Toronto 16 York | 154.83m | 32s | Cadillac Fairview | a—A

[interchange42]

Yet here we are in Toronto (50 years after this film skewered the blandness and conformity of the generic cityscape) building out "Playtime" in South Core and the Eastern Waterfront.

I've always wondered if the generation of architects who (still) wield power and influence in Toronto (your Diamonds, KPMBs, aAs, etc...) were completely indoctrinated by the cult of high modernism in architecture schools of the 60s and 70s... & just lay waiting until they could unleash it on the city during the 21st century boom. European architects (and cities) learned from (and moved on from) the "international style" ages ago, and the urban fabric of their 21st century cities look and feel much different than ours.

Yes yes, it's only in Toronto that we get bland buildings, everywhere else is better than us, no-one else gets dull buildings, there's nothing un-noteworthy in Europe.

Sorry, but the premise of your post is ridiculous: there are B-grade buildings everywhere.

42

 

[UrbanFervour]

Yes yes, it's only in Toronto that we get bland buildings, everywhere else is better than us, no-one else gets dull buildings, there's nothing un-noteworthy in Europe.

Sorry, but the premise of your post is ridiculous: there are B-grade buildings everywhere.

42

"it's only in Toronto that we get bland buildings" Never said that.
"everywhere else is better than us" Never said that
"no-one else gets dull buildings" Never said that
"here's nothing un-noteworthy in Europe" Never said that

If you're going to respond to my "argument" (it wasn't an argument - it was something I said I wondered about) please actually respond to what I said, rather than whatever it is you're projecting on me. Thanks.

 

[interchange42]

@UrbanFervour, you said "European architects (and cities) learned from (and moved on from) the "international style" ages ago, and the urban fabric of their 21st century cities look and feel much different than ours." and that blanket statement, far too broad to be true or useful in any way, is rubbish. Specifically, there is lots of International Style still being built in Europe—inserted into local contexts that are normally quite different from ours in the first place—but generally your post is so free of anything other than dull complaint that it comes off as yet another reflexive, self-hating Torontonian, unwilling to acknowledge where we get things right, but seeing the rest of the world, naturally, through rose-coloured glasses.

42

 

[UrbanFervour]

Well, there's relevant consideration both with regard to the relationship between developer and architect and what that means for end product, and also the city's role in what the public realm winds up looking like (both in terms of simple site-by-site planning and broader masterplanning).

FWIW, I also think KPMB's done some masterful work in this city (even if some of their tower work, in particular, is weaker); the Royal Conservatory and Rotman are especially good examples of their understanding of how to make spaces warm, welcoming, and accessible.

Please don't get me wrong- I think all of those firms have done a lot of great work - especially at the institutional scale. I guess what I'm wondering about is the "sameness" to the culture of design especially as it manifests at the larger scale buildings mushrooming across the city... There are obviously multiple factors and pressures that go into shaping a city or a masterplanned area... but (for example) I remember when Bruce Kuwubara argued with Jack Diamond over the generic blandness of the Corus Center setting the tone for the waterfront - and yet when kpmb's turn to build (the George Brown campus) you could argue that KPMB didn't really set the stage for inspiring, outside-the-box architecture.

 

[UrbanFervour]

@UrbanFervour, you said "European architects (and cities) learned from (and moved on from) the "international style" ages ago, and the urban fabric of their 21st century cities look and feel much different than ours." and that blanket statement, far too broad to be true or useful in any way, is rubbish. Specifically, there is lots of International Style still being built in Europe—inserted into local contexts that are normally quite different from ours in the first place—but generally your post is so free of anything other than dull complaint that it comes off as yet another reflexive, self-hating Torontonian, unwilling to acknowledge where we get things right, but seeing the rest of the world, naturally, through rose-coloured glasses.

42

Specifically, there is lots of International Style still being built in Europe—inserted into local contexts that are normally quite different from ours in the first place
Thank you for attempting to engage in in a real conversation with me with one counterpoint argument.

The remainder of your last two posts are so free of anything other than blatant stereotyping about "self-hating Torontonians," wild extrapolation (attacking arguments I never made), and blatant projection of your own psychological frame of mind (angry and bitter).

 

[UrbanFervour]

And I would argue that cities that have rebuilt since being destroyed in WWII (Berlin, London, Dresden, Rotterdam) for example have built higher quality and more humane contemporary architecture and cities in the 21st century than say, Asian cities. This is not about looking at those cities with rose-colored glasses - but it is acknowledging that there are qualitative differences to places - they are achieving something, and shaping their environments in general direction, while Asian cities are shaping in an entirely different way. Obviously there are many different pressures that shape cities in different parts of the world.

But if my question is such bullshit and I'm such a "reflexive, self-hating Torontonian" as you put it, why don't you make a suggestion for why we happen to be building "sameness" on an enormous scale (without resorting to angry ad-hominem attacks)?

 

[maestro]

The sameness is in part because private enterprise is building at an enormous scale. There also isn't that competition promoting the need or desire among developers and tenants alike to show off.

 

[UrbanFervour]

The sameness is in part because private enterprise is building at an enormous scale.

Of course - but I wonder what makes the product all be so similar - is it that it's cheaper to build & easier to lease (or in the case of condos, sell) if they are built to a specific floor-plate type, cladding, height & so forth? 16 York, Telus, RBC, LCBO- this it the commercial typology I'm talking about, (and bulky window wall point-towers for residential).What I'm missing is why the same building typologies are repeated here over and over again (with some outliers, obviously). The easy answer is that these are the cheapest to build and easiest to lease/sell... but my question is - is the range of what architects are offering developers at the large scale limited because it is what they already know how to do & make profitable - & once one development team does it profitably, the developers all go in for the same thing, repeating it endlessly?

 

[am29]

I think it just might me the SOCO has become a node for it's specific quality of Office space and which Business Departments can be located there. Whereas in financial district there is more competition in terms of Office space quality and that may get translated in the design.

 

[sikandar]

Ground slab was poured on the weekend:

Courtesy of @Jackstone44 https://twitter.com/jackstone44/status/964579020875714560

 

[christiesplits]

I'm not expecting an Alsop-level building for the area, but something even modest like the red brick of a Daniels Waterfront would be a very welcome addition.

 

[idc24]

I'm not expecting an Alsop-level building for the area, but something even modest like the red brick of a Daniels Waterfront would be a very welcome addition.

Yeah having some brick incorporated into the design would be pleasant addition. The use of red brick would contributed to a sense of place for the nascent South Core and some contrast the the grey blue glass of the surroundings buildings. It would also provide a nod to the South Core's heritage as a major railway yard. Which is tributed in nearby Roundhouse Park and the Toronto Railway Museum.

 

[AlvinofDiaspar]

Yeah having some brick incorporated into the design would be nice. the use of red brick would contributed to a sense of place for the nascent South Core and some contrast the the grey blue glass of the surroundings buildings. It would also provide a nod to the South Core's heritage as a major railway yard. Which is tributed in nearby Roundhouse Park and the Toronto Railway Museum.

There is no need to demand brick - more sophisticated materials like terracotta panels will do.

AoD

 

[idc24]

There is no need to demand brick - more sophisticated materials like terracotta panels will do.

AoD

I agree, terracotta panels would look phenomenal on a high caliber commercial development such as this. Cadillac Fairview could make a bold design statement in the South Core.

I could be off but I have a sense that Cadillac Fairview is planning to relocate part of their HQ from 20 Queen St W. down to 16 York.

http://www.torontoofficespace.net/office/Toronto/452/20 Queen Street West, Toronto, Ontario

 

[maestro]

Of course - but I wonder what makes the product all be so similar - is it that it's cheaper to build & easier to lease (or in the case of condos, sell) if they are built to a specific floor-plate type, cladding, height & so forth? 16 York, Telus, RBC, LCBO- this it the commercial typology I'm talking about, (and bulky window wall point-towers for residential).What I'm missing is why the same building typologies are repeated here over and over again (with some outliers, obviously). The easy answer is that these are the cheapest to build and easiest to lease/sell... but my question is - is the range of what architects are offering developers at the large scale limited because it is what they already know how to do & make profitable - & once one development team does it profitably, the developers all go in for the same thing, repeating it endlessly?

I think they could go a lot cheaper in design and construction than they do but, yeah, tenants want affordability and efficiency choosing Southcore over Bay and King. Large footprints needing less floors, repetition among those floors and, maximizing floor area of those floors.