[innsertnamehere]

Toronto's architecture is far from banal. it is quite solid when it is compared to other residential towers in other North american cities.

chicago ranges from this:

to this:

sure they may have this:

but we have this:

and this:

and this:

and this:

and this:

and this:

and this:

and this:

and this:

if the worst of the worst for the city is this:

then I don't have too much to complain about.

 

[trixcalhoun]

First impressions never lie, and while Toronto may impress with its number of highrises, it comes off looking like North America's equivalent to Sao Paolo. I'll take quality over quantity and you can't argue that Chicago has you (Toronto) on quality. I don't know if most of the buildings you posted have been built or are under construction (they're all renders) but you'd think that with the Dubai-like boom happening up there, that there would be one building that's "planted in the soil like a fist" as the Toronto Star reporter states. Hey, you citizens and architecture aficionados of Toronto are seeing the city change before your eyes, and your collective voice should influence the manner in which your city is shaped architecturally, but to defend (and this is my opinion as an outside observer who doesn't live in your city, though Toronto, among others, is a city I'm considering moving to) the proliferation of these glass monstrosities, including such revered sites as L Tower and One Bloor, is doing a disservice to your city's architectural heritage. I've seen the CN Tower, and it impresses, as does City Hall and a lot of the old art deco style buildings, but the newer ones fail to leave an impression. I really like Toronto -- it's a great city that shames many US metropolises ... I guess I just expected more from Canada, especially during this opportune boom era you're so fortunate to be experiencing.

 

[DtTO]

+1. Was going to reply to that comment myself, but you did a better job than I ever could've, innsertnamehere.

The way I see it is that not every development can be a standout designed by a world class architect, and with the scope of Toronto's boom, such examples are overshadowed by the sheer quantity of "regular" buildings. As innsertname said, our worst buildings really aren't all that bad. They're certainly better than most residential projects in other North American cities. (ever been to South Loop, Chicago?).

 

[innsertnamehere]

Comparing Toronto to São Paulo is insulting. Chicago certainly has good architecture, but the majority of it was built pre-war, which makes it physically impossible to directly" compete with. If you want to come up with examples of architecture from the 21st century that is built from $500-$700 a square foot, that you wish toronto to emulate, I would be happy to see what you are trying to say. But to simply say that Toronto is being ruined by new condos and compare it to a developing country with some of the most banal architecture on the planet is offside. Toronto's architecture is far from boring. Every city has "standard" background buildings, even New York and London. But Toronto is not a city of only background buildings. It is filled with buildings known the world over from architects such as IM Pei, Mies Van Der Rohe, Frank Gehry, Will Alsop, Daniel Libinskind, and other local groups such as Hariri Pontarini, aA, and Teeple architects. In fact, just this year a toronto condo has been winning awards the world over, including CTBUH "best new tall building in the Americas" . This building is called the Abololute towers, and is nicknamed the Marylin Munroe towers for their beauty and shape.

 

[SP!RE]

I'm seeing lots of discussion in these boards about aesthetics and not about much else in architecture.

I'm personally still shocked by the lack of concern in these boards about the inappropriateness of our structures for the climate they exist in. Massive temperature differences between the interiors of condos and the air outside, separated only by cheap window-wall glass.

We are working hard to update and "weather-proof" 50s/60s apartment blocks while we put up hundreds/thousands of condos that are not all that different. Yes, some are better, but for the most part, they are abysmal. We face massive environmental problems, and we're already faced by the reality that buildings gobble up HUGE amounts of energy. You'd think we would want to do the LEAST to create, you know, a responsive architecture that's appropriate to its climate. Unfortunately, unbridled capitalism rules all and the developers continue to provide the all-glass crap that we all seem to desire so.

It's a shame that we can't see past all-glass in this city. Buildings with thoughtfully placed windows can actually provide a nicer living experience; windows can frame views or capture light in intentional ways. We just need to open our mind to the fact that there are lots of different solutions than just glass everywhere you look. Unfortunately, consumers are very uncreative. Teeple's Picasso condo seems like a step in the right direction.

PS. I warn that it will be difficult to convince me that I'm being overly cynical since I'm studying architecture (including building science and sustainability) and I am in fact typing this out from my bedroom in a 5-year-old condo where my room is as draughty as a decrepit 1800s cottage. Then again, when I lived at The MET, it wasn't draughty at all in comparison. But then again, with the heat or A/C running constantly, we can become blind to the environmental dilemmas presented by our all-glass housing units.

tl;dr The quality of new architecture is determined by much more than the style or aesthetics of a building considered in isolation.

 

[trixcalhoun]

I understand that you feel passionately about your city, as well you should, and I certainly didn't mean to insult by comparing Toronto to Sao Paolo. Sao Paolo impresses, and not just on landing and takeoff. At street level, you'd be hard-pressed to beat Toronto and I've lived in SF, LA, London, Rome. I merely have a passing interest in urban planning and architecture and I have to say that, like Anthony Bourdain, I agree that the real jewels of Toronto lie at street level, not in its architecture. Yes, that's just my opinion, but for outsiders who visit your city, it's not the architecture that leaves an impression (CN Tower and City Hall notwithstanding), it's the diversity you see in the food and culture. Yes, maybe even in the architecture -- there is a diversity -- but it doesn't leave an impression. If civic leaders read these posts, then my hope is that the collective voice of urban toronto is an influencing factor for such issues as access to the waterfront, tearing down that highway, and pushing developers to raise the bar architecturally, aesthetically. Look, you have a guy like Richard Floria living in your city, so that can't be anything but a good thing, and I feel that Toronto is at a pivotal stage in its history, and it can really make a mark architecturally, but so far, even with these curvy towers you posted (the glass leaves much to desire btw), the city is missing the mark. It is banal and looks cheap and the opinions of those who visit the city for the first or second time (Anthony Bourdain or someone else) shouldn't be dismissed. First impressions are important and, again, I don't mean to offend, but from the slew of new highrises going up in your city, nothing (aside from possibly one of those Gehry towers) impresses.

 

[interchange42]

Take this discussion to the Toronto Issues section.

Back on topic please.

42

 

[urbandreamer]

Holy crap that was quite a rant! I agree if you just compare Highrise buildings, Toronto does have a very South American aesthetic going on--basically "working class" architecture.

Back to Bremner Tower--19 January 2013:

 

[agoraflaneur]

Regarding Southcore in general, there is indeed a surplus of banal boxes, particularly the office towers, but when you look at the glass itself, it is certainly high quality. I expect the Delta here to take the lead in design alongside the Ice towers. These are flying up and it is quite exciting to see, as the area will be better as a whole than are many of its parts.

In terms of trix's comments, they certainly aren't too off base. Toronto does have a lot of mediocre towers. We can do better. However, most of the nice towers are under construction (our boom has just begun in terms of real construction), as evidenced by innsertnamehere's display. Only a few there are just ideas, almost all of them are going up.

The problem with the comments is that most people simply don't like modernist architecture. They don't like "glass." A wall of glass. Well, if you don't like the Shangri-la or the Four Seasons or the L-Tower or the Marilyns, I can't really engage in a conversation with you. The glass on the Merylins looks bad?!? It is very high quality, and to say you think it looks cheap is simply an aesthetic judgement that many do not share (Europeans tend to like stone or brick, and I do too, but walking around Barcelona where I live is nothing but a giant wall of stone. I can tell you it isn't all that better than a wall of glass). Anthony Bourdain says we had all the "bad" movements of the 20th century - well, I would suspect that he just doesn't like any movements from the 20th century. Could trix give some examples of good architecture from the 20th or today? I would be interested (even if it is in another forum?). Again, this isn't to say that there aren't too many bad concrete or glass building in Toronto, because there are.

 

[SP!RE]

The problem with the comments is that most people simply don't like modernist architecture. They don't like "glass."

That's completely off-base and a huge generalization. UT is FULL of people who love modernism. I sure as hell do! But that doesn't mean we settle for less, and it doesn't mean that we accept all-glass as an acceptable building envelope on every single new development in this city, given the properties of *most* glass cladding systems and our climate *most of the time*. (A climate of extremes, increasingly.)

 

[Critique]

First impressions never lie, and while Toronto may impress with its number of highrises, it comes off looking like North America's equivalent to Sao Paolo. I'll take quality over quantity and you can't argue that Chicago has you (Toronto) on quality. I don't know if most of the buildings you posted have been built or are under construction (they're all renders) but you'd think that with the Dubai-like boom happening up there, that there would be one building that's "planted in the soil like a fist" as the Toronto Star reporter states. Hey, you citizens and architecture aficionados of Toronto are seeing the city change before your eyes, and your collective voice should influence the manner in which your city is shaped architecturally, but to defend (and this is my opinion as an outside observer who doesn't live in your city, though Toronto, among others, is a city I'm considering moving to) the proliferation of these glass monstrosities, including such revered sites as L Tower and One Bloor, is doing a disservice to your city's architectural heritage. I've seen the CN Tower, and it impresses, as does City Hall and a lot of the old art deco style buildings, but the newer ones fail to leave an impression. I really like Toronto -- it's a great city that shames many US metropolises ... I guess I just expected more from Canada, especially during this opportune boom era you're so fortunate to be experiencing.

I understand what you mean. And to some extent what you say is completely true. The huge building boom for Toronto should have resulted in many more quality buildings than we have got. That does not mean Toronto has not got any during the boom but it simply means there SHOULD have been more, especially compared to the number of buildings built during the boom. In other words you can look at it with this simple equation,

(number of quality buildings (including aspects of architecture and sheer looks) / total number of buildings built) * 100

In other words, it is pure efficiency. Though I hate to admit it most North American cities have a higher percent (when using above equation) than Toronto.

However, this does seem to be changing with more recent proposals and now that developers are realizing the importance of good architecture. This of course includes proposals like Mirvish, one yonge, 50 bloor, oxford casino and so on.

With that said, I am satisfied with what is happening like a lot of people on this forum.

 

[innsertnamehere]

we can continue this discussion in a new thread I created here:

http://urbantoronto.ca/forum/showthread.php/19433-Building-Boom-Architectural-Quality

 

[SkyJacked]

My buddy operates the crane that doesn’t show up in a lot of pictures. This one is from Friday.

Another brother sent me this picture Friday morning from the Infinity project.

Photo by CL

 

[greenleaf]

Another brother sent me this picture Friday morning from the Infinity project.

New angle. Cool. Is it just me, or do the Ritz & the RBC building look like proud parents of the old BoA building and the Intercontinental Hotel here? (a sort of architectural family portrait.)

 

[Ryan_T]

New angle. Cool. Is it just me, or do the Ritz & the RBC building look like proud parents of the old BoA building and the Intercontinental Hotel here? (a sort of architectural family portrait.)

If that's a 'family portrait, then what is the intercontinental? The family golden lab?