GenerationLee
Senior Member
I'm curious how this building would look drenched in rain, perhaps the spandrel wouldn't look so dry in some angles like the image above^
- Thread starter Mike in TO
- Start date
ADRM
Senior Member
ksun
Senior Member
Everything about the square is mediocre and underselling Toronto. It fits perfect the mediocre surrounding buildings. The stage, the fountains both completely lack any sort of imagination, beauty or boldness. And then years later, after spending millions, they copied both and put in on NPS. If Dundas Square is built in cities like Hamilton or London, I would totally understand. The "architectural arm", it is a ridiculous thing to be there and serves absolutely no purpose, only maybe to show how cheap concrete was at that time. The extent Toronto is obessed with nothing but bare concrete is fascinating.
If you "quite like" it, which is your right, it only explains how our public space looks this and why it is considered acceptable for such a large and important city.
Torontovibe
Senior Member
The stage in the square is ugly as hell and reminds me of the machinery used to lift cargo containers. Something like that should never have been allowed in the square.
Last edited:
maestro
Senior Member
LOL ksun.
Fountains like this are found in any multi-functional space the world over. What exactly do you propose to make them more imaginative and yet take up no space when they are turned off?
The square isn't a masterpiece but, maybe you should lower your standards a bit. What's unfortunate is that this multi-purpose space at the centre of consumerism is second only to Nathan Phillips Square. We could use a couple more of scale in the city and not all have to be designed as multi-functional spaces so we can have more grandiose permanent fountains.
I don't mind the stage canopy.
Fountains like this are found in any multi-functional space the world over. What exactly do you propose to make them more imaginative and yet take up no space when they are turned off?
The square isn't a masterpiece but, maybe you should lower your standards a bit. What's unfortunate is that this multi-purpose space at the centre of consumerism is second only to Nathan Phillips Square. We could use a couple more of scale in the city and not all have to be designed as multi-functional spaces so we can have more grandiose permanent fountains.
I don't mind the stage canopy.
Midtown Urbanist
Superstar
Fountains of Paris.
We got to do better. I appreciate that it can be turned off for events, but overall it is a disappointing fountain.
GenerationLee
Senior Member
Hold on, I gotta see what you guys mean by fountains at YD square......I saw them a few months ago but I can't remember if they were very....
EDIT: Ahhhh yesss! I was wondering if I was stupid by thinking the fountains reminded me of a water park with what I could recall from last year, but yes, it's really a simple water fountain.
EDIT: Ahhhh yesss! I was wondering if I was stupid by thinking the fountains reminded me of a water park with what I could recall from last year, but yes, it's really a simple water fountain.
TheKingEast
Senior Member
The square is ghastly. I'd rather another Velocity in its place to be honest.
GenerationLee
Senior Member
I'm somewhat disappointed that a fair amount of existing structures were demoed for the square, could've been done a bit more meticulously IMO.
ksun
Senior Member
The square itself is at least a good intention - we need a public square in the city centre for events to take place, for people to gather and enjoy the city. However, the design itself is a total failure and it is silly to sugar-coat it.
There are a million nice public squares, including fountains elsewhere, that Toronto could simply copy and paste if we don't have the imagination, (and without the need to have statutes of kings and emperors on horses of course). Instead, we chose something this ugly and pathetic and probably paid good price for it. Judging by the new design of NPS, our taste is not improving. Another utterly soulless square full of nothing but dullness. It is still useful, particularly during Pam Am games, but the degree of its sterileness is still shocking, in the 2010s. The much delayed "winter garden" is a huge disappointment too.
And why is the square so tiny? I live in a French city 1/10 of Toronto's size (metro population 680km city proper 160k), and the central square is larger than Dundas Square and a lot more enjoyable, with fountains, flowers, a lot of grass and trees, benches. It is far from France's finest but hell it is so much more pleasant than Dundas Square or NPS, something I observed the first day being here. See people are comfortably sitting on benches or lying on grass? that's what public squares should serve (the city gets pretty cold too in the winter being in the Alpes, the square itself can be covered in snow for weeks too if someone wants to argue about weather). Instead, we have a few concrete seating on the concrete ground, facing a concrete stage and concrete pillars, pretending it is all urban and enjoyable. I am aware mistakes have already been made, but we should at least admit it is bad, like very bad, and not to repeat it.
maestro
Senior Member
I already addressed why a classical example of a fountain doesn't work in this situation so why did you feel the need to bring it up? Dundas Square is, first and foremost, a billable event space. A traditional centre piece fountain doesn't work.
Again. Toronto could use some more squares that aren't multi-functional spaces and have the centrepiece fountains in such demand on this forum. You do have to appreciate Toronto is very much a postwar city when these sort of gathering places weren't very popular. We certainly aren't comparable to the ancient European cities and the new ones that were inspired by their ancient neighbours.
Last edited:
Aarrrrgh! Hyperbole much? Thank goodness we have that square. It works just fine for public events during the year, and when there's no event and the weather's warm, they can turn on the fountains - - - which are a fun for watching kids run through on a hot day.
42
ksun
Senior Member
Not hyperbole (at least not intentionally).
Dundas Square is ok and functional for a mid size city. That's the best I can say about it. Even a city like London deserves a better square than this. To serve as the main square for a city of Toronto's status, it is far from being OK. It doesn't "work just fine" for public events - it is often too crowded with people spilling to the streets, which is not a sign of the square's success but more a reflection of how underbuilt it is for Toronto's needs. And when there is no event, the square is awkwardly serving no purpose, because it is neither attractive nor friendly to those who want to just hang out there. Compared with the photo I posted from a city 1/10 the size (isn't that how we want citizens to enjoy our public squares?), it is very clear the square is poorly designed and the fountain can't save that. None of its elements can be called successful. even the seating on the south side look boring and not inviting.
TheKingEast
Senior Member
hyperbole? I was very serious with my comment. I the square is terrible and would rather have a building in its place, at least there would be an opportunity for retail.
The sprinklers are cool, but they can be implemented anywhere.
The sprinklers are cool, but they can be implemented anywhere.
Northern Light
Superstar
At the risk of being seen to agree w/ksun, LOL, ...... He's on point.
Not necessarily that the square needs to be full of grass or a grand fountain.
But rather it doesn't meet two tests for me in terms of being a successful public place.
The first is the arguably lazy, if important test of aesthetics.
It's really, almost literally, nothing to look at.
It's grey, it's there, uninspiring is a charitable description.
But the other test, would be that of the classic square as gathering space.............
For me the way to evaluate this is personal, but simple, do I ever stop there to sit and soak up the ambiance?
In a word: No
I've never stopped to read a book, people-watch, nosh on a snack, or spend some romantic time w/a gf.
It's just not attractive to me for any of those.
I completely appreciate the argument that this is not a spot in the city surrounded by 19th architecture than lends itself to a grand Victorian fountain.
Likewise, I understand a somewhat 'hardened' landscape in order to allow concerts or other large gatherings.
But there is a way to make a space like that function better.
It's the 'framing' of the space by its neighbours, or architectural or landscape elements.
It's the choice of paving material and seating.
It's the choice to make something in space appear to be the grand centerpiece, even it's not literally in the centre or a fountain/statue.
One could nitpick the choices that could be made or should have been made to achieve this effect.
Could the stage or its canopy been the grand gesture?
Were the canopy along Dundas removed would there be sufficient room for a greater softscape gesture to add warmth and texture to the space?
Could the lighting system be more intimate?
Could the design better accommodate a Toronto winter? (snowmelt systems?, heated benches?)
Lots of possibilities.
In a spirit of fairness to the designers, they were largely operating the context of a political/media vision of the day that blathered on about a Toronto version
of 'Times Square'.
As I said back then, and continue to in reference to the endless advertising, Times Square was, is and remains ugly and is a place to pass through, not one to linger.
It was not the space we should have strived to imitate.
Not necessarily that the square needs to be full of grass or a grand fountain.
But rather it doesn't meet two tests for me in terms of being a successful public place.
The first is the arguably lazy, if important test of aesthetics.
It's really, almost literally, nothing to look at.
It's grey, it's there, uninspiring is a charitable description.
But the other test, would be that of the classic square as gathering space.............
For me the way to evaluate this is personal, but simple, do I ever stop there to sit and soak up the ambiance?
In a word: No
I've never stopped to read a book, people-watch, nosh on a snack, or spend some romantic time w/a gf.
It's just not attractive to me for any of those.
I completely appreciate the argument that this is not a spot in the city surrounded by 19th architecture than lends itself to a grand Victorian fountain.
Likewise, I understand a somewhat 'hardened' landscape in order to allow concerts or other large gatherings.
But there is a way to make a space like that function better.
It's the 'framing' of the space by its neighbours, or architectural or landscape elements.
It's the choice of paving material and seating.
It's the choice to make something in space appear to be the grand centerpiece, even it's not literally in the centre or a fountain/statue.
One could nitpick the choices that could be made or should have been made to achieve this effect.
Could the stage or its canopy been the grand gesture?
Were the canopy along Dundas removed would there be sufficient room for a greater softscape gesture to add warmth and texture to the space?
Could the lighting system be more intimate?
Could the design better accommodate a Toronto winter? (snowmelt systems?, heated benches?)
Lots of possibilities.
In a spirit of fairness to the designers, they were largely operating the context of a political/media vision of the day that blathered on about a Toronto version
of 'Times Square'.
As I said back then, and continue to in reference to the endless advertising, Times Square was, is and remains ugly and is a place to pass through, not one to linger.
It was not the space we should have strived to imitate.