[AlvinofDiaspar]

OT

waterfront is a lost cause. The only hope probably exist east of Yonge st, which fortunately was neglected by the city and developers all these years.

Between Yonge and Spadina, nah, too many ugly buildings already, hard to save. I mean south of the Gardiner, we have Westin hotel, Residences of the World Trade Centre, monstrosity on both sides of QQ and Bay, those three hideous semi-circular condos at QQ/York, Maple Leave Square condo behind them, 227 QQ west (at Simcoe), even worse 239 QQ west. Passing Rees, you see a sea of blueish-greenish homogenous glass condos that's the City Place. There is simply no space for any great building to even out such ugliness.

While the architecture is wanting, to claim that it is a lost cause is hysterical -

These are the buildings lining Guanabara Bay in Rio.

AoD

 

[Tewder]

waterfront is a lost cause. The only hope probably exist east of Yonge st, which fortunately was neglected by the city and developers all these years.

Between Yonge and Spadina, nah, too many ugly buildings already, hard to save. I mean south of the Gardiner, we have Westin hotel, Residences of the World Trade Centre, monstrosity on both sides of QQ and Bay, those three hideous semi-circular condos at QQ/York, Maple Leave Square condo behind them, 227 QQ west (at Simcoe), even worse 239 QQ west. Passing Rees, you see a sea of blueish-greenish homogenous glass condos that's the City Place. There is simply no space for any great building to even out such ugliness.

Not the best architecture, you're right, and yet still a location with appeal that will be vastly improved by improvements to the public realm.

 

[Tulse]

Trump? Massey Tower? The Ritz? Many of the aA buildings really! There are varying degrees of quality and design here, admittedly, but I don't think anybody would describe any of these as boring boxes.

And one that seems often overlooked, but is really lovely: 60 Richmond

 

[ksun]

Not the best architecture, you're right, and yet still a location with appeal that will be vastly improved by improvements to the public realm.

of course I meant architectural wise as a response to a previous post.

I am glad a lot of improvement has been made on the waterfront, but it has not been ambitious enough. Toronto should really think bigger, aiming higher. Given the current configuration as well as projects done, I am sure central waterfront will be more successful and busier than before, which will work for local "families" or someone from Thunder Bay but I am afraid it will not be a huge draw for sophisticated international visitors, to whom it will always be quite underwhelming. Our central Waterfront in my opinion has limited potential because so much has always been established and can't be changed.

Let's ask ourselves, as a tourist/recreational destination, what's attractive about it *besides being on the water's edge* itself? There is no nice and sizable beaches, the street is not lined with upscale or mid priced ranged retail, has poor selection of restaurants. It has no grand monuments or landmarks for people to take photos of. There is no worthy architecture to look at. And as far as I know there are not many water sports people can participate in either. So what do people come here except for looking at Lake Ontario? yes, people can walk along the lake under the summer breeze, which is nice, and there are often some small events at the nondescript building that's Harbourfront Center - I have been there several times, some small performance, dance, sing etc, but nothing amazing ever took place. It serves more as a place for a family of 4 to spend a "nice summer afternoon" - maybe that's how it is positioned? Anyway, I don't want to sound too harsh, but this is exactly how central waterfront feels. The future trees will probably make it more pleasant, but please, they are just trees. It is not like Toronto or any city lack trees elsewhere.

I myself will have two friends who will visit late this month. I will take them to the Islands, but I doubt we will spend much time on the waterfront itself because there appears to be nothing I can show them, to take them to do. It is not beautiful and it is not really fun either.

I hope the city will do better with the Port Lands in creating some really nice boulevards, shopping & dining, entertainment, and good architecture. Looks promising. A subway connection will be fantastic.

 

[salsa]

I myself will have two friends who will visit late this month. I will take them to the Islands, but I doubt we will spend much time on the waterfront itself because there appears to be nothing I can show them, to take them to do. It is not beautiful and it is not really fun either.

I'd be interested to hear your friends think of the waterfront when they visit.

 

[ksun]

OT

These are the buildings lining Guanabara Bay in Rio.

AoD

First Brazil is a developing country. I thought Canada could do better?
And two, those buildings while uninspiring, don't feel as overwhelming as the Harbour Square condos, and more importantly, none of them are located on the water side of the street (if I am not mistaken). The biggest mistake about our waterfront is allowing large and ugly condos to be built on the south side of QQ.

 

[Tewder]

I am glad a lot of improvement has been made on the waterfront, but it has not been ambitious enough.

You raise some good points and your comments are justified, to a point. I just don't know that Toronto's current context will ever facilitate the sort of grand vision you wish to see. Toronto of the 50s to the 70s had that sort of vision and optimism - we built NPS, the Eaton Centre and the world's tallest free-standing structure etc - but that was under a very different political and social climate.

The public realm today is definitely improving in the central waterfront and it will be even more beautiful when the trees mature, by anyone's standard. Improved commerce, restaurants and retail, will no doubt emerge too as this location gains in popularity. It may not be the amazing international tourist draw this city deserves - and you may be right about that - but it will continue to improve the city and it will be yet another reason why people love living in Toronto... and in a way, this is in fact very appealing to tourists, maybe not to the 'tour bus/all-inclusive/all-i-want-is-a-postcard' sort of tourist but to younger urban travellers who seek out a more authentic local vibe... they are the future of travel after all.

That said, i do agree we can do better, and why shouldn't we!

 

[ksun]

Retail and dining options will be very limited even in the future. Look at the streets, where will they put those shops and restaurants? At the base of the condos? No sizeable retail is possible maybe small burger and hotdog place that we have quite a lot already. Full sized eat in restaurants don't seem likely, nor are department stores or independent shop you see on Yonge or Queen.

If we want we create a waterfront community instead of a touristy destination, that's perfectly fine too, but we have isn't a community either. They are separate condos which have nothing to do with each other, and probably high percentage of transient renters. Take a look at Barcelonetta, that's a perfect example of charming waterfront community.

 

[Canadian Chocho]

First Brazil is a developing country. I thought Canada could do better?
And two, those buildings while uninspiring, don't feel as overwhelming as the Harbour Square condos, and more importantly, none of them are located on the water side of the street (if I am not mistaken). The biggest mistake about our waterfront is allowing large and ugly condos to be built on the south side of QQ.

This comment only cements the notion that you are ignorant and immature, its almost youtube-comment-esque. It doesn't take much to understand that some parts of Brazil are way more developed than the obvious favela-like image you're evoking by uttering it is a "developing country".

 

[torontologist]

These are the buildings lining Guanabara Bay in Rio.

AoD

Isn't Guanabara surrounded by industrial uses and working class communities though (with the exception of Niteroi)? I feel like the architecture of Ipanema, Leblon, et al is a more apt comparison. In which case, we don't compare well.

edit: I took a look on GoogleMaps to refresh my memory, and I totally take this back. I think my memory is a bit selective there's some modernist gems there though.

 

[AlvinofDiaspar]

Since Brazil is a apparently a developing country, let's use an example that isn't from one - Nice, France.

The architecture isn't bad, but certainly isn't stellar by any sense of the word. It is the consistency in scale and ground floor animation, along with landscape architecture that did the job. Since this getting really, really OT, I will stop at this point.

AoD

 

[ksun]

This comment only cements the notion that you are ignorant and immature, its almost youtube-comment-esque. It doesn't take much to understand that some parts of Brazil are way more developed than the obvious favela-like image you're evoking by uttering it is a "developing country".

Rio has a per capita GDP of $12000 (about 1/3 of Toronto's). No matter how "developed" you think it is, it is still much poorer than Toronto.
And Rio has enough of favela. It is not exactly a wealthy and advanced city in most aspects (GDP, income, HDI etc.).
But sure, I am ignorant and immature.

Since it is seriously OT, I will stop here.

 

[ksun]

Since Brazil is a apparently a developing country, let's use an example that isn't from one - Nice, France.


The architecture isn't bad, but certainly isn't stellar by any sense of the word. It is the consistency in scale and ground floor animation, along with landscape architecture that did the job. Since this getting really, really OT, I will stop at this point.

AoD

I actually have been to Nice and this is promenade of Anglais. If only QQ buildings look like that.

 

[Edward Skira]

The One is coming. Please discuss

 

[Hanlansboy]

Not to be a killjoy, but why do so many insist on comparing Toronto to Rio, NYC, Chicago, etc? Each and every city has its own unique flavour, its own personality, its own style. To me, comparison is pointless, and counter productive. What I do care about is, how future projects will effect our skyline, and let the rest of the world be damned, we shouldn't aspire to be like them, but to be our own unique selves, something for other cities to aspire to. And if The One is any indication, there are very few places on earth that hope to be half of what we do/will have, just sayin'