Toronto Corus Quay | ?m | 8s | Waterfront Toronto | Diamond Schmitt

Hmmm... I wonder what all the rush was about?....

Ohhh!! I know... because we've been waiting for redevelopment of that stretch of the waterfront to happen and it's taken FOREVER.

At least we have a starting point now. Corus Quay isn't ideal, but at least it got the ball rolling.

Enough negativity.... moving on now.
 
The Copenhagen opera house is no different from Gehry's Walt Disney Concert Hall or our Four Seasons Centre in that it has a front entrance/exit for the public that always gets photographed and is usually located on a major street or pedestrian promenade, and a back and sides that aren't permeable to the public no matter how Big Hair the building looming above the streetscape may be.

A small point perhaps, but the Walt Disney is surrounded on all four sides by roads, and the building itself is surrounded on all four sides by walkways, fountains, and plazas. It's highly engaging to be around, from any approach.

Nonetheless, I don't really disagree with your central point that every building needs to be equally programmed on every side.
 
Corus....

It's obvious that this could have been better design and looked nicer but getting it built as fast as possible killed any interest in making this happen. Hopefully the George Brown campus going up on the east side will look better and we know from the renderings that Pier 27 should look really sharp.
 
I'm not a conservative, just realistic. Toronto is a conservative city, unlike Mtl. Mtl's new port buildings reflect that city, just as Corus Quay reflect's Toronto's sense of self.

I think Corus represents just one architects vision of what Toronto should be. One could point to a project like the ROM addition and suggest Toronto isn't very conservative at all.
 
I think Corus represents just one architects vision of what Toronto should be. One could point to a project like the ROM addition and suggest Toronto isn't very conservative at all.

If the architecture itself isn't proof positive that Toronto has a deep conservative streak - and I agree that it's not - then the fact that, as Kuitenbrouwer's post above points out, we permitted a drab, publically-hostile building to occupy a critical location that had been designated for a public institution certainly does say a lot.
 
If the architecture itself isn't proof positive that Toronto has a deep conservative streak - and I agree that it's not - then the fact that, as Kuitenbrouwer's post above points out, we permitted a drab, publically-hostile building to occupy a critical location that had been designated for a public institution certainly does say a lot.

Who is "we" though? In this case it's a group of architects who approved this design, despite their supposed demand for something better.

I doubt there are very many in the city who care for this building in this location.
 
Building a Corus on this choice tidbit of land proves Toronto is a deeply conservative city ? And where is that architect who knows what Toronto should be ? One of the things I find most interesting about Toronto is the fact that opposites tend to thrive in this unlikeliest of places, confounding us all.
 
From Algonquin Island, October 18, 2009

corusness.jpg
 
Who is "we" though? In this case it's a group of architects who approved this design, despite their supposed demand for something better.

We, here, is the democratically elected apparatus that brought this particular kludge into existence. It wasn't a conspiracy of architects, it was a city decision to seize the moment and give this location to a corporate client willing to move there - at the cost of an expeditiously-designed and constructed building that sold out the city's own waterfront plans and hopes.

At the end of the day, it is "us"; this is a letdown for the public, by the public.
 

Back
Top