simply providing density (like this dogs' breakfast) or, the even worse, Time & Space - also by Pemberton - is really not an 'excuse' for crap. Like wine, price/cost is not really a good measure of 'niceness' in buildings and there are lots of examples of perfectly 'nice' or even excellent buildings that were not 'expensive'.
 
DSC said:
Of course some buildings are 'nicer than others' and clearly what is 'nice' is personal (and very dependent on how well the building 'fits' into its location) but simply providing density (like this dogs' breakfast) or, the even worse, Time & Space - also by Pemberton - is really not an 'excuse' for crap. Like wine, price/cost is not really a good measure of 'niceness' in buildings and there are lots of examples of perfectly 'nice' or even excellent buildings that were not 'expensive'.
Click to expand...
Here's a quote about Toronto from a visitor from Pennsylvania (courtesy of blogTO): "The individuality of your architecture made the high rises seem like art and not a sky of glass and concrete in other cities."

Take your pick:
A. This person is blind
B. Our architecture is really not that bad compared to American cities' (the individual claims to have visited mainly American cities)
C. This person was being ironic
 
There's design. There's excutuion of that design. There's urban form and a whole lot of others. Design wise, Toronto still rates above average. Execution is bargain basement. Urban form rates well in consideration of parking. It's underground in deep muilt-level basements. Compare to a booming future supertall city like Austin.
 
maestro said:
There's design. There's excutuion of that design. There's urban form and a whole lot of others. Design wise, Toronto still rates above average. Execution is bargain basement. Urban form rates well in consideration of parking. It's underground in deep muilt-level basements.
Click to expand...
Your post reminded me of how people in former Soviet countries describe the legacy of Soviet architecture: ‘Brilliant design and less-than-brilliant execution!’ lol
 
Rascacielo said:
Here's a quote about Toronto from a visitor from Pennsylvania (courtesy of blogTO): "The individuality of your architecture made the high rises seem like art and not a sky of glass and concrete in other cities."

Take your pick:
A. This person is blind
B. Our architecture is really not that bad compared to American cities' (the individual claims to have visited mainly American cities)
C. This person was being ironic
Click to expand...
In terms of North American cities, I don't think Toronto's architecture is all that bad. Sure, there are awful projects (like this one), but even the cities with the best architecture have some value duds.
I'm currently living in Los Angeles (thinking of coming back to TO soon) and it's not much different in terms of quality builds. IMO Toronto's scene is a bit better. Fight me. Some going up in LA are absolutely gorgeous.. But, so so many of our most common low-rise buildings that are popping up everywhere (Up to 3-6 stories) are all looking like this sort of uninteresting type of thing shown here and they're also advertised as "luxury condos".
Very unimpressed with some of the stuff I see regularly 🤷‍♂️

493583551.jpeg
image.jpeg
 
Last edited:
C-mac said:
Right but in this case it's the location that's issue for most. I mean at least there is a building going up in front it so it should block most it out, but for now this thing is the backdrop to our "Times Square" so it's pretty embarrassing.
Click to expand...
There's plenty of buildings that are quite frankly terrible that surround Times Square, like the Marriott Marquis. They just seem less imposing because they're drowned out by billboards and the fact that New York City has a lot more density.

1708676353447.png


DSC said:
Of course some buildings are 'nicer than others' and clearly what is 'nice' is personal (and very dependent on how well the building 'fits' into its location) but simply providing density (like this dogs' breakfast) or, the even worse, Time & Space - also by Pemberton - is really not an 'excuse' for crap. Like wine, price/cost is not really a good measure of 'niceness' in buildings and there are lots of examples of perfectly 'nice' or even excellent buildings that were not 'expensive'.
Click to expand...

What do you suggest then? Only allow for certain buildings to be built that meet some arbitrary threshold for architectural beauty? That would drive up housing costs even further and turn Toronto into the sort of place that very few people could afford to live in. Hong Kong and New York have tons of trash high-rise buildings, it's the density and dynamism that give these cities their character. And really, this building isn't even that bad. People won't even notice when Toronto's downtown fills out more.
 
its_Caffeine said:
There's plenty of buildings that are quite frankly terrible that surround Times Square, like the Marriott Marquis. They just seem less imposing because they're drowned out by billboards and the fact that New York City has a lot more density.

View attachment 542737



What do you suggest then? Only allow for certain buildings to be built that meet some arbitrary threshold for architectural beauty? That would drive up housing costs even further and turn Toronto into the sort of place that very few people could afford to live in. Hong Kong and New York have tons of trash high-rise buildings, it's the density and dynamism that give these cities their character. And really, this building isn't even that bad. People won't even notice when Toronto's downtown fills out more.
Click to expand...

I literally don't see one building in this pic that's nearly as ugly as the Social, not to mention, your stance is that if there's on ugly building at Times Square that makes it okay for other places to follow suit?
 
I think it's a little too broad to start comparing designs conceived in the 1970s to designs conceived in the 2010s. The Marriott Marquis is infinitely better executed than Social. The tower body of Social could be something if not for the bargain basement solution to meet the national energy codes. It's both frustrating and infuriating.

It's time to put it to rest. Toronto's housing is already expensive closing in on some Manhattan neighbourhoods and comparably more expensive than the bike friendly European utopias. It only gets worse once you start including median income.
 
This tower is boring AF from a distance, and has a very unfortunate podium, but as someone who walks by it often I must point out that looking UP at it from the immediate block or 2 away the balconies geometric shape does offer interest. It's a shame they used clear cladding for the balconies, but the geometry is interesting. I guess this goes back to interesting plan, not so great execution.
 
You must log in or register to post here.

Back
Top