Toronto Festival Tower and tiff Bell Lightbox | 156.96m | 42s | Daniels | KPMB

TOfan696 said:
Its a shame that a building that is going to be at the epicenter of both creativity and glamour is so sterile and boring at grade. While I think there are some nice features to this building, to me it doesn't make a bold statement unto its self but rather serves as a grey backdrop for celebrities that will walk the carpet - that can be both good and bad.
Click to expand...

Agreed.
 
Originally Posted by TOfan696
Its a shame that a building that is going to be at the epicenter of both creativity and glamour is so sterile and boring at grade. While I think there are some nice features to this building, to me it doesn't make a bold statement unto its self but rather serves as a grey backdrop for celebrities that will walk the carpet - that can be both good and bad.
Click to expand...

I also agree.

As I posted over at SSP. I think the LED ticker and signage are TOO understated. I know we don't always have to live up to or compare ourselves to New York, but in tiff's case a little more glitz was in order.

Now this is what I call an LED ticker:

02_news_times_square.jpg

(Courtesy fontshop.com)
 
Last edited:
I think so far it looks pretty good without all the glitz. I would hate to see it with a ton of glitz. The glitz will be the celebrities, and the lights, and the accents of the building. When all of the lights are on, it's going to look amazing. It's not finished yet people.
 
TOfan696 said:
Its a shame that a building that is going to be at the epicenter of both creativity and glamour is so sterile and boring at grade. While I think there are some nice features to this building, to me it doesn't make a bold statement unto its self but rather serves as a grey backdrop for celebrities that will walk the carpet - that can be both good and bad.
Click to expand...

I agree. To me, it looks like a standard done-on-a-tight-budget-Toronto-condo at street level. I hope the signage softens the look of those ugly columns.
 
I was recently in California and I had the opportunity to drive all over LA, and looking at places like the Manns Theatre and Kodak Theatre, or Fox Theatre in Westwood (where most movies premier in LA) they all have a unique style unto them selves, they all have a sense of grandeur and they are destinations - people come from all over to see them despite the fact that most of the time nothing is going on. I will have to save some of my reservations about this development until I see the interior but as it stands I don't see this becoming a landmark because of its physical attributes - much like the Four Seasons Centre
 
TOfan696 said:
I was recently in California and I had the opportunity to drive all over LA, and looking at places like the Manns Theatre and Kodak Theatre, or Fox Theatre in Westwood (where most movies premier in LA) they all have a unique style unto them selves, they all have a sense of grandeur and they are destinations - people come from all over to see them despite the fact that most of the time nothing is going on. I will have to save some of my reservations about this development until I see the interior but as it stands I don't see this becoming a landmark because of its physical attributes - much like the Four Seasons Centre
Click to expand...

I think it will be a landmark in the sense that it's quite large and is a building of some importance. I do agree though, from an aesthetic perspective this isn't likely to be a building that people want to see.

This has to be one of the more disappointing projects in the city. The base seemed nice in concept, but the quality isn't what it should be (at least not yet). They also made some odd materials choices, like the precast on the east side. The condo tower looks like it was dropped on and could be anywhere.

This is either one of the top film festivals in the world, or the best (depending on your perspective). If there was anything that demanded a unique and memorable design, this would be it.
 
I don't think any of the other major film festivals are headquartered in a contemporary building that could be mistaken for Lightbox, so "unique and memorable" is likely a description that would come to mind for film fans from abroad comparing Lightbox to what other centres have. It can't be mistaken for any other new cultural building in Toronto either - it strikes me as being every bit as distinctive, in its way, as the opera house or the ROM or the AGO are to audiences drawn from their respective sectors of the cultural scene. I'm not much of a film-goer, but I've gone out of my way on a number of occasions to see the building - especially now that it is almost finished construction - and it has a declarative quality that's distinctly different from KPMB's Ballet School, Gardiner Museum and Royal Conservatory buildings.
 
I think they probably had 2 important considerations.. before they could appeal to your ( and others) proper design senses...

  • 1. Function, as the building has to do the job of hosting one of the world most important film festivals.
  • 2. Cost, money obviously wasn't growing on trees otherwise this building would have been finished long ago, considering the amount of time these guys spent grovelling for cash from donars and the government.

I'm sure there were other designs on the table that would have been the cats meow?.. And I'm sure in a perfect world where the sky is the limit all aspects of the project would have been considered and satisfied to the fullest. But, it just doesnt work that way....of course we all wish it did.
 
The interior space will impress some of those who are not thrilled with the still unfinished exterior.

42
 
+1

Wow ... are you sure you visited the Kodak theater in LA? That's impressive?
 
caltrane74 said:
I think they probably had 2 important considerations.. before they could appeal to your ( and others) proper design senses...

  • 1. Function, as the building has to do the job of hosting one of the world most important film festivals.
  • 2. Cost, money obviously wasn't growing on trees otherwise this building would have been finished long ago, considering the amount of time these guys spent grovelling for cash from donars and the government.

I'm sure there were other designs on the table that would have been the cats meow?.. And I'm sure in a perfect world where the sky is the limit all aspects of the project would have been considered and satisfied to the fullest. But, it just doesnt work that way....of course we all wish it did.
Click to expand...

Agreed, its function is much more important. I think what we have is decent, and would rather see any extra revenue at government levels spent on such necessities as health care, education, and transit than on making the TIFF centre look more "aesthetically pleasing" to us ut folk. This was never meant to be a huge pull for tourism, it was meant to promote Toronto's premier film fest to the world, and I have faith it will do that job just fine. Pop some spotlights on it and throw down a red carpet and it will work well.
 
You must log in or register to post here.

Back
Top