[MatthewK]

10 Dundas E. would be my vote too. I dislike just about everything about that building so much that I get a bad taste in my mouth as I pass by.

Could not agree more. The only thing worse than the empress hotel burning down was that it didn't take 10 Dundas E with it.

 

[thecharioteer]

These may be like shooting fish in a barrel, so to speak:

 

[carpediem]

Definitely some of the buildings that line the Gardner/lakeshore area

 

[Roy G Biv]

Between Sherbourne and Parliament on Wellesley:

The Star of Downtown's town-houses. Game, set, match.

 

[sulkth]

I think 10 Dundas Street East is the worst. The unimaginative grey cladding is awful. You get a sense that that decision was made on saving money. Same with the inside, all grey, no design.

 

[thecharioteer]

139 Merton (on so many levels):

 

[Nads Gone Bads]

The Scaroborough Citadel at Lawrence and Warden. That building is pure barf.

 

[dt_toronto_geek]

I grew up there, Tower Drive north of Lawrence off Warden. Can't think of what that building looks like, is it new'ish? Haven't been by there in maybe 5 or 6 years.

 

[adma]

Voila.

Garwood-Jones van Nostrand Hanson Architects. "This building won a Canadian Architect Award of Excellence in 1993."

I like it. Scarborough's version of Le Corbusier's Cité de Refuge (and for the same client, yet).

 

[dt_toronto_geek]

Ah yes, thanks. I don't think that should have made it to this thread, it's not bad at all - especially for Scarborough (I'm allowed to say that!).

 

[adma]

Well, remember who's doing the "pure barf" judgment.

I couldn't disagree more. The TD Centre has absolutely nothing on the Chrysler Building or any deco skyscraper. I think the former is extremely overrated. It's decent at best, in my opinion. It's way too minimal to really excite me. The TD Centre is only appreciated by skyscraper geeks. The average person wouldn't see anything special about it, whereas anyone can appreciate the detailing in an art deco building. I don't think the TD Centre will ever be revered by the masses as something monumental.

 

[Nads Gone Bads]

Well, remember who's doing the "pure barf" judgment.

Have you actually seen it in person? It's brutal. I think it looks too busy. It would look a lot nicer if the windows/framing weren't so varied.

 

[adma]

It's still pretty safe for me to say that if an inventory of 1990s Scarborough architectural heritage were ever compiled, this'd be high on the list.

 

[ProjectEnd]

It's still pretty safe for me to say that if an inventory of 1990s Scarborough architectural heritage were ever compiled, this'd be high on the list.

And what with van Nostrand being a former principal at aA, perhaps we might think of it as something of a precursor to the 'Toronto Style' which has developed in the last decade or so.

 

[adma]

Though I can halfway see Nads' point in spite of itself: a lot of van Nostrand's 80s/90s specialty was "social architecture" of one sort or another, and it hasn't always aged that gracefully thanks to necessary design economies, ill-upkeep, and sometimes a self-consciously "stylish" hair-shirtedness of aesthetic. (Classic case in point: Fred Victor Mission.)

At least from my last recall, this isn't one of those.