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

khristopher, I assume when you say that other city are building cool things on their waterfronts, you're getting this from the web. I would suggest you are searching incorrectly. For instance, look here to see the vast, brown, tiled mausoleum Hong Kong built on the Kowloon waterfront - note in particular the almost complete absence of windows, overlooking a view that is one of the world's most stunning urban vistas. This large, inert loaf, which I recently visited, actually looks better in the photo linked to than in real life.

Waterfronts in pretty much all cities are a mixed bag. Internet searching for cool buildings is fun, but gives a completely distorted view of reality.
 
The HK Cultural Centre (museum, concert hall) is indeed quite boring architecturally. The Ford Auditorium was a well-meaning, but dead (architecturally and functionally now) building as well, and the Ren Cen, also in Detroit, was horrible before GM paid to rebuild the entire street level of the complex. Cobo Hall, Joe Louis Arena all turn their backs on the waterfront (Joe Louis as a whole is a disaster). Detroit has a horrible watefront, now that I think of it. HK has a great harbour, but not a great waterfront - marred by highways and private uses and architectural mistakes.

Chicago might have some great buildings facing the lakes, and some great parks near the lake, but really doesn't meet Lake Michigan very well, except north and south of downtown.

I am quite disappointed by the Corus building and Jack Diamond. But our waterfront as a whole isn't that bad - what's important is good public spaces and public use (which has always been my top complaint with Clewes' latest offering on the other side of Redpath).
 
Last edited:
adma said:
Yes, but it's rare that they're nothing but "really cool buildings and other projects"--I'm sure the locals in those "other cities" could pick out their own Corus-equivalent bete noires.

And it isn't like Toronto's waterfront is on the verge of being built up with nothing but Coruses--even Jack Diamond, I reckon, would shudder at the thought...
Click to expand...


... which is in fact just what does appear to be emerging, one tasteful minimalist box after another against the backdrop of boxy glass condo/office towers that are now defining development south of Front Street.

Archivist said:
Perspective is needed.
Click to expand...

For what it's worth here's mine... Toronto is far from running the risk of Dubai-ification, and most of us are very happy with what is planned for and/or emerging along large tracts of the waterfront in the east and west ends. The issue here for many is the central, downtown waterfront specifically and its lack of a central focus or landmark site or building - and I'm okay risking an assault on my character here for actually desiring such a gesture in this location - that engages the waterfront with the city in a dramatic and symbolic way. Corus is not to blame for this, nor Pier 27 for that matter, but in the absence of any plans for such a gesture, and as the plots for development disappear one by one to commercial interests and through back-room deals, they incur our enmity as they run the risk of turning the city's central waterfront into some sterile bourgeois fantasy of what is 'tasteful'.

Also, isn't it somewhat arrogant to insult Khristopher's perspective and accuse him of misguided 'surfing' by essentially doing the exact same thing in deliberately cherry-picking examples of Waterfronts or Waterfront buildings in other cities that don't work? I cannot argue for him but presumably he is not holding up those examples when arguing that Toronto's response to its central waterfront may be lacking.
 
I agree with Pinkie - how nicely photographer lxmoss has captured the ability of the Corus cladding to change with the ambient lighting conditions ... in this case a bright, sunny day with plenty of blue heaven - and the blue building that results.

I'm not a fan of all their work, but the Quadrangle people aren't incorrect in pointing out how people animate space with colour - the City Room on opera nights is a nice example of that.

Disenfranchising grey as a colour ( Tewder's "grey or colour" comment quoted above ) is exactly the sort of false 'either-or' polarization that Tewder talks of. The sense of moral outrage that this particular colour has generated is just plain silly, as is the claim that colour practice is mere colour theory.

I agree with adma's comment about the significance of York Quay - it's a creative reuse of the sort of building that forms the context for our waterfront regeneration. And the Canada Square rendering indicates how the success of Harbourfront's adapted pier forms can be the basis for a development that eschews the grandiose. Clewes has adopted the humble pier form for his Pier 27 condo design. Fitting in, and expanding the existing context, is actually a powerful and symbolic gesture.
 
Clewes has adopted the humble pier form for his Pier 27 condo design. Fitting in, and expanding the existing context, is actually a powerful and symbolic gesture.
Click to expand...

What a load of claptrap....there is nothing "humble" about Pier 27...it will be an eye-catching piece of iconic architecture - everything that Corus is not....

sometimes, Shocker, I think you must live in a parallel universe to the rest of us...
 
re: HK Cultural Centre

I was actually still living in HK when they had the competition for the project - believe me, it was one of the most savaged piece of architecture in that city. The flesh-coloured monolith is supposed to - get this - symbolize a bird in flight. In addition to failing that particular task, the acoustics of the concert hall (which at the time had the largest pipe organ in Asia) is also considered to be atrocious. If not for the fact that open space is so difficult to get in HK, the public space would have been shunned aside for something more desirable.
I still have a local architectural mag from the time and there was a rather funny "comic" on the said project.

Personally, I'd take 10 Corus over that piece of "work".

AoD
 
And the fact that Corus changes colour is not particularly special, since a variety of buildings could be clad in the same thing. The same glass could go on a less forgettable structure.
 
The same glass is on a fortgettable structure: Corus!

There are three words that come to mind concerning this building: uninspiring, lost opportunity.

As I stated in another post. US can't escape the rigid confines of the dogmatism that is the 'international style'. It would be quaint to see the last gasp defences of a style born of the 1930's, if it was not so tiring.

We have a brand new century, with new technologies and new materials. Architects have broken themselves free from the confines of the square box and have found new ways to express themselves creatively. US dismisses it all with the label of spectacle, but its the future and thank goodness. Bring on the wavy forms and shapes, the splashes of colour and the creative use of materials. This is architecture at its most creative: artists attempting to express themselves, and our new age, using the latest techniques and a mindset that is no longer stuck in the paradigms of pre-WW2 Germany. Bring on the new age of style.

(rant over ;))
 
Nicely put alklay, but I am not in complete agreement - I do not dismiss the International style as a mere epoch/style in architectural history, mainly due to the nature of styles and design methodologies which are continually being rediscovered and refashioned (think smith not fashion) to fit our new understandings of the built-form.

While I agree that we need to embrace many of the new design technologies, materials and approaches etc., let's not forget where it came from. I think that one of the biggest faults or maybe not faults as such, but maybe pitfalls when it comes to architecture and design, is our tendency to quickly dismiss past architectural technologies, styles etc. once the new and improved style has come along. I am not suggesting that this is the case in Toronto, or with the Corus building, but we do need to take all aspects into account.

That said, I also agree that there is just so much being done in the architectural field with regards to materials, intelligent facades, green and sustainable design, facade systems, glass - the list is actually almost endless- we are not seizing the opportunities afforded to us, primarily because we do not see them as necessary, but probably because of the overall lack of involvement. This is changing, but I would suggest that average person could care less about this building, what it stands for and how it ultimately works, both physically, but also functionally for its users and occupants.

US: I don't think fitting in is at all a poor decision, but why is everything that remotely stands out automatically deemed irresponsible and spectacle? It's interesting to read how you equate conservative (grey) design to being 'adult and poetry,' yet whimsical and colourful is considered childish and petty?

Let me guess, you want really badly to wear a colorful polka-dot dress, but you can't for fear of tarnishing your grey and colour challenged image?

p5
 
Last edited:
And yes, sorry, I do not want to dismiss the International Style outright but it should be seen in its proper light and place, and not used to dismiss the new creative schools of design that are pushing dogma aside and embracing the age in which we live.

It is the rigid dogma and ideology of the 'Style' that is insulting. There is no doubt that the best of architects are using it as a springboard though. The higher jumps off this springboard should be celebrated though, when successful, and not dismissed simply because they have taken a great leap away from an ideology.
 
Last edited:
^^I was not trying to correct you, but wanted to say more or less what you summed up in two sentences..cheers!

You are right, the rigid constraints applied by the ideologies of the International Style were if anything dogmatic and epitomized by their unwavering beliefs-system - naturally this can be heavily attributed to the time in which it was born..

p5
 
Urban Shocker said:
Disenfranchising grey as a colour ( Tewder's "grey or colour" comment quoted above ) is exactly the sort of false 'either-or' polarization that Tewder talks of.
Click to expand...

Not to speak for Tewder, but I believe he's pointing out the 'either-or' polarization you've been advocating for this entire thread.

Urban Shocker said:
The sense of moral outrage that this particular colour has generated is just plain silly, as is the claim that colour practice is mere colour theory.
Click to expand...

Now who's being silly? Their is no 'moral outrage'. People simply think it's ridiculous that any mention of colour, different design options, etc. is met with the usual rant about spectacle and starchitects.
 
There you go, misrepresenting my posts again. I've never made an either-or polarization between grey and colour - instead I've pointed out that grey is a colour - for the benefit of those who either claim it isn't, or who see the world in black-and-white terms where it is in opposition to other colours. Here's Tewder's full quote:

This thread is a good example of the problem when issues are so relentlessly cornered into false 'either-or' polarizations (grey or colour, spectacle or no spectacle, boxy or curvey, within the 'Toronto context' or not etc). It's disingenuous and counterproductive. The heart of the issue here is Diamond's vision of architecture for this site, and whether you're for it or not. I for one feel it is perfectly reasonable to criticize Corus without resorting to false dichotomies.

The thirst for spectacle is an increasingly tired, dogmatic approach - just as Modernism spawned unsatisfying knock-offs of Mies. Indeed, alklay's little glee club pep rally reads like eerily like something straight out of a Bauhaus manifesto:

Bring on the wavy forms and shapes, the splashes of colour and the creative use of materials. This is architecture at its most creative: artists attempting to express themselves, and our new age, using the latest techniques and a mindset ... Bring on the new age of style.
 
For the 1001 time, we have the false dichotomy repeated yet again: if its not bauhaus, it must be 'spectacle'.
 
You must log in or register to post here.

Back
Top