Getting aside from architecture, who says the Bostons and Chicagos *wouldn't* tolerate "corporate chain restaurants and the like" in the most visible parts of their downtown hearts? It's tourist and suburban-daytripper dollars, bay-bee--look at the Magnificent Mile, et al. If you want gentility, look to the side streets...
Er...actually, in that photo, I find the visible architecture (and I mean the *newer* stuff, never mind Paramount) plainly superior to Metropolis--even that "banal" 70s box to the left. And as for that which is "ad covered", it's a matter of either more felicity in the design/accomodation of ads (thanks to thoroughgoing TS-area architectural/planning guidelines over the past quarter century); or else, in the case of the ex-Times/Allied Chemical tower in the middle, the merciful total-coverage of a mutilated white elephant.
Your judgment's clumsy IMO.
In relation to both large commercial/retail/advertising complexes across the street: The Eaton Centre and, yes, Atrium on Bay.
All buildings should attempt to have architectural merit, no matter what their use and budget. Especially when they're located on the busiest pedestrian intersection in the country.
Like Times Square (which as we all know is not really a square) the Yonge Street "Strip" has been a media/advertising zone for many decades. We are not new to this and we don't get a mulligan for inexperience
It would if this project were IN Mississauga which is where the poster is suggesting it should go. In truth, Mississauga deserves something much better than TLS and, indeed, would demand and acquire something superior. (Face it: Missy, for all its faults, actually seems to care about its architecture.)
Typical strawman arguement. The Flea Market was never more than a temporary fill in and the choice was not Flea Market or TLS. Any city that thinks this way has self-esteem issues and is doomed to perpetual mediocrity.
To sum up: TLS apologists typically base their arguements around strawmen, negative reasoning and cynicism. Sorry, but that doesn't cut it anymore, not in a city that competes with the likes of Montreal, Chicago and New York for tourist dollars, conventions and executive offices.
Sorry if I wasn't clear. It's the shabby second rate architecture they wouldn't tolerate, not the surfeit of chain stores which obviously plague tourist zones worldwide, be they Paris, Tokyo or Jacksonville, Fla. The post I was replying to made it sound like we should be eternally grateful we're even getting such fine brands regardless of the third rate architecture and sub-par finishes they come packaged in. While lower tier cities like (----pick one---) would no doubt be lining up at the global-brand glory hole to receive their joyful ministrations from the likes of Jack Astors and Adidas, I think we, those of us in Toronto, should be holding out for something a little finer.
Unless he's speaking of this Distillery District?