[dt_toronto_geek]

Once this project is finished with some landscaping it's going to do a long ways towards making the city look less like a dump when leaving the docks.

I don't think the waters edge looked like a dump, it just appeared as an abandoned area east of Yonge and this project helps to fill that gap nicely. Waterlink also presents a pleasing contrast against the Toronto Star & Harbour Castle buildings from the harbour. What now needs some funding and the eagle eyes over at Waterfront Toronto is the entire layout of our ferry terminal, which requires updating and enlarging along with the purchase of an additional new ferry for service on weekends and holidays.

 

[Xray_Crystal_Junkie]

It doesn't look bad from a pedestrian point of view, I specifically meant when viewed from the fairy.

Panning left to right you have Harbour Castle, Captain John's, this site under construction, Red Path, vacant land and the Port Lands. Granted Sugar Beach, Corus and George Brown are in the middle but it's a pretty ugly view in my opinion.

 

[adHominem]

The view is fine - it's a grab bag, but that's Toronto for you, and it's interesting at least. (I will always prize 'interesting' over 'nice', though that's partly because I increasingly consider 'nice' a pejorative term.) Once more new buildings (read: shiny glass boxes) go up in the area I suspect we'll be glad of the contrasting elements. I'm more bothered by the Westin's street-killing pedestrian realm than how it looks from the lake.

I agree with dt, I'd much rather effort go towards a total re-think of the ferry terminal, visiting which on a hot summer weekend being one of the worst experiences Toronto has to offer.

 

[TheTigerMaster]

The view is fine - it's a grab bag, but that's Toronto for you, and it's interesting at least. (I will always prize 'interesting' over 'nice', though that's partly because I increasingly consider 'nice' a pejorative term.) Once more new buildings (read: shiny glass boxes) go up in the area I suspect we'll be glad of the contrasting elements. I'm more bothered by the Westin's street-killing pedestrian realm than how it looks from the lake.

I agree with dt, I'd much rather effort go towards a total re-think of the ferry terminal, visiting which on a hot summer weekend being one of the worst experiences Toronto has to offer.

Anyone think there's a chance of the Weston coming down in the future? It wouldn't be the first building of its size to be demolished in Toronto.

 

[SixPoints]

Yesterday:

 

[Copper1212]

Anyone think there's a chance of the Weston coming down in the future? It wouldn't be the first building of its size to be demolished in Toronto.

I certainly hope not. While it isn't in vogue these days there will come a time when people will look back at this building and consider it a gem. Especially with the circular restaurant at the top. People's opinions on the Weston don't differ much than with what some people thought of Old City Hall, for instance. It's a unique interesting building reminiscent of its time and once it's gone it's gone.

I really don't understand how this forum is sometimes. People lament how much history Toronto has lost...how could anyone ever do that they ask??? Then you'll read this thread where the Weston comes up...people hate it and would be happy if it were destroyed...guilty of the exact same thing. You must understand that the way you view the Weston is the way some people viewed all the great buildings that Toronto has lost. It is no different, we can't destroy these things.

Bit of a rant there....thats about more than just the Weston though. I read so many similar opinions about other buildings in this city.

Oh btw I do agree that at street level the Weston could be, shall we say, tweaked?

 

[innsertnamehere]

The tower should stay, but the conference centre absolutely should go. It is a block killer of massive proportions, one of (if not the) worst structures in the city.

 

[interchange42]

I agree that the Westin (stands for Western International) Conference Centre must be redeveloped: it's awful. I'd also like to see a plan to improve the podium of the hotel which makes it more humane at street level (but which does not totally destroy the project's architecture), but the towers should be left alone.

42

 

[christiesplits]

I don't find the Westin, Harbour Square or Toronto Star building nearly as offensive now as I did even five years ago. They are almost a refreshing chance of pace from the glass and spandrel, and a nice reminder of the previous generation's attempt at reclaiming the lake.

Harbour Square's parking garage is definitely in poor taste and the Westin conference centre stands out like a sore thumb, but they don't draw in your eyes with all the new shiny stuff nearby.

 

[junctionist]

The Westin towers are interesting: their shape is unique, they have a great combination of sleek glass and these floating concrete elements beside each window and that signature flying saucer parked the roof. The Westin podium and conference centre, however, have to be improved or redeveloped. It's the Harbour Square condos next to the Westin that are architecturally lacking with an inelegant grid of windows, bad proportions and sterile beige precast cladding.

 

[Silence&Motion]

I certainly hope not. While it isn't in vogue these days there will come a time when people will look back at this building and consider it a gem. Especially with the circular restaurant at the top. People's opinions on the Weston don't differ much than with what some people thought of Old City Hall, for instance. It's a unique interesting building reminiscent of its time and once it's gone it's gone.

I really don't understand how this forum is sometimes. People lament how much history Toronto has lost...how could anyone ever do that they ask??? Then you'll read this thread where the Weston comes up...people hate it and would be happy if it were destroyed...guilty of the exact same thing. You must understand that the way you view the Weston is the way some people viewed all the great buildings that Toronto has lost. It is no different, we can't destroy these things.

Bit of a rant there....thats about more than just the Weston though. I read so many similar opinions about other buildings in this city.

Oh btw I do agree that at street level the Weston could be, shall we say, tweaked?

A couple points of disagreement:

1. There seems to be this general belief that people in the 1950s saw 19th c. buildings as ugly and wanted to get rid of them. Actually the general public still loved these buildings. The reason so many were demolished was because they got in the way of the massive post-war building projects and there was no legal framework in place to save them. Even today, many property owners would be happy to demolish 19th c. buildings if there were no legal restrictions to doing so. In fact the only people who really hated 19th c. buildings were the new generation of modernist architects who had an interest in peddling their new aesthetic approach, which (to property developer's delight) justified skipping all the expensive masonry and decorative elements that were previously an essential part of "good" architecture. But in general, people have always and continue to prefer pre-modern to modern buildings on an aesthetic basis. There is something fundamentally more appealing to hand crafted masonry than to mass produced modern materials.

2. You are drawing a false equivalency between Old City Hall and WHC. The main difference is that WHC is a modern building and we are still living in the modern era of architecture. We still build buildings essentially the same way we did in the 1970s, using the same material. Demolishing WHC today would be like Victorian Torontonians demolishing a Georgian building. I know there are a lot of Georgian fans on this board, but most people don't get too bent out of shape by the fact that some of our Victorian building stock stands and the ruins of our Georgian building stock. Or, alternatively, it's like all the early Victorian buildings being replaced by a late Victorian buildings (e.g. the Flatiron building replacing the Coffin Block building).

That said, as a rule, I prefer adaptive reuse to demolition. I'd much rather something be done to the base of WHC to help open the waterfront up to the public, and improve the ferry terminal, than to have it flat out demolished. However, if there was a great proposal that would replace WHC with something actually special (e.g. like the Gehry buildings proposed for King and John), I would happily accept the demolition of WHC and not feel like we were loosing a major part of Toronto's history. In fact, if people like circular restaurants on top of buildings so much, we could build another one without having it come off as something like those "faux" Victorian buildings.

 

[Parkdalian]

A couple points of disagreement:

1. There seems to be this general belief that people in the 1950s saw 19th c. buildings as ugly and wanted to get rid of them. Actually the general public still loved these buildings. The reason so many were demolished was because they got in the way of the massive post-war building projects and there was no legal framework in place to save them. Even today, many property owners would be happy to demolish 19th c. buildings if there were no legal restrictions to doing so. In fact the only people who really hated 19th c. buildings were the new generation of modernist architects who had an interest in peddling their new aesthetic approach, which (to property developer's delight) justified skipping all the expensive masonry and decorative elements that were previously an essential part of "good" architecture. But in general, people have always and continue to prefer pre-modern to modern buildings on an aesthetic basis. There is something fundamentally more appealing to hand crafted masonry than to mass produced modern materials.

This is not true. Plenty of people opted for bland new homes in the suburbs (and continue to do so), and were quite happy with their choices on an aesthetic basis. "Newness" and "modernism" have an aesthetic quality that a wide swath of people appreciate. After all, many people in the 60s and 70s were leaving behind all of those fancy dresses with the "decorative elements" and natural fibres for functional, artificial fabrics and easy shapes with bright colours. This wasn't just an elite thing, but a broad, wide-scale movement.

 

[junctionist]

Most people found something to like in Modern design in the 1960s, but I agree with Silence&Motion's argument that people didn't categorically reject previous all previous styles as ugly. By the 1970s we already saw vague historicism start to emerge in the mainstream of contemporary architecture, and then prominently in the Postmodern movement in the 1980s.

 

[MrSocky]

Even though many people choose to live in tacky suburban homes doesn't mean they don't like our older more historic architecture. Take many people to these older buildings and their breath is still taken away, you see it everyday with people talking about old city hall. But most people just believe it is no longer possible to create buildings like this due to lack of tradesman or cost, thus don't bother asking for it. But I do agree with you, modernism and newness does appeal to many people.

 

[Silence&Motion]

This is not true. Plenty of people opted for bland new homes in the suburbs (and continue to do so), and were quite happy with their choices on an aesthetic basis. "Newness" and "modernism" have an aesthetic quality that a wide swath of people appreciate. After all, many people in the 60s and 70s were leaving behind all of those fancy dresses with the "decorative elements" and natural fibres for functional, artificial fabrics and easy shapes with bright colours. This wasn't just an elite thing, but a broad, wide-scale movement.

I never said that people didn't like modern architecture, especially with all of the benefits that it brought (affordability, comfort, etc). What I said was that people never preferred it on an aesthetic level to pre-modern architecture (generally speaking). In fact most domestic architecture continues to this day to be overwhelmingly historicist especially when compared to commercial and retail architecture. When people buy a home, they want one that reminds them of pre-modern architecture.

My larger point is that what has saved historic architecture since the 1970s is not that people all of a sudden "rediscovered" their love of it, but rather that a legal framework was put in place to preserve it (after people witnessed the mass demolitions that took place for financial reasons in the 1950s and '60s).