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

[ProjectEnd]

What happened to all those great renders of mixed-use buildings at 100m+ interspersed with smaller buildings of 20m+? It was supposed to have office and residential elements adding up to one big, mixed-use community.

 

[maestro]

If the City's own development doesn't even follow the precinct plan,

I don't quite understand. I've seen hundreds of documents and Corus fit into the overall precinct plan quite well. Of course it doesn't quite measure up to the 36D/24/36 expectations ... unfortunately, there is a short supply of silicone

 

[AlvinofDiaspar]

Projectend:

What happened to all those great renders of mixed-use buildings at 100m+ interspersed with smaller buildings of 20m+? It was supposed to have office and residential elements adding up to one big, mixed-use community.

That's north of Queen's Quay - all the buildings are more or less at the same height south of it.

AoD

 

[Fair Comment]

Maestro is quite correct. The Corus building is perfectly part of the waterfront precinct plan and we'll see that this Diamond minimalist approach -- assuming high quality materials and curtainwall -- will win praise at the end of the day.

As noted many months ago, the use of that location for a corporate HQ (ie employment use) is a key building block so that residential and other mixed uses can be developed. The Corus building is the required buffer between the industrial operation of Redpath Sugar and the future residential, which is supposed to be part of both sides of Queen's Quay Blvd.

 

[CanadianNational]

Hmmm...if it's a buffer they had in mind, I think they must have been copying something like this.

I think speculation on unbuilt buildings is a losing game - let alone arguing ad nauseum over already built ones. But I'll throw a few more cents in here...
Although I do like a lot of Diamond's work - I think he's an excellent architect for institutional, pragmatic, low-key structures - the fact that Corus is being dumb and cheap with the plans does not have me holding out hope that the final product will be an prose-poem of minimalist luxe.

The fact that we are already justifying it as not needing to be anything special, to me is part of the problem that plagues this city. For all sorts of reasons, we are quick to cave in to the demands of base and unexceptional utility, not to mention commerce. This is the same kind of haste that threw up the ungainly concrete monoliths at Queen's Quay. It's a kind of starvation/survival mentality - as if there were a creative famine afoot, and we just have to cram sustenence into our craw whenever we are lucky enough to receive it by grace. I find this attitude depressing, though it seems to be built into the fabric of the area.

Given that we are to be stuck with this corporate packing crate for some time, I hope it does turn out nicely finished, complete with screen and not-all-at-right-angles-to-each-other walls. That's something slightly more than nothing at all. In the meantime, I hope we can start dreaming of a waterfront that resembles something more than a slightly syncopated office park by the lake.

 

[adma]

The fact that we are already justifying it as not needing to be anything special, to me is part of the problem that plagues this city. For all sorts of reasons, we are quick to cave in to the demands of base and unexceptional utility, not to mention commerce. This is the same kind of haste that threw up the ungainly concrete monoliths at Queen's Quay.

Not in the same category. Not at all. *Not at all*. In fact, IMO something like Harbour Square epitomizes parvenu megavulgarity rather than Diamond-style "megabanality"...

 

[syn]

The fact that we are already justifying it as not needing to be anything special, to me is part of the problem that plagues this city. For all sorts of reasons, we are quick to cave in to the demands of base and unexceptional utility, not to mention commerce. This is the same kind of haste that threw up the ungainly concrete monoliths at Queen's Quay. It's a kind of starvation/survival mentality - as if there were a creative famine afoot, and we just have to cram sustenence into our craw whenever we are lucky enough to receive it by grace. I find this attitude depressing, though it seems to be built into the fabric of the area.

Given that we are to be stuck with this corporate packing crate for some time, I hope it does turn out nicely finished, complete with screen and not-all-at-right-angles-to-each-other walls. That's something slightly more than nothing at all. In the meantime, I hope we can start dreaming of a waterfront that resembles something more than a slightly syncopated office park by the lake.

I totally agree. This is one of the biggest disappointments in a long time. The waterfront is the perfect opportunity to demonstrate that the quality of design has evolved in the city. It's the perfect opportunity to create a the truly exceptional and unique.

This building is being funded by the city for that exact reason. What do we get? One of the more dull structures imaginable.

I really hope something happens and it goes back to the drawing board.

 

[MetroMan]

Why the city insists on working with Diamond after he consistently demonstrates sub par design is beyond my imagination.

 

[Urban Shocker]

Because the changes that have been made, which include an angular roof and more potential access, are worth the release of $4.5 million to the advisory panel for design review, that's why.

 

[MetroMan]

They figure they can't get anymore from him, that's why.

It still looks like a Brampton office park.

 

[adma]

As chronically mundane as the scheme might (or might not) be, all this treatment of Jack Diamond as some kind of 2008 version of Mathers & Haldenby circa 1955 (let alone the "Mississauga office park" typecasting) is getting a little excessive.

Between this and the endless 4SC debate, too much of this hate-on for Jack Diamond seems to emanate from the same mindset that (to poach from another thread) declares I.M. Pei's Commerce Court South and East to be "ugly little concrete boxes"...

 

[maestro]

The fact that we are already justifying it as not needing to be anything special, to me is part of the problem that plagues this city. For all sorts of reasons, we are quick to cave in to the demands of base and unexceptional utility, not to mention commerce. This is the same kind of haste that threw up the ungainly concrete monoliths at Queen's Quay. It's a kind of starvation/survival mentality - as if there were a creative famine afoot, and we just have to cram sustenence into our craw whenever we are lucky enough to receive it by grace. I find this attitude depressing, though it seems to be built into the fabric of the area.

Why? Because I've traveled the world and I'm not at all convinced from, an urban design standpoint, 99% of the landmark architecture out there. Maybe ... just maybe .. an understated building with simply clean lines blending well into its (future) surrounding is something Toronto can showcase to the world. Naw, your right. Let's build some twisty tower on an above ground parkade surrounded by an acres of greenspace in which five years down the road once the novelity for twists has passed everyone will be asking, What were we thinking? At least "art" fits into a closet or garage!

 

[CanadianNational]

At least refuse fits into a box.

We're looking for an engaging design that will be sitting on an important civic (and currently symbolic) spot. I don't think anyone is demanding or wanting the impossible or faddish. Canada has no shortage of talented firms and designers with educated imaginations capable of producing something of both present and lasting merit. This buildings merit seems to be composed squarely around its use as a chaste commercial utility, with negligible regard for civic ambition or desires.

I'm sure it will look OK, function OK, last OK and look OK, not be hard to maintain and be easy to rent, so if that's all that one is looking for, one need not look further. I just believe that not only are we capable of much better, it is imperative that we reach for it. The development of the waterfront has a great symbolic - and very real - importance in the minds of Torontonians. Crassly common motives that result in predictably unexceptional architecture act as a depressant on the city's sense of possiblity, now and into the future.

 

[unimaginative2]

I don't quite understand. I've seen hundreds of documents and Corus fit into the overall precinct plan quite well.

To answer your question, this comes from the panel's report:

Loss of urban profile: the eighth floor penthouse, which established the
distinctive stepping terraces called for in the approved East Bayfront precinct
plan, has been eliminated, yielding a large, flat, suburban-style profile on the
landside facades.

I'm still a little uncomfortable with the fact that a major fundraiser and member of the Mayor's campaign team is getting this many large contracts from City agencies.

 

[yyzer]

The development of the waterfront has a great symbolic - and very real - importance in the minds of Torontonians. Crassly common motives that result in predictably unexceptional architecture act as a depressant on the city's sense of possiblity, now and into the future.

This is it, in a nutshell....