These designs by Foster may not be ground-breaking in any way but they do raise the bar in terms of quality, sophistication and elegance (the old design in particular, imo), which is appropriate for this location. Besides, Mirvish/Gehry will be designing novel icons for Toronto on King Street. Not every building in this city needs to be tricked out with gimmicks or we'll end up looking like some Dubai/Asian-boomburg theme park. No thanks.
 
Tewder said:
Not every building in this city needs to be tricked out with gimmicks or we'll end up looking like some Dubai/Asian-boomburg theme park. No thanks.
Click to expand...
Agreed -- I want striking architecture, but I don't want kitchy gimmicks.
 
Tulse said:
Agreed -- I want striking architecture, but I don't want kitchy gimmicks.
Click to expand...

Isn't this a very subjective thing though? Would you consider having both the Gherkin and the Shard to be two kitschy gimmicks in the same city (yes, technically they aren't in the same city, ha ha)? How about both Shanghai Tower, Jin Mao, SWFC and Oriental Pearl Tower?
 
Sure it's subjective (which is why I stated it as what I want). And you're certainly correct that context is everything -- a few examples of unusual and/or striking buildings may provide interest and liveliness, while a bunch of them together looks like a theme park.
 
Tulse said:
Sure it's subjective (which is why I stated it as what I want). And you're certainly correct that context is everything -- a few examples of unusual and/or striking buildings may provide interest and liveliness, while a bunch of them together looks like a theme park.
Click to expand...

Can't disagree there.
 
Tewder said:
These designs by Foster may not be ground-breaking in any way but they do raise the bar in terms of quality, sophistication and elegance (the old design in particular, imo), which is appropriate for this location. Besides, Mirvish/Gehry will be designing novel icons for Toronto on King Street. Not every building in this city needs to be tricked out with gimmicks or we'll end up looking like some Dubai/Asian-boomburg theme park. No thanks.
Click to expand...

One Bloor West and the Mirvish/Gehry site are relatively far apart. They could both be distinctive and expressive towers without making the city look garish like Dubai. In fact, the city would look far better with multiple iconic towers spread out across the city. New York has the Rockefeller Center, Chrysler Building and Empire State Building, for instance. They continue to build distinctive towers like 8 Spruce Street and the new World Trade Center tower.

To me, a purely ornamental diagrid on a box is a gimmick. It may look good and be a positive addition to the city. But it there won't be much substance to it--especially if the same architect already used the idea years ago for an iconic tower in another city.
 
What's with all the fear and ambivalence here? Does Toronto even have a single building (built in the last decade) that shows any exuberance (L Tower, Ice, perhaps)? It's astonishing that few embrace the idea of seeing something completely radical in this city. And when anyone tackles the status quo, it is assumed they have aspirations for the city to look like Dubai. Why must everything conform to straight lines and flat roofs? We could use a helping of audaciousness. I see hardly any imagination or creativity in this design. For Canada's most prominent intersection, this is severely underwhelming.
 
junctionist said:
One Bloor West and the Mirvish/Gehry site are relatively far apart. They could both be distinctive and expressive towers without making the city look garish like Dubai.
Click to expand...

Yes they are far enough apart, I agree, but we already have One Bloor East rising. I just feel we have to be careful about wanting every new high rise to have **jazz hands**.

Again, my point is only that Foster's design here is 'distinctive' without being all show-offy about it... though I do love a good spire and wouldn't hate seeing one here!

junctionist said:
In fact, the city would look far better with multiple iconic towers spread out across the city. New York has the Rockefeller Center, Chrysler Building and Empire State Building, for instance. They continue to build distinctive towers like 8 Spruce Street and the new World Trade Center tower.
Click to expand...

Yes, we have the L Tower, the CN Tower, New City Hall, OCAD etc., not to mention One Bloor East rising and the M/G buildings to come yet.

Besides, many of the New York landmarks you mention really aren't that gimmicky when you think about it (the Chrysler, yes). They are just grander and more noteworthy expressions of their vernacular, the classic New York city art deco skyscraper. They fit in as much as they stand out, in other words. In this sense what we need perhaps is to develop a vernacular rather than an endless mish-mash of competing garishness.

junctionist said:
To me, a purely ornamental diagrid on a box is a gimmick. It may look good and be a positive addition to the city. But it there won't be much substance to it--especially if the same architect already used the idea years ago for an iconic tower in another city.
Click to expand...

... which is in part why i liked the original design better, the diagrid being more integral to the structure.
 
Red October said:
See I agree with this, for Foster it is very conservative compared to his other projects, but I blame that on Toronto/the developer instead of him himself. But in a vacuum for Toronto overall it's very far down the list of new buildings one could call "dull".
Click to expand...
I agree that it's not "dull" when compared to your typical North American highrise proposal... Having said that, with the location, name, height and architect behind this project, it feels like a letdown to see what sits before us today... I know it's a "process" that might be subject to further refinements, so I guess we'll just have to wait and see what unfolds...
 
Armour said:
Does Toronto even have a single building (built in the last decade) that shows any exuberance (L Tower, Ice, perhaps)?
Click to expand...
Apart from L Tower and Ice? Sharp Centre at OCADU (technically 11 years ago), Ryerson Student Centre, ROM Crystal. Coming up: Mirvish/Gehry, Picasso, One Bloor East, and of course this thread's topic building.
 
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.
 
kotsy said:
We need more Mirvish/Gehry style buildings to average out the horrid crap down by the waterfront :p
Click to expand...

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.
 
You must log in or register to post here.

Back
Top