enrigue, you seem to be judging everything solely on looks, but design isn't just about the way things look, good design is also making sure a building works, on multiple levels. You also seem to think that it's all about city planners…
It's a very good point !
Density does not guarantee awesome architecture. The city planners and politicians could do a better job by raising their architecture standards.
City planners—and especially politicians—have next to nothing to do with the architecture here. It's the private developers and the architects they hire that have 98% to do with the architecture that we get.
Toronto's Design Review Panel, a group arranged by the Urban Design section of the Planning Department and made up of architects, landscape architects, and engineers in private practice, have some influence over the major buildings that go up, but mostly in how the buildings meet the street or how they are positioned on larger sites… but very little to do with the look of the building.
It's only once in a blue moon that City Planning will tell a developer that they think the building needs a different look. The Trump Tower (back when it was originally going to be a Ritz Carlton) was one of those buildings. The initial design was PoMo, and Urban Design wanted to encourage a Modernist design for such a prominent tower, and convinced the developer to go for a re-design. It was just a suggestion, as the government does not have the power to demand any particular architectural style, and the developers were okay with changing the style. That's the only instance I can ofright now of that happening, but others might remember this happening other times. It is rare though, and like I said, the government can only suggest the change.
It's true that most condos tower on entertainment district or on Yonge street are pathetic. Most new condos building there have only large balconies and no style at all.
The exceptions on Yonge street are 1 Bloor,1 Yorkville ,Massey tower and Aura.
They have a great style that set them apart from other buildings.
Despite some areas where our taste overlaps with others', everyone's taste in architecture is their own, so you won't find agreement on everything of course. Out of that list of 4 buildings, you wouldn't find much support on UrbanToronto for Aura as an example of a building that has great style. Despite a lot of people liking the lights up top, most UT members commenting on it find Aura ungainly and cheap, and not the kind of building that they want to see emulated.
Those tower should be the norm for the architecture of Toronto. Architects should learn from
those tower and not bring more bland box with big balconies.
What do mean by big balconies, and what is it about them that you don't like? I think balconies have been used very effectively on many buildings here to impart some serious style (1 Bloor, Exhibit, 1Thousand Bay, Harbour Plaza, X to name five), but I'd like to get a better idea of which buildings have balconies that you don't like.
And you have to know that the city changed very fast. So much development was unthinkable 10 years ago. it happened so fast that the city was not prepared for that. But the city start slowly to improve in many area. This why i think the architecture will be improved for next years.
I'd like to believe that the architecture of our buildings will improve too, but it's worth remembering that developers try to keep the costs down on most buildings (it'll always be that way), so most buildings end up being built as inexpensively as they can, and that reduces architects' ability to make those buildings stand out.
It's true what you said.
Planners often underestimate the importance of a good architecture.
For exemple in Dubai or Shanghai,most new building are awesome and futuristic.
It,s like that because the city planners want that.In Toronto,there is room for improvement.
So again, it's not because city planners want that. Blame it on economic realities, and the developers who would rather not spend time trying to be innovative (when just about everything they offer sells, no matter how little effort they put into unique design).
But Bay Park center,Union center and the recently built EY tower are the perfect exemple of private sector architecture excellence.
We dont have many extraordinary monuments like Europeans cities.So we must distinguish ourselves with our new architecture.
This is what Dubai,Baku,Abu Dhabi or Sydney(Australia) did .
What prevent Toronto to do that ?
I think generalizing that other cities get everything right and we get it all wrong is pretty silly, as I could list lots of ugly buildings in any of those cities (buildings which you might not find ugly even if I do), but I take your point that those cities have more imaginative architecture overall. My take is that they have flashier buildings because they can afford to, in more than one way. Dubai, Baku, and Abu Dhabi have tons of oil money pouring in, weaker building codes, and cheap migrant (slave) labour, so they can spend their way to a point that I would normally consider excess. Sydney has a easier climate to deal with than Toronto, so the buildings—while still needing to be air-conditioned—can be designed with a more leeway regarding thermal performance, so they can be more open and expressive… plus the Aussies just aren't as reserved as we are.
For me it's the lack of vision by planners and politicians,too many constraints for developers and architects and when there is a public project,it's often the cheapest bidder the winner.
The cheapest bidder mean cheapest architecture.
Every private development comes with a budget attached, and most are not put out to multiple bidders: developers mostly hire one team, and the team works towards bringing a building in at a particular price point. Typically the term "bidder" is associated with public development which is being put out to tender, (and which there's much less of than there is private development). In those rare public developments, planners and politicians have a little more sway in the design, but mostly in terms of establishing budgets again. Most of our City Councillors do not want to be seen spending money on what some of the public would see as a frill ("gravy" is the popular term), so we often end up with value-engineered public projects for the same reason that most private developments are less than spectacular: they have to be built within realistic budgets.
For me a mix of old building coupled with some futuristic one will make Toronto more awesome.
In term of futuristic architecture,Toronto has a lot to learn.But i am glad to see some old buildings preserved.
Building like Casa Loma,Royal York Hotel,Commerce court North or Old city hall are our pride in term of classical architecture.
They have certain style that tell the story of the city.But rectangular buildings form the 1950s to 1980s without style deserve some rejuvenation to be more modern.
You might not like rectangular buildings, but lots of people do, (especially beancounters, as rectangular buildings are typically very efficient). Modernists like well designed ones too: there are a lot of people who believe in the Miesian "less is more", even if you don't.
42
CN Tower - Up Close.
