Translude15
Frank the Tank
But let's not confuse function with aesthetics.
Functionally, the NYT development does add density where it is sorely needed. But Daniels is not known for any aesthetic prowess. They have been guilty of some of the most laughable, historicist attempts in the GTA. They are purely market driven, which is why they try to appeal to the lowest common denominator.
My advice would be to not spend so much energy trying to defend your position on this, but instead use it as an opportunity to grow by questioning your beliefs instead.
We can start by being logical about it....you might ask yourself why most of the people who like this stuff have the least amount of knowledge and experience with architecture and design, while the people who have the most knowledge and experience with architecture and design will be almost unanimous in being of the opposite opinion? The biggest mistake people make is that they assume such things are purely subjective "opinion", when in fact, an empirical position can be applied. Not to say I'd want to get into a debate of good art vs bad art here.
That's an excellent point freshcutgrass. I've learned quite a lot over the course of several years reading and participating within this forum. Although I don't consider myself well-versed in the field of architecture or urban form, I have come to appreciate the views of many senior-esque members. A few years back, I made a pretty ignorant, juvenile statement and was promptly criticized by adma. I'll admit I wasn't pleased, however, referring to your mention of "growing up and questioning your beliefs," I see that situation as a case in point.
There seems to be a popularized notion in this part of the world that "newness" is synonymous with progress, and that "oldness" or preserving the past, is archaic, unimportant and an impediment to progress. Architecturally speaking, this runs true constantly within the GTA. People gripe about the unimportance of hand rails and small aesthetics of the Eaton's Centre, but these features are significant in the contextualization of the place. CF's profit- driven efforts of revitalization blatantly disregards the integrity of the Eaton's Centre. In the grand scheme of things, what's more important? "Newness" or architectural integrity? This quest for newness provokes a continual cycle of change and destruction. With regards to the Eaton's Centre, if it wasn't broke in the first place, then why fix it? This revitalization process is a short-sighted one.