News   May 15, 2024
50-Storey Midtown Tower Proposed in Close Quarters to Adjacent Proposal
 1.2K     0 
News   May 15, 2024
40-Storey Tower Could Replace Gas Station South of Sheppard-Yonge Station
 1.5K     0 
News   May 15, 2024
The Shops at Pickering City Centre to Rebrand as Part of Masterplan Vision
 980     1 

Another Grass-is-Greener Everywhere Else tête-à-tête-à-tête-à-tête

T

TonyV

Senior Member
Member Bio
Joined
Jul 10, 2007
Messages
1,771
Reaction score
217
Location
Downtown Toronto
Redroom Studios said:
well, unfortunately the majority of the architecture we are handed in this city breeds cynicism...
Click to expand...

Redroom Studios, I'd love to know what new buildings around the world you'd cite as examples that we should follow here in Toronto. Mine is a serious response to your post.

From my standpoint, I believe that we do (basically) good architecture in Toronto. That said, I am getting annoyed at the degree of sameness from one proposal to another lately. Please have your say. Pictures or links are appreciated. Thanks.
 
unfortunately I dont really have time to prepare a thesis or essay on the subject... I think you have nailed half of the issue in the last part of your post. The repetetiveness is a big problem in my eyes. There are 2 or 3 local architects that seem to have garnered special favour and are being awarded a disproportionate number of new projects. Just by definition these are bound to be derivative, but even worse, they sometimes appear to be near identical copies or mix and match elements of previous work. The other part of my complaint is that the approach here is so utterly conservative. Of all the new office buildings completed in the last 5 years I cant really think of one that is any more than a simple box shape, clad entirely in glass. The only one that could even possibly challenge that conclusion is RBC/Dexia though it's only variation is a simple tack on piece on the top. The "Southcore" area is suffering badly from a monoculture of similar shades of glass - there is virtually no stone or brick being used in any of these new buildings which would add texture and warmth in contrast to the cold sterile glass. Think of the classic view of our financial district - its a wonderful variety of materials and colours, and that is what makes it so interesting (even though it too is disproportionately boxy). I just dont see this type of monoculture of buildings in other places that I travel to. But hey, its only my opinion and arguing over it I know is only academic...
 
Redroom Studios said:
unfortunately I dont really have time to prepare a thesis or essay on the subject... I think you have nailed half of the issue in the last part of your post. The repetetiveness is a big problem in my eyes. There are 2 or 3 local architects that seem to have garnered special favour and are being awarded a disproportionate number of new projects. Just by definition these are bound to be derivative, but even worse, they sometimes appear to be near identical copies or mix and match elements of previous work. The other part of my complaint is that the approach here is so utterly conservative. Of all the new office buildings completed in the last 5 years I cant really think of one that is any more than a simple box shape, clad entirely in glass. The only one that could even possibly challenge that conclusion is RBC/Dexia though it's only variation is a simple tack on piece on the top. The "Southcore" area is suffering badly from a monoculture of similar shades of glass - there is virtually no stone or brick being used in any of these new buildings which would add texture and warmth in contrast to the cold sterile glass. Think of the classic view of our financial district - its a wonderful variety of materials and colours, and that is what makes it so interesting (even though it too is disproportionately boxy). I just dont see this type of monoculture of buildings in other places that I travel to. But hey, its only my opinion and arguing over it I know is only academic...
Click to expand...

+1
You summarized the issue very nicely there.
 
Completely agree, Redroom_Studios and others! Despite the large number of projects (office and other developments) the city has seen in the last decade or so, much of it looks only OK...nothing to write home about. The low- and mid-rise projects seem more interesting. When we finally see office developments in the core, all of them are boxes and most of them are around 30 storeys too...wow, how boring is that - all boxes of largely similar heights! Barring some of the signature office towers around King & Bay (of which there are only 10 or so), much of the rest of downtown is 'meh'...most of the buildings are boxy, greyish and drab. And to be honest, from many angles, because of the way the downtown's skyscrapers have clustered (so far), the skyline can look deceivingly small...(in that only the Yonge to University from Front to Queen area can really be identified by the average eye as what they would think is the real downtown area). Add to this the lack of upkeep of roads, sidewalks and street furniture and even street lights, and you get a not-so-good visual of the downtown area. What would tourists think (if they cared)? Yes, I know our downtown is busy, lively and thriving but it's mostly unattractive. Compare what we have to Sydney or Melbourne...wow, what a difference! In terms of office towers and their impact on the skyline, it's Calgary that's the best in Canada, not Toronto. And add to that the fact that Calgary will see more office tower construction in its downtown this decade than any other city in Canada, including Toronto (note: downtown only), the difference will only widen. Toronto's worst enemy is itself.
 
CITY_LOVER said:
Completely agree, Redroom_Studios and others! Despite the large number of projects (office and other developments) the city has seen in the last decade or so, much of it looks only OK...nothing to write home about. The low- and mid-rise projects seem more interesting. When we finally see office developments in the core, all of them are boxes and most of them are around 30 storeys too...wow, how boring is that - all boxes of largely similar heights! Barring some of the signature office towers around King & Bay (of which there are only 10 or so), much of the rest of downtown is 'meh'...most of the buildings are boxy, greyish and drab. And to be honest, from many angles, because of the way the downtown's skyscrapers have clustered (so far), the skyline can look deceivingly small...(in that only the Yonge to University from Front to Queen area can really be identified by the average eye as what they would think is the real downtown area). Add to this the lack of upkeep of roads, sidewalks and street furniture and even street lights, and you get a not-so-good visual of the downtown area. What would tourists think (if they cared)? Yes, I know our downtown is busy, lively and thriving but it's mostly unattractive. Compare what we have to Sydney or Melbourne...wow, what a difference! In terms of office towers and their impact on the skyline, it's Calgary that's the best in Canada, not Toronto. And add to that the fact that Calgary will see more office tower construction in its downtown this decade than any other city in Canada, including Toronto (note: downtown only), the difference will only widen. Toronto's worst enemy is itself.
Click to expand...

Speaking of Sydney, I'm amazed at how well maintained everything is. Not only are the streets and office towers in good condition but it's very hard to find private houses in the deteriorated condition that we see in much of Toronto. I could understand if we were a much poorer city/country but that is not the case. If you walk along streets like Bathurst or Dundas, you'll notice a large number of the houses are quite dirty, badly painted and just in need of repair. From what I've seen and been told, you just don't see that level of decay in Sydney. So I'm asking why would Toronto and Sydney be so different in that regard? Does anybody have any logical explanation why this might be? Is it just that Torontonians don't have the pride in their city, that Sydneysiders do?
 
Last edited:
^^^ Hi Torontovibe (and others),

I can't get into too many details but here's my reasoning as to why the differences are so noticeable: First off, Australian cities are more prosperous than Canadian cities barring Calgary. Yes, they really are and I have done a lot of reading up on this subject matter, so please give me the benefit of the doubt. :)

Secondly, on an overall basis, if I was to make a general blanket statement, I must say it's demographics: rapid globalization of the GTA population (where much of the new populace does not integrate with the 'western' ways of doing things and simply carry on with ways that resemble their home countries, which for the most part are poor/developing) will also have an impact on the overall 'look' of the metro area. I highly doubt we would see the ghettoism that we do today if a higher % of our population was Northern or Western European. Not being racist, just pointing out the obvious.

Thirdly, there is a staggering amount of indifference in this city. Many/most people simply either don't care about anything or are too busy/tired/hopeless in/with their own lives to give a da*m about anything that may seem secondary in importance. There is a lack of strong identity in most people in this city where they will think along the lines of, "I like Toronto and I am proud of where I live and I want to do my share of civic sensibilities."

What are others' thoughts on this?
 
My guess is that climate puts greater demands on buildings in Toronto than in much of Australia. Winter is hard on paint jobs. I live in Vancouver and my impression is that maintenance work lasts longer here, although the rains certainly also have their effect. Frost heaving also affects roads and streets.
 
Torontovibe said:
Speaking of Sydney, I'm amazed at how well maintained everything is. Not only are the streets and office towers in good condition but it's very hard to find private houses in the deteriorated condition that we see in much of Toronto. I could understand if we were a much poorer city/country but that is not the case. If you walk along streets like Bathurst or Dundas, you'll notice a large number of the houses are quite dirty, badly painted and just in need of repair. From what I've seen and been told, you just don't see that level of decay in Sydney. So I'm asking why would Toronto and Sydney be so different in that regard? Does anybody have any logical explanation why this might be? Is it just that Torontonians don't have the pride in their city, that Sydneysiders do?
Click to expand...

I think the "pride in the city" explanation is just too convenient since it's something that can't be quantified or disproven. People can claim it to be the the case and never have to back it up. There are obviously people who do care a lot and there are many neighborhoods that reflect a high standard of pride.

I don't know much about Australia and what the real cause of the difference is, but it's probably something economic. It may be due to increasing housing prices create a sellers market that reduces the incentive to repair. It could be tax deductions for renovations in Australia. It could be just be an ownership life-cycle issue. Streets like Beaconsfield and Shaw have certainly cleaned up dramatically in the past few years. What happened in may cases was that elderly residents who no longer had the money or energy for the upkeep on their houses let them sit for 20 years. When they died, new owners gutted them and majorly improved the street. Again, I don't know if these are true reasons or if anything I wrote above is really applicable, it doesn't matter, I am saying only that there are more plausible explanations than "no one cares."

As mentioned above, climate is also a big factor. Toronto is in the zone where we whip back and forth above and below freezing many times during winter. It's happened several times in the past week. Water freezing and thawing causes a lot of damage. There would be less damage in some place like Edmonton where it stays below zero for a month straight than Toronto where it goes back and forth every day and night. The salt is also a killer too!

I think raising the minimum acceptable standard of the public realm is important in Toronto, especially in streets or neighborhoods that have fallen through the cracks. However I don't think we must necessarily accomplish that by massive projects like burying all utilities and embarking on huge gentirification schemes. There are so many simple things that can be done at little cost today that would have a huge impact. Cracking down on littering. Cracking down on postering. Cracking down on illegal dumping. And by cracking down, I don't mean three by-law officers working over-time for two weeks. I mean an intensive, multi-year, zero-tolerance effort that will hand out as many fines as necessary in every corner of the city. Also how about more quickly restoring utility cuts to their previous state!


EDIT: I think even the dreaded Cedar utility poles could be improved on with some better organization. I don't like concrete poles as they look too cold and industrial. I don't like the silver steel(?) poles the TTC and traffic use for the same reason. Maybe they could use steel poles painted black? Long ago Hamilton used thick black steel poles for it's trolley bus system and they still looked great even with downtown streets lined with hundreds of them. And how about ditching the yellow traffic lights... the list of simple changes just goes on and on.
 
Last edited:
You know I've really been thinking a lot about this statement: Everyone wants something for nothing.

You guys are complaining (and legitimately so) about conditions of state of repair or banal design or imposing harder regulations on stakeholders on these issues that you admirably care deeply about. But I've got to ask if this is really at it's core about wanting something for nothing? The question begs what risk and resource are you devoting to this issue? What is the state of repair, design standard, and what physical spaces do you take responsibility for? What happens when it's your skin in the game?
 
^^^ Hi, I'm not sure if this really answers TrickyRicky's questions/comments but in order to do my part of civic stellar-ness, not only do I ensure that I'm obedient in public (and mostly in private :)) but I'm willing to pay more taxes in the form of MST (municipal sales tax) of say, 2%, to increase funding in Toronto, where that money can be used to improve infrastructure (especially transit) along with cleaning up all public spaces in the city. As for private homes' maintenance, well, asides from sending letters to the offending parties, I don't think much else can be done (except for actually fining/penalizing them on their lack of upkeep?). I think the city of Calgary does send out letters to private homes if someone complains about their lack of upkeep (i.e. neighbors) or if a city employee notices something when driving by. I do find Calgary, in general, tends to be better maintained (and that's not just entirely due to the fact that it's a newer city).
 
You must log in or register to post here.

Back
Top