caltrane74
Senior Member
That last comment was a joke.
You guy's would be bitchin' to high noon, if they put a Toys R' Us on Cumberland.
|
|
|
That last comment was a joke.
You guy's would be bitchin' to high noon, if they put a Toys R' Us on Cumberland.
Urban Shocker
Doyenne
Why? It'd be a good fit with many of Jerkville's stores - they're not all high end and expensive.
caltrane74
Senior Member
Toys R' Us is not low end..but it obviously wouldn't fit into the very adult vibe on Yorkville, or Cumberland.
Toys R' Us is a good fit for Yonge - Dundas Square , or maybe The Queen Street West Outdoor shopping mall perfect for all the teenie boppers hanging out there already.
jaborandi
Active Member
I wasn't suggesting putting a Toys R' Us there or putting it to any other use. I was suggesting that the architecture itself would suit a Toys R' Us faux suburban outlet. There is nothing special about the architectural vocabulary of the Hazelton. I mean, just what language is it trying to speak? It's neither chalk nor cheese.
alklay
Senior Member
No, its cheeze but its a guilty pleasure cheeze (as is the whole area). It works to animate the street, it has good scale and a little limestone and clay brick never hurt anyone.
I see no need for every building to conform to rigid ideological design paradigms and thank goodness not every building does. If it is sufficiently 'urban' and does not disrespect with poor/cheap materials and bad form (blank walls of cinderblock anyone?), there is certainly something to enjoy and applaud. We should be so lucky if even half the buildings built are so respectfully urban in content and form.
I would prefer something a little more 'neo-modern' but I am not going to dismiss this building outright. That is too easy and in a city that has such a small percentage of 'respectfully urban' buildings, I am not going to complain too much about this particular project.
I see no need for every building to conform to rigid ideological design paradigms and thank goodness not every building does. If it is sufficiently 'urban' and does not disrespect with poor/cheap materials and bad form (blank walls of cinderblock anyone?), there is certainly something to enjoy and applaud. We should be so lucky if even half the buildings built are so respectfully urban in content and form.
I would prefer something a little more 'neo-modern' but I am not going to dismiss this building outright. That is too easy and in a city that has such a small percentage of 'respectfully urban' buildings, I am not going to complain too much about this particular project.
Urban Shocker
Doyenne
Oh there's plenty of ideology behind the push for pastiche that this building and others scattered throughout this part of town represents: nostalgia for styles from the past; the creation of defining styles for the "good taste" crowd based on mining that past; the acquisition of status bestowed by consuming those historicist styles; the use of certain status-bestowing materials in their creation etc.
alklay
Senior Member
This building may have an ideology but its proof that with the right form, scale and material, almost any ideology can providing a respectful and successful urban building.
jaborandi
Active Member
But it's still clunky.
ganjavih
Senior Member
So now this building is branded 'faux historical' as well? And is therefore bad?
I agree with Alklay's assessment. It's not an amazing design but the scale, street presence and attention to detail earn it a thumbs up.
I agree with Alklay's assessment. It's not an amazing design but the scale, street presence and attention to detail earn it a thumbs up.
yyzer
Senior Member
Shocker, Shocker....where do we begin? We can leave out the fact that you obviously have issues with Yorkville - really, nobody cares.
But you insist with your ongoing sanctimonious argument that only modern-style architecture reflects our age, and is therefore the only architecture of merit. Everything else is "faux" or a pastiche of someone else's bad taste. But who appointed you arbeiter of taste?
I like the Clewes buildings as much as anybody here, but I will argue that the Hazelton meets the street better than either Spire or 18 Yorkville - no contest. Both Spire and 18 Yorkville, while very handsome buildings, somehow disconnect at street level. I am not bashing these projects, just pointing out that even our local star has some shortcomings.
Nobody has ever demonstrated that architecture /must/ reflect the current culture to be valid; and even there, how can you say the the Clewesian model is the only appropriate one? I would think that a more appropriate built form in 2007 would reflect some electronic device, not the clean glass forms from the 1960s.
Every style has its merits, and should be appreciated for what they are. But to tie the entire architectural design industry into a 'fashion police' straitjacket would be doing a big disservice to everyone.
You need to chill out, man....
H
Hydrogen
Guest
And most people walk by and think its a building.
Of course, a portion of the "good taste" crowd clamour for modernist designs (complete with decorative Miesian I beams lining the exterior walls). One can presume that their ideology leads them by the nose as well.
Urban Shocker
Doyenne
Had brekky there this morning.
There's a disconnect between the Georgian-inspired exterior and the interior design that jaborandi pinpoints quite nicely when he says, "I mean, just what language is it trying to speak? It's neither chalk nor cheese." and, "It is less than the sum of its parts." It's more an assemblage of staged effects than a coherent design statement.
Five star? Nope. The food's okay, the service not very welcoming; paper napkins rather than cloth ( the identical napkins are in the washrooms! ); mismatched china; no thought to design unity between the china and the teapot, pepper shaker and condiment set; the tablecloths were more like runners and didn't meet the table edges on the sides. The suede/hide wall finishes, we were told, aren't fully installed yet so there are temporary colour matched plastic panels instead. All in all, not well thought through.
Fake books ( I kid you not! ) on the shelves in the small "room" between the hotel and the restaurant. And so much TD Centre green marble in the washroom that I could easily imagine a TD Centre marble fetishist
moving in and refusing to leave. A large Sorel Etrog was wedged into the front lounge, and a fine three-piece example of contemporary Canadian ceramic art there too.
Bruce Kuwabara had eggs benedict.
There's a disconnect between the Georgian-inspired exterior and the interior design that jaborandi pinpoints quite nicely when he says, "I mean, just what language is it trying to speak? It's neither chalk nor cheese." and, "It is less than the sum of its parts." It's more an assemblage of staged effects than a coherent design statement.
Five star? Nope. The food's okay, the service not very welcoming; paper napkins rather than cloth ( the identical napkins are in the washrooms! ); mismatched china; no thought to design unity between the china and the teapot, pepper shaker and condiment set; the tablecloths were more like runners and didn't meet the table edges on the sides. The suede/hide wall finishes, we were told, aren't fully installed yet so there are temporary colour matched plastic panels instead. All in all, not well thought through.
Fake books ( I kid you not! ) on the shelves in the small "room" between the hotel and the restaurant. And so much TD Centre green marble in the washroom that I could easily imagine a TD Centre marble fetishist
moving in and refusing to leave. A large Sorel Etrog was wedged into the front lounge, and a fine three-piece example of contemporary Canadian ceramic art there too.Bruce Kuwabara had eggs benedict.
urbandreamer
recession proof
maybe TD bank financed the thing?
It's disgusting I hate it with a passion It fits right in with the Yorkville set though--tacky conservative $.
Has anyone tried the $30 burger yet? I'm tempted but I'm not prepared to eat it on the patio--a hideous view of all that is wrong with Toronto (4 Seasons, Prince Arthur, Hazelton lanes, hazelton hotel and more crap. Give me the tourist trap that is Baldwin St any day! Or Cucina.)
Rant over now I'm craving a burger--shall make it myself tonight!
It's disgusting I hate it with a passion
It fits right in with the Yorkville set though--tacky conservative $. Has anyone tried the $30 burger yet? I'm tempted but I'm not prepared to eat it on the patio--a hideous view of all that is wrong with Toronto (4 Seasons, Prince Arthur, Hazelton lanes, hazelton hotel and more crap. Give me the tourist trap that is Baldwin St any day! Or Cucina.)
Rant over now I'm craving a burger--shall make it myself tonight!
unimaginative2
Senior Member
Come on, Yorkville is hardly all that's wrong with Toronto. Sure, it can be a bit expense account heavy, the people cruising past in their sports cars are ridiculous, and they're probably not my friends hanging out there. So what? It's a successful neighbourhood, packed with people all the time. It has an attractive pedestrian-friendly streetscape, it has one of the city's most successful parks. I find Hazelton Lanes to be a fascinating artifact of Toronto in the 70s and especially 80s. Every visitor I've brought to the city has loved Yorkville, even if many of the stores aren't really in their price/taste range. The Prince Arthur isn't really that bad either. It certainly looks like they put some real effort into it, especially the shops at the base which are usually such an afterthought. I much preferred what was there before the Hazelton Hotel, but it's a good thing to add hotel rooms in our city and that does look like a lovely patio. Won't argue about the Four Seasons, though! The exterior is truly awful.
lordmandeep
Banned
to me its ten times better then the Yonge Strip...