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

Torontovibe said:
Glass goes up on Corus. More grey, of course. That's what Toronto needs, more grey!
Click to expand...

Hmm, I don't know. It actually looks pretty blueish to me; also the base panes looks pretty transparent. I wouldn't really call any of the panes grey.

Maybe I'm just nutty though.
 
You'd think that with all of Jack Diamonds architectural expertise and experience, that he would have thrown in a little colour into this project - I mean look at the Corus logo - playful, colourful, somewhat colourful, but not one cue or hint of any of that can be found in this building. Just shows you how this could be an office building for company A, B, C...Z!! Such is the case for so much of Toronto's architecture.

I have to agree with Torontovibe on this one, more grey is exactly what is needed in Toronto- as if this city isn't grey enough..

p5
 
p5connex said:
You'd think that with all of Jack Diamonds architectural expertise and experience, that he would have thrown in a little colour into this project - I mean look at the Corus logo - playful, colourful, somewhat colourful, but not one cue or hint of any of that can be found in this building. Just shows you how this could be an office building for company A, B, C...Z!! Such is the case for so much of Toronto's architecture.

I have to agree with Torontovibe on this one, more grey is exactly what is needed in Toronto- as if this city isn't grey enough..

p5
Click to expand...

Calm down. Too much spectacle would make this building iconic and therefore worthless. We don't want employees being so stimulated by the outside that they can't concentrate on the work they'll be doing on the inside.

In time you'll understand this is greatest design in the history of everything. Corus will soon produce the greatest television and radio work ever, thanks to the effects of this wonderous, restrained building.
 
p5connex said:
You'd think that with all of Jack Diamonds architectural expertise and experience, that he would have thrown in a little colour into this project - I mean look at the Corus logo - playful, colourful, somewhat colourful, but not one cue or hint of any of that can be found in this building. Just shows you how this could be an office building for company A, B, C...Z!! Such is the case for so much of Toronto's architecture.

I have to agree with Torontovibe on this one, more grey is exactly what is needed in Toronto- as if this city isn't grey enough..

p5
Click to expand...

You would think they'd want their logo to influence the design a bit, and be more fun and playful. It is a shame, because one thing the city does not need is grey. It needs colour so badly.
 
syn said:
Calm down. Too much spectacle would make this building iconic and therefore worthless. We don't want employees being so stimulated by the outside that they can't concentrate on the work they'll be doing on the inside.

In time you'll understand this is greatest design in the history of everything. Corus will soon produce the greatest television and radio work ever, thanks to the effects of this wonderous, restrained building.
Click to expand...

Yes, Jim, it is a suburban piece of drek, and probably the biggest lost opportunity on the waterfront...

We have to be careful not to confuse 'restrained' with 'mediocre'.....
 
Perhaps some dirty wooden hydro poles and patched asphalt around this box will help anchor it in its Toronto context too?
 
I think the glass is stunning, and it's a very unique blue colour.

Anyone who thinks a piece architecture is "good" because it has lots of colour or weird shapes clearly has little academic understanding of architecture. Diamond creates quality that's a cut above "look-at-me" tacky stuff.

Plus, the building is hardly done-- when it's finished you have more elements of interest-- including most likely a large COLOURFUL piece of art hanging within the lobby which one can see right into.
 
SP!RE said:
I think the glass is stunning, and it's a very unique blue colour.

Anyone who thinks a piece architecture is "good" because it has lots of colour or weird shapes clearly has little academic understanding of architecture. Diamond creates quality that's a cut above "look-at-me" tacky stuff.
Click to expand...

I'd go further and say this is way better than "'look-at-me' tacky stuff" and as it's "look-at-anything-else". See brilliant architecture - the architecture, in its restrained elegance, draws the eye to something else.

At least (ugh) Sugar Beach (not by Diamond) might add some much needed colour.
 
Anyone who thinks a piece architecture is "good" because it has lots of colour or weird shapes clearly has little academic understanding of architecture. Diamond creates quality that's a cut above "look-at-me" tacky stuff.
Click to expand...

Little academic understanding of architecture? You're serious? I mean really come on, because that is a good one Spire. What are you a professor of architectural theory/design? Honestly, it irritates me to no end that you are critical of those suggesting that architecture have a bit of colour. While Jack Diamond may prescribe to the book of Miesian architecture, not everything of Miesian aesthetic can automatically be deemed as superior architecture.

Please take a look around the world of architecture and see what other architects are doing beyond the expanses of this city/country before you suggest that Diamond is a "cut-above" the "tacky" "look at me" colourful stuff.

pfive
 
Colour is great! But it's not necessary all the time. A good piece of artwork in the lobby and I'll be happy.

I am sure there will be more projects coming along in this area (and the parkland) which will offer some more playful colours and objects. I think the public space and lobby should be playful, but the building itself restrained.
 
syn said:
I'm sure that would've been just too much 'spectacle' for people to handle.
Click to expand...

A concert stage would have been too much spectacle for people to handle? lol Somebody should tell harbourfront. Toronto the bland wants to keep it's reputation. No window shopping on Sundays, please.
 
The facade appears quite different from the samples. Still, looks pretty good. Should make a quality building.

Please take a look around the world of architecture and see what other architects are doing beyond the expanses of this city/country before you suggest that Diamond is a "cut-above" the "tacky" "look at me" colourful stuff.
Click to expand...


Get off your high horse. Not sure what Diamond did to you and don't really want to know. So it isn't a building to send shockwave throughout the architectural community. Who bloody cares. I'm not sure what makes this plot the ideal spot where anything but is a total failure.
 
You must log in or register to post here.

Back
Top