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

[fred]

I often scratch my head and wonder what happened, how was this allowed to happen and who is responsible. It's probably best I don't open this thread very often.

City Hall's great master plan of allowing nothing but six storey shoe boxes along the waterfront! If all you're allowed to build is 6 storey boxes, then six storey boxes is all that you'll get! Another reason is many local politicians, especially McConnell, aren't interested in architecture and design and have other agendas, usually NDP priorities, that they're obsessed with.

Also, unlike London, Paris, and Beijing, Toronto is in a country that does NOT care about it's main city. Instead of turning us into a spectacular showpiece to the rest of the world, Ottawa and Queen's park just uses us as a cash cow. That was evident when the feds and province didn't support our World's Fair bid.

Also, Torontonians are a very transient people and most are from elsewhere and have divided loyalties. That holds true for developers as well, that don't really care about the city but are only here to make money and then retire elsewhere.

But the main reason, is that Canuckleheads are rather boring, bland, over-insured, drive beige, silver or white sedans and are only concerned that the electricity and water is working. We always play it safe. We are scared of anything new and different and colourful.

We have no one to blame but ourselves.

 

[ponyboy]

I appreciate your willingness to say that. I hope it all isn't true! As far as built form downtown, I think we do the street level pretty well, but often fall short on the flair and self-confidence. The podium and point tower approach is a good solution for density and street-level retail. More generally, I do think we (I'm a Canadian now who immigrated from the U.S. 10 yrs ago) fall short on confidence, entrepreneurial spirit, willingness to be impolite to make a point, bureaucracy, and willingness to shake things up in general.

 

[adma]

City Hall's great master plan of allowing nothing but six storey shoe boxes along the waterfront! If all you're allowed to build is 6 storey boxes, then six storey boxes is all that you'll get! Another reason is many local politicians, especially McConnell, aren't interested in architecture and design and have other agendas, usually NDP priorities, that they're obsessed with.

Also, unlike London, Paris, and Beijing, Toronto is in a country that does NOT care about it's main city. Instead of turning us into a spectacular showpiece to the rest of the world, Ottawa and Queen's park just uses us as a cash cow. That was evident when the feds and province didn't support our World's Fair bid.

Also, Torontonians are a very transient people and most are from elsewhere and have divided loyalties. That holds true for developers as well, that don't really care about the city but are only here to make money and then retire elsewhere.

But the main reason, is that Canuckleheads are rather boring, bland, over-insured, drive beige, silver or white sedans and are only concerned that the electricity and water is working. We always play it safe. We are scared of anything new and different and colourful.

We have no one to blame but ourselves.

Yeah, but sometimes the overwrought demand for the "new and different and colourful" reflects a bankruptcy in the ability to appreciate what already exists. In which case, rather than the "new and different and colourful" per se, what we really need is a comprehensive Pevsner-type architectural guidebook thingy that'll explicate and properly contextualize what's already there in Toronto. Maybe that'll wipe the "spectacular showcase" glitter from your eyes, oh dear hack-urbanist parvenu. Heck, I'll betcha that from my Torontonian perspective, I'm better able to appreciate London, Paris, Beijing et al in their comprehensive totality than you are...

 

[ProjectEnd]

Yeah, but sometimes the overwrought demand for the "new and different and colourful" reflects a bankruptcy in the ability to appreciate what already exists. In which case, rather than the "new and different and colourful" per se, what we really need is a comprehensive Pevsner-type architectural guidebook thingy that'll explicate and properly contextualize what's already there in Toronto. Maybe that'll wipe the "spectacular showcase" glitter from your eyes, oh dear hack-urbanist parvenu. Heck, I'll betcha that from my Torontonian perspective, I'm better able to appreciate London, Paris, Beijing et al in their comprehensive totality than you are...

Though one must also remember that such a guidebook couldn't just function as a mouthpiece for 'Toronto contextualism' (something it would likely, neigh, have to, highlight). I believe Corus' place in such a tome wouldn't be as comfortable as you indicate seeing as there has been/is/will be much criticism surrounding the project.

In that vein, I believe what you are describing would be more akin to a City Observed rather than an overwrought, multi-volume Buildings of England. From Goldberger's introduction: "Some of the buildings are good and some of them terrible, and I have not hesitated to be frank in expressing my views."

 

[fred]

Yeah, but sometimes the overwrought demand for the "new and different and colourful" reflects a bankruptcy in the ability to appreciate what already exists. In which case, rather than the "new and different and colourful" per se, what we really need is a comprehensive Pevsner-type architectural guidebook thingy that'll explicate and properly contextualize what's already there in Toronto. Maybe that'll wipe the "spectacular showcase" glitter from your eyes, oh dear hack-urbanist parvenu. Heck, I'll betcha that from my Torontonian perspective, I'm better able to appreciate London, Paris, Beijing et al in their comprehensive totality than you are...

What, you like this building and City Council's underwhelming master plan for the lakefront between Jarvis and Parliament? I don't.
This is prime, downtown lakefront property. A picture postcard view of the city and City Council has chosen to let it go to waste. This building could've and should've been built in Markham.

I would've rather let this area remain vacant for 40 years. Perhaps in 40 years we may get the Olympics. This site would be ideal for that. Or perhaps in 40 years we might go through another "cultural renaissance" and they could build an impressive Concert Hall ( Like the one they built in Beijing, or a landmark like the Sydney Opera House ), or Art Gallery ( Like in Bilbao ). I could even live with another Harbourfront-type project. Even a "wall of 45 storey condo towers" ( which incidentally do not act as a barrier to the waterfront any more than a 6 storey box does ) would be better than this.

This area had such potential, and now it's gone. While I like the idea of Corus maintaining office jobs in the city, they could have just as easily leased space in the proposed second Bay Adelaide tower or the Ice tower. And as a major tennant they may even have had the building named after them.

I can see it now. First this private office box. Then another box-like George Brown College campus ( probably brown brick ) which is also private property, no public access. ( This should be built near St. James or Casa Loma ) Then a Walmart store, and toward Parliament Street, a one storey Shoppers Drug Mart with no windows and a Concrete block finish. And along with the Loblaws Superstore this stretch looks like it belongs in Scarborough. Thank you City Council.

I DO appreciate what we have. And part of what we had here, was great potential, which is lost, which is a tragedy! There is nothing wrong with aiming high and having "spectacular showcase glitter" as you put it , but settling for mediocrity IS a tragedy. Especially here.

 

[adma]

Though one must also remember that such a guidebook couldn't just function as a mouthpiece for 'Toronto contextualism' (something it would likely, neigh, have to, highlight). I believe Corus' place in such a tome wouldn't be as comfortable as you indicate seeing as there has been/is/will be much criticism surrounding the project.

In that vein, I believe what you are describing would be more akin to a City Observed rather than an overwrought, multi-volume Buildings of England. From Goldberger's introduction: "Some of the buildings are good and some of them terrible, and I have not hesitated to be frank in expressing my views."

Though if I may channel the spirit of Goldberger's City Observed relative to our own time and place, his brickbats were more likely to be directed at obvious schlock akin to the commonplace KirkorGrazianiCorazza fare around these parts. Perhaps the closest thing to a Corus-esque whipping post might have been something like the dithering New Formalism of Lincoln Center. It isn't like Goldberger would be an Urban Shocker-style Jack Diamond glee squad; but at the same time, his judgment would be more measured than some of the "where's the big-hair Architecture" hysteria I'm sensing here. (Then again, The City Observed came about at a take-a-deep-breath moment relative to big-hair stuff.)

A lot of these knocks on Corus seem to be coming from the same standpoint that'd knock anything from the St Lawrence Neighbourhood to the Yonge Street Strip as dismal pieces of c**p--which IMO, is beneath what Goldberger was aiming at...

 

[AlvinofDiaspar]

fred:

What, you like this building and City Council's underwhelming master plan for the lakefront between Jarvis and Parliament? I don't.

Actually, the master (precinct) plan is drafted by WaterfronToronto, council only approved it - and the plan speaks mostly of built form, not architecture - there is really no legal ground for the city to "demand" architectural excellence - competence, maybe?

And how is the precinct plan itself underwhelming, once we established that architecture is outside the purview of the city?

This is prime, downtown lakefront property. A picture postcard view of the city and City Council has chosen to let it go to waste. This building could've and should've been built in Markham.

Merit or lacktherof of the Corus building aside, what you've said bit of a hyperbole - 99% of the postcard views are taken from the west - and the uglies between York and Yonge guarenteed nothing in the EBF is visible.

Even a "wall of 45 storey condo towers" ( which incidentally do not act as a barrier to the waterfront any more than a 6 storey box does ) would be better than this.

Really? So a repeat of the mess (and yes most of the condos we got in the area are architecturally worthless) that already exist is more desirable than a fairly unoffensive building occuping only a rather small portion of the overall EBF site?

This area had such potential, and now it's gone. While I like the idea of Corus maintaining office jobs in the city, they could have just as easily leased space in the proposed second Bay Adelaide tower or the Ice tower. And as a major tennant they may even have had the building named after them.

Please re-read what I have said re: Corus and the overall impact on the EBF scheme.

I can see it now. First this private office box. Then another box-like George Brown College campus ( probably brown brick ) which is also private property, no public access. ( This should be built near St. James or Casa Loma ) Then a Walmart store, and toward Parliament Street, a one storey Shoppers Drug Mart with no windows and a Concrete block finish. And along with the Loblaws Superstore this stretch looks like it belongs in Scarborough. Thank you City Council.

Probably brown brick? Another "box"? No public access? One story Walmart? Like honestly, you really have to check out some of the materials we have posted (e.g. presentations, etc) before making baseless accusations.

AoD

 

[SP!RE]

I would've rather let this area remain vacant for 40 years. Perhaps in 40 years we may get the Olympics.

...

I can see it now. First this private office box. Then another box-like George Brown College campus ( probably brown brick ) which is also private property, no public access. ( This should be built near St. James or Casa Loma ) Then a Walmart store, and toward Parliament Street, a one storey Shoppers Drug Mart with no windows and a Concrete block finish. And along with the Loblaws Superstore this stretch looks like it belongs in Scarborough. Thank you City Council.

What type of fairytale land do you live in? What we are getting is a realistic representation of what we can realistically do in Toronto, and then some. Clearly you haven't looked at the plans, and thank God you don't run the city-- wait 40 years to develop it?! What a sad idea.

As for the points you make about the architecture and planning of the area-- you couldn't be more wrong.

And referencing Bilbao really isn't a good idea because that's a one-off story and we all know how the "Bilbao effect" has not worked in any other city. And the Sydney Opera House? It's an acoustic fail. Study architecture before you prescribe the Bilbao effect* to any city... PLEASE.


*the assumption that building a landmark building creates an amazing city and brings about cultural renaissance in a city, when really, in Bilbao, it took astronomical investments into transit, landscaping, and numerous new buildings, to create the fame that is often simply accredited to the Bilbao gallery.

 

[Urban Shocker]

This is prime, downtown lakefront property. A picture postcard view of the city and City Council has chosen to let it go to waste. This building could've and should've been built in Markham.

Markham has Arthur Erickson's Civic Centre, so why not a handsome D+S building too? It's a young city and I don't think Jack has built there yet.

The inability to recognize good design - what works and rings true - often goes hand in hand, hereabouts, with the idea that bad design supposedly "belongs" somewhere - usually "Markham" or "the 905" or some other place that represents The Other.

 

[Parkdalian]

I wish the damn thing wasn't grey, but its surprising that most folks dump on it so much. Corus and the George Brown campus will be very useful for a wide range of people, which is a lot more than we can say for the dull condos along the western waterfront. Perhaps we shouldn't forget that the point of redevelopment along the waterfront is not to create a postcard worthy scene but to create something useful and vibrant and beautiful in its own context.

I'm excited to see Sugar Beach and Corus complete, and I'm interested in seeing how they interact with one another before I proclaim Corus a success or failure.

 

[Riverdale Rink Rat]

Y'all are not allowed to be positive in this thread!

Sorry, man -- no love for this building allowed.

Now, a studio spilling out onto Sugar Beach, cafés facing the boardwalk, a low profile to disappear behind the trees and the fountains of Sherbourne Park... yeah, that would be a great building for the waterfront! Too bad this one is sticking out from a wasteland.

Hold on, wait a minute... maybe this could work... but only if we have some imagination to fill in the rest.

 

[Uncle Teddy]

I would've rather let this area remain vacant for 40 years.

This could easily be torn down in 40 years if not sooner. Better this than a vacant lot.

 

[EnviroTO]

I think the best aspect of the Corus building is that it will contrast with all the "fun" elements surrounding it. The building isn't much different to some of the toned down suburban glass office buildings with 6 or 7 floors that exist elsewhere, but it does add people and jobs and while not impressive it won't have people staring at it thinking it is a blight once Sugar Beach, the waterfront walkway, trees, and George Brown are built. It will disappear and let the waterfront be the focus.

 

[bar1967]

I think the best aspect of the Corus building is that it will contrast with all the "fun" elements surrounding it. The building isn't much different to some of the toned down suburban glass office buildings with 6 or 7 floors that exist elsewhere, but it does add people and jobs and while not impressive it won't have people staring at it thinking it is a blight once Sugar Beach, the waterfront walkway, trees, and George Brown are built. It will disappear and let the waterfront be the focus.

I agree. Once it has its urban context to leverage off of then maybe it will fit in just fine. The building itself isn't 'that' bad, but I just hope that everything else around it makes up for some of its shortcomings. Keep in mind it has no, and I repeat NO context right now. It is in the middle of an urban wasteland which thankfully is on the cusp of change.

 

[adma]

And whatever said "cusp of change", it remains fundamentally an industrial/institutional workaday zone, compared to what's W of Yonge--as long as Redpath, LCBO, the Star, even Loblaws and the new GBC remain, it'll be like that. Little "deader" than the W half of Liberty Village, in fact...