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

Urban Shocker said:
syn: The reference to the Sydney Opera house was Jeff Steiner's, not mine.

I take his quote, "Not every building will be the Sydney Opera House" to mean that not every building will fail to provide substance, which is the case with the Sydney Opera House - a structure that only works as spectacle.
Click to expand...

Say what you want about the Sydney Opera House but it succeeded exceptionally well in becoming a landmark and a symbol of Sydney. I generally don't believe in architecture as a spectacle, but our underdeveloped waterfront is a primo candidate for something spectacular.
 
maestro said:
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!
Click to expand...

...so then nothing but a square, minimalist box should ever be built in safe tasteful Toronto? Nonesense! All innovative architecture was once considered a 'novelty' at some point in history.
 
And our City Hall should have been a box as well, because its simply too "twisty."

If I had a nickel for every false choice brought up on this board.....(useful v. spectacle, kinda crappy condo v. Star of Downtown, etc). Let's see if we can all post responses that do not include this line of arguing: "well, would you rather have (insert total opposite end of the spectrum and an item that almost no one would embrace)." It hardly ever wins anyone over to your particular position.

(Thanks for reading my rant of the day. I am here all week.)
 
Toronto is a sophisticated city, and from an architectural perspective many voices are now being heard. A building that works for its intended purpose is better than one that doesn't, regardless of whether it stands out against context or whether it fits into context. Ganjavih makes a valiant case for design as hollow spectacle - and if we were building an Edifice Complex on the waterfront a Sydney-Opera-House-with-poor-acoustics type structure would be fine. But we require more.
 
No one here is suggesting a replica of Sydney Opera House!

The second incarnation of the building was acceptable, such as the interior orb meeting room. The third Cheapened rendering lost anything that made it worthwhile, including the fully exposed loading docks. The current one is better, but I think the criticism of a boring, unimaginative box is valid.

The building is supposed to set the standard for the East Waterfront as it is the first. It is being built by a city subsidiary, and as such, should reflect the city's aspirations. Diamond should share some blame, but most needs to go to TEDCO, and the city's inablility to manage its own rogue agency.

And I agree with alklay's little rant. The false choice is brought up a lot around here - Sydney Opera House or a boring box, Disneyland vs. Clear Spirit, single-use zoning at Pier 27 vs. low-rise townhouses. It's aggravating.
 
I agree Sean. As stated earlier, a building that works for its intended purpose, regardless of whether it stands out against context or works within context, is what we require.
 
Urban Shocker said:
Toronto is a sophisticated city, and from an architectural perspective many voices are now being heard. A building that works for its intended purpose is better than one that doesn't, regardless of whether it stands out against context or whether it fits into context. Ganjavih makes a valiant case for design as hollow spectacle - and if we were building an Edifice Complex on the waterfront a Sydney-Opera-House-with-poor-acoustics type structure would be fine. But we require more.
Click to expand...

Yes, we require more. Exactly why this design is such a disappointment.
 
Given its location - and given this false choice - I'd rather have hollow spectacle than bland office park...that's what the 905 is for.
 
Though you'll get neither, because Bruce Kuwabara's review panel has just released half of the budget for design excellence and will release the rest of it later. Unless they turn it down again of course ...
 
Urban Shocker said:
Though you'll get neither, because Bruce Kuwabara's review panel has just released half of the budget for design excellence and will release the rest of it later. Unless they turn it down again of course ...
Click to expand...

I think everyone's aware of that. They're expressing why they're dissatisfied with the design. The fact that it's practical simply isn't good enough.
 
It's good enough for them to keep approving it on our behalf.

Maybe if there was some hollow spectacle to it they'd turn it down.
 
Urban Shocker said:
It's good enough for them to keep approving it on our behalf.

Maybe if there was some hollow spectacle to it they'd turn it down.
Click to expand...

But they haven't kept approving it. Even now that it's finally approved they still have reservations.

The argument that it was approved isn't really saying much. Bad projects are approved all the time. This isn't just a corporate office in Markham; it's more than that. Like it or not, architecture isn't just about practicality. It can express meaning. What does this building express? Nothing...except that the best we can expect from a city funded showpiece building is something dull and corporate.
 
You must log in or register to post here.

Back
Top