Toronto Nathan Phillips Square + Spirit Garden | ?m | ?s | City of Toronto

dt_toronto_geek said:
Everything is wrong with the Sheraton Hotel in that location.
Click to expand...

Interesting how people can see the same thing so differently. Sheraton (in that location) is one of my favourite buildings in the city. Solid, heavy, hulking, muscular, grounding, unapologetic, 70s perfection.
 
Last edited:
I think the hotel destroys the walk on the south side of Queen Street for most of the block plus it blocks sun and the skyline to the south from NPS. Imagine sitting in NPS and enjoying the view of the CBD without that monster in the way? That's just my take on it.
 
And I thought vatche was complaining about that other hotel, Shangri-La. ;-)

I think Sheraton is perfect for that location. It was planned as part of the NPS development, and designed by the same team as City Hall (minus Revell).

It does not block views to the CBD - it intentionally frames them. The problem is the "Thomson and Thompson" towers which block the views down Bay St., and are quite ugly to boot.
 
dt_toronto_geek said:
I think the hotel destroys the walk on the south side of Queen Street for most of the block plus it blocks sun and the skyline to the south from NPS. Imagine sitting in NPS and enjoying the view of the CBD without that monster in the way? That's just my take on it.
Click to expand...

I agree that the parking ramp exemplifies some of the worst aspects of Brutalism. But I also believe that with a little TLC and some respectfully deferential touch-ups, the hotel could be much better integrated into its context.
 
k10ery said:
It does not block views to the CBD - it intentionally frames them. The problem is the "Thomson and Thompson" towers which block the views down Bay St., and are quite ugly to boot.
Click to expand...

Aside from their replacing the Temple Building, I don't find them to be *that* ugly or view-blocking--not that there ever was much of a southward view on Bay to "block"; after all, it was the Temple's backside, not its frontage, that was exposed here. Yeah, it's a reminder of how vertically-striped boxes became a byword for banality by 1970 (best comparison here is the early 70s boxes of Rockefeller Center West--as well as various Stone/Yamaxaki towers, WTC not excluded). But at this modest secondary-metropolis scale, I'd almost be willing to declare the Thomson complex more "cute" than "ugly"--well, as long as it retains the illuminated rooftop 390...
 
Well, there would have been a view to Temple (not bad on the back), and also the art deco forms of the Victory Building and Sterling Tower:

s0372_ss0001_it1464.jpg


Better than what we got. As to the Sheraton site, not much was lost I think: the planners were right to think they needed a new south side to the square:

2011221-broadwaythreatrebayqueen1970s.jpg


Even going back a generation earlier, it just wouldn't have fit the new look of NPS:

f1257_s1057_it0529.jpg
 
The New City Hall and square called for monumentality across from it on the south side of Queen, and we got it… and I have always liked the Sheraton - other than its dreadful ground level - and have never liked 390 Bay, other than the TD Bank pavilion on the corner (compromised in recent years by the Starbucks).
 
k10ery said:
Better than what we got. As to the Sheraton site, not much was lost I think: the planners were right to think they needed a new south side to the square:

2011221-broadwaythreatrebayqueen1970s.jpg
Click to expand...

Most of the building stock here that came down in the 60's was nothing to cry over, yet cleaned up and re-purposed I'd still prefer it to what's there now. But that's progress.
 
You must log in or register to post here.

Back
Top