[Monaco]

Was walking in the Bloor/Jarvis area yesterday. Came across Bloorwalk at 100 Hayden. It is so....pink and reminds me of a wedding cake or toy castle. I don't think it really goes with the other (and future) buildings in the area. Maybe it'll look better when everything else is up to camouflage it. I kind of winced when I saw it.

 

[dt_toronto_geek]

I don't think it really goes with the other (and future) buildings in the area. Maybe it'll look better when everything else is up to camouflage it. I kind of winced when I saw it.

It was there first!

 

[Archivist]

Bloor Walk makes me think of additional criteria that would broaden a discussion of "ugly" and I think make it more useful. I find Bloor Walk less objectionable than, say, the RoCP buildings, simply because it is smaller and much less prominent. I think if you really wanted to measure not just ugliness, but a building's impact on the city considered from an aesthetic point of view, you'd need some kind of equation to figure it out.

Perhaps something like:

([Overall Attractiveness] X [Size of Building] X [Prominence of Location] +
[Approachability at ground level] X [Foot traffic nearby])
X [Maintenance] = Beauty Quotient.

If we create scales for [Overall Ugliness] and [Unapproachability] in say, -10 (most ugly) to 10 (beautiful), and allow for multiples of say, .1 to 2 for the other factors, (and allowing for, say, -.9 to 2 in the Maintenance category) we might end up with something like this:

TD Centre
((9 X 1.8 X 1.5) + (7 X 2)) X 2 = 60.4
(ie., a beautiful, large, building in a sensitive location, quite approachable with tons of foot traffic nearby and well maintained, is a great asset for the city).

Bloor Walk
((-5 X 1 X .2) + (5 X .4)) X 1 = 2
(ie., a fairly ugly building, but neutral for approachability, in a not very prominent location with little foot traffic and too new for maintenance to be an issue, is really pretty much a moot point for the city).

2 Bloor East
((-4 X 1.6 X 2) + (-8 X 2)) X 1 = -28.8
(ie., a thoughtless 70's building, large and in a location that is truly very prominent, almost completely unapproachable yet with tons of foot traffic nearby, maintainance not an issue, is a terrible lumpen mass that disrespects our city).

This doesn't replace aesthetic judgements, just tries to broaden them so that the impact on the city is taken into account. It's a long, mathematic way of saying "At least Bloor Walk isn't right on the waterfront".

Or perhaps I'm just insane!

 

[christiesplits]

Bloor Walk makes me think of additional criteria that would broaden a discussion of "ugly" and I think make it more useful. I find Bloor Walk less objectionable than, say, the RoCP buildings, simply because it is smaller and much less prominent. I think if you really wanted to measure not just ugliness, but a building's impact on the city considered from an aesthetic point of view, you'd need some kind of equation to figure it out.

Perhaps something like:

([Overall Attractiveness] X [Size of Building] X [Prominence of Location] +
[Approachability at ground level] X [Foot traffic nearby])
X [Maintenance] = Beauty Quotient.

If we create scales for [Overall Ugliness] and [Unapproachability] in say, -10 (most ugly) to 10 (beautiful), and allow for multiples of say, .1 to 2 for the other factors, (and allowing for, say, -.9 to 2 in the Maintenance category) we might end up with something like this:

TD Centre
((9 X 1.8 X 1.5) + (7 X 2)) X 2 = 60.4
(ie., a beautiful, large, building in a sensitive location, quite approachable with tons of foot traffic nearby and well maintained, is a great asset for the city).

Bloor Walk
((-5 X 1 X .2) + (5 X .4)) X 1 = 2
(ie., a fairly ugly building, but neutral for approachability, in a not very prominent location with little foot traffic and too new for maintenance to be an issue, is really pretty much a moot point for the city).

2 Bloor East
((-4 X 1.6 X 2) + (-8 X 2)) X 1 = -28.8
(ie., a thoughtless 70's building, large and in a location that is truly very prominent, almost completely unapproachable yet with tons of foot traffic nearby, maintainance not an issue, is a terrible lumpen mass that disrespects our city).

This doesn't replace aesthetic judgements, just tries to broaden them so that the impact on the city is taken into account. It's a long, mathematic way of saying "At least Bloor Walk isn't right on the waterfront".

Or perhaps I'm just insane!

Not insane, Archivist. Brilliant. With such a formula, I don't see how 2 Bloor East doesn't take the title.

 

[dt_toronto_geek]

I don't find Bloor Walk ugly, or objectionable - it's very typical 1990's, which was when it was designed. It's a little fussy but aside from the use of some stucco, the quality of the materials is pretty good. I like the roof-line and the location is absolutely primo. I'll take this building over at least 50% of what else out there.
For the record, it's a great building to live in with great amenities.

 

[Jonny5]

Mocking the Chrysler buildings reminded me of another blight in the city.
I don't have any pics handy, but why do we still have aprtment towers with GIANT radio antennas on top? The buildings that stick out the most are along Pleasant Blvd. and Jackes, just east of Yonge and south of St. Clair.
The buildings are getting very weathered on the outside (and are contenders themselves for worst in the city) and they all have HUGE 10 story atennae on top that look ready to fall over any day.

 

[dt_toronto_geek]

I don't find Bloor Walk ugly, or objectionable - it's very typical 1990's, which was when it was designed. It's a little fussy but aside from the use of some stucco, the quality of the materials is pretty good. I like the roof-line and the location is absolutely primo. I'll take this building over at least 50% of what else out there.
For the record, it's a great building to live in with great amenities.

Two pics today of the east and south side of the building, exposure is poor unfortunately

Click on the thumbnail to enlarge, then click again on the image for full size.

 

[dt_toronto_geek]

77 Elm

77 Elm Street (aka the nightmare on elm street)

Click on the thumbnail to enlarge, then click again on the image for full size.

 

[adma]

I don't find Bloor Walk ugly, or objectionable - it's very typical 1990's, which was when it was designed. It's a little fussy but aside from the use of some stucco, the quality of the materials is pretty good. I like the roof-line and the location is absolutely primo. I'll take this building over at least 50% of what else out there.
For the record, it's a great building to live in with great amenities.

Somehow, it strikes me as more early 2000s than 1990s in spirit. It actually seems *less* fussy and/or simplistic than earlier PoMo-retro works...

 

[dt_toronto_geek]

It was designed and sold in the late 90's, took years to get moving and I think occupancy finally took place around 2002 or 2003 so you are correct, it is a product of this decade.
Edit: occupancy was closer to 2003-04

 

[Redroom Studios]

I like 2 Bloor East, especially after they put in the aqua coloured glass. Street level is not great of course but the bulk of the tower as it appears in skyline pics is just fine... certainly doesnt come close to being 'thoughtless' !

 

[Spoonman]

I don't find Bloor Walk ugly, or objectionable - it's very typical 1990's, which was when it was designed. It's a little fussy but aside from the use of some stucco, the quality of the materials is pretty good. I like the roof-line and the location is absolutely primo. I'll take this building over at least 50% of what else out there.
For the record, it's a great building to live in with great amenities.

Are you, perchance, a fellow Bloor Walk resident?

For the record, I'm not very partial at all to the use of pink stucco or the faux-copper crown (fortunately, not overly prominent). The rooftop garden, however, is fantastic, and the building meets the street well with a solid, brick podium. In fact, I can forgive the building's aesthetic faults since I don't really need to look at it most of the time; instead, I can enjoy the view of the adjacent cathedral and the stunning X tower going up next door.

 

[dt_toronto_geek]

Are you, perchance, a fellow Bloor Walk resident?

For the record, I'm not very partial at all to the use of pink stucco or the faux-copper crown (fortunately, not overly prominent). The rooftop garden, however, is fantastic, and the building meets the street well with a solid, brick podium. In fact, I can forgive the building's aesthetic faults since I don't really need to look at it most of the time; instead, I can enjoy the view of the adjacent cathedral and the stunning X tower going up next door.

No I'm not, but I have a friend who lives there. Living in this area for so many years I think I've been in almost every building in the area at least once through friends, acquaintances, co-workers, parties etc.

I give Philmor credit for making an attempt at using something other than aluminum siding (Murano loses a point because of this) to house the mechanical room and I never truly noticed the pink stucco - I presume that's the balcony areas? The beige-salmon coloured brick is OK and although the precast is just average, I think it's a fine contrast against the brick.
In any event, it's all in the eyes of the beholder. Bloor Walk is not a brilliant piece of architecture but at the same time I don't think it deserves to have been named under this thread.
Yes, the amenities, lobby and rooftop terrace are terrific.