ksun
Senior Member
May say that after so many years of patient waiting, the (almost) end product is pretty pathetic. Looks like a project of 2 years or less.
Nothing spectacular. No wow factor. It largely remains a cold and uninviting place.
Nothing spectacular. No wow factor. It largely remains a cold and uninviting place.
AlvinofDiaspar
Moderator
Because period architecture of this style tend to be a cold and uninviting place - and period architecture is something to be respected in this case.
AoD
MisterF
Senior Member
So the east side of the square hasn't been fixed? That's always been the worse part of the square, IMO. Looks like neither of the problematic street frontages are being addressed.
I've always viewed the walkways this way. Great squares tend to be framed by surrounding streets and buildings and are completely open to their surroundings. The walkways stem from an era when planners and engineers were trying to separate pedestrians from vehicle traffic so they could make the streets entirely for higher speed car traffic. The plus-15 walkway system that maestro mentioned would have been more about getting pedestrians off the street than weather protection, as evidenced by the walkways not being covered. They also played the role of isolating the square from the surrounding streets. The fences forcing pedestrians into the square and away from Bay Street and the lawns screening the square from Queen stem from that mentality. I've always thought it would have been far better to let Old City Hall, Osgoode Hall (both gorgeous buildings), and even the buildings to the south provide the sense of enclosure.
I suppose St. Peters Square was somewhat of an inspiration to NPS, but still, the vast majority of the great squares in the world have no artificial structure to provide a sense of enclosure.
ksun
Senior Member
yes, if cold and uninviting was the goal, I guess they succeeded.
Honestly as a taxpayer, is it too much to ask for an attractive public space that is actually pleasing to the eye (not just a representation of some niche architectural style)? Dundas Square is revoltingly commercial and disappointingly small, and this one so cold, where can we find a public square that is actually beautiful in the common sense?
Sorry for whining a bit here, visit cities like Berlin, Munich, Madrid, or Buenos Aires, Santiago, they all have pretty grand public squares that are more like gathering centers of the people with beauty in mind. Toronto doesn't seem to care about beauty. All we can come up with is concrete, some water feature, some seating, and trees if we are lucky. I am just hugely disappointed.
salsa
Senior Member
Isn't the Bay Street side supposed to be re-landscaped? If that's not the case, then good grief.
picard102
Senior Member
I think your answer is in that you didn't list any examples in North America.
AlvinofDiaspar
Moderator
They also have far better architecture at a much lower scale surrounding such squares - which isn't the case here. At the end of the day if that's what you're after, you're better off looking at new developments instead.
I don't believe it was supposed to be.
It isn't that difficult - Union Square in San Francisco, Columbus Circle, New York City, Rittenhouse Square, Philadelphia, etc. Let's face it, we built Dundas Square on the cheap and compromised on the architecture for the sake of value engineering/cheapening and other programmatic needs. Just look at those ponderous (and now stained) pillars lying the north edge of the square, the awkward subway entrance portal (with awkwardly scaled steps and chipped tile treads)/display screen. Let's not even get me started about the stage and the scrap metal awning.
AoD
Last edited:
ksun
Senior Member
Why do we pretend Toronto can only compare to North American cities (usually mean American cities)?
Plus, how south American cities are so vastly different? They were colonized in the 16-17th century with a relatively short history as well.
Additionally, multiple public squares in Chicago, San Fran, Boston are there for you to see, with much higher standards. Dundas Square in comparison looks like high school playground designed by its own teachers.
Alvin - yes, the pillars. What exactly are they? I never figured out their functions except the fact they are super ugly.
I may often sound a whiner here, but I really think Toronto as a sophisticated urban center deserves something far better than these projects, and we should really refrain from being so easily satisfied and self-congratulating as if everything is doing great in this city.
Last edited:
AlvinofDiaspar
Moderator
The original proposal was far more intricate and compelling (e.g. the original canopy for the stage was a light, glassy affair, not some I-beams stuck together). Somewhere along the way it got value-engineered into this half-baked, ugly mutant.
Design isn't the problem - execution is. We suck at fine details - it seems that Toronto has a talent for turning great designs into the mundane, especially in the area of public realm projects. Which is why in many ways I didn't find the NPS project so be such a disappointment - sure there were cutbacks in the scale of the project, but key elements (e.g. the new stage, the skates rental) were completed without sacrificing quality - they actually looked like what was promised.
AoD
Last edited:
Lenser
Senior Member
Sounds terribly doctrinaire and patronizing in its generalization. Who are these too-proud masses you're referring to?
AlvinofDiaspar
Moderator
I hate to say, there is a degree of that. I find City of Toronto projects to be particularly bad offenders - think HtO vs. Sugar Beach. The former ended up with stained concrete benches, fading umbrellas, concrete walkways and willows that were small because the powers that be couldn't act fast enough to secure bigger trees - but of course, municipal politicians could well avoid the flak of something like Sugar Beach's umbrella-gate.
(Incidentally, that's also one of my beefs with Miller's tenure - the inability to rise above the mundane and reach for the sky in the area of public realm. Clean and Beautiful City sounds nice, but ultimately it got a major lipstick on a pig feel - planters aren't going to cut it.)
AoD
Last edited:
Torbram
New Member
"Easily satisfied and self- congratulating as if everything is doing great in this city!" Lol i loved it when you said it! "Bullseyed! "That's what Toronto is. It always settled and satisfied and happy and contented for Mediocrity. Ironic isn't it?! That Toronto always wanted to be called great and first class city. They always even compare itself with Chicago and shamefully with New York???? Not even. Nice try! Lol Toronto is Far behind of everything! in this city. Pathetic. All because of too much bureaucracy and ineffecient government we have in Toronto.
AlvinofDiaspar
Moderator
Please review your previous postings:
http://urbantoronto.ca/forum/showth...onge-Condominiums-(Lanterra-22-54s-aA)/page97
http://urbantoronto.ca/forum/showth...terfront-Toronto-DundeeKilmer-various)/page52
It's getting stale. Then again I suppose using multiple !!! and ??? is a sign of first class citizenry.
AoD
Last edited:
salsa
Senior Member
No, it's because of lack of political will to invest more into city building, as was well demonstrated by the pink umbrella fiasco.