Toronto Living Shangri-La Toronto | 214.57m | 66s | Westbank | James Cheng
gristle
Senior Member
There's definitely a "face" of Shangri-La facing onto University.
As for the north face that "fronts" onto University, it is visible because the building is much taller than 200 University Avenue immediately to the north, and because University curves eastward on that block.
As for the north face that "fronts" onto University, it is visible because the building is much taller than 200 University Avenue immediately to the north, and because University curves eastward on that block.
interested
Senior Member
US
Thank you for that.
I think the art in front of the SL will be superb. The renderings suggest there will be a continuation of the theme in the hotel lobby as well.
A definite positive for Toronto.
Thank you for that.
I think the art in front of the SL will be superb. The renderings suggest there will be a continuation of the theme in the hotel lobby as well.
A definite positive for Toronto.
northto
New Member
Architect,
You’ve mixed up the two elements of my argument. Let me tease them apart:
Firstly, to your question and the subjective discussion of tallness/squatness: yes, I find TD to be well proportioned, with a strong vertical presence, even if it isn’t the tallest tower around (and no, I’m not claiming that TD looks taller than Shangri La). My perception has to do with crispness, tautness and subtle detailing that emphasizes upward presence rather than detracting from it. I also find that D+S’s Charlie and Sick Kids projects mark their vertical place in the sky similarly to TD; they draw my eyes up and feel tall to me, irrespective of actual height. An even better example than TD: while Shangri La feels hulking to me, Burano soars in my eyes. I can’t quite put my finger on exactly which design elements make this subjective effect happen, but I suspect it is more to do with good proportion and shape than ornamental elements.
Secondly, regarding Shangri La’s University (specifically, northern) elevation, I agree that it feels tall when viewed from, say, College & University, and that the vertical lines (and eventual LED illumination) contribute to a feeling of tallness and verticality. No dispute there. However, you will recall that my comments about perceived squatness apply to the western elevation Shocker mentioned, not the northern one. My comment about the northern face is that there is more to its presence on University than just verticality (about which I have no dispute). I do not feel that – despite LED strips and vertical lines – the north face contributes significant aesthetic interest or beauty to the view, hence the missed opportunity. I suspect you and I disagree on this one.
Finally, I took you to task for dismissing an opinion that I think is valid. I’m sorry you think I’ve been rude to you, but I’ll stand by my comments, which responded to your dismissive “It is not valid at all, just looking for something to hate about a building that isn't a box,” in #3759. As for rudeness, let me quote from your last two posts:
- What in the hell are you talking about?
- Of course not because that doesn't go against popular opinion and take away from the appearance of being on the high pedestal
- What a ridiculous claim
- Not a good start to the site.
- You best watch the way you speak
- Ridiculous.
- It is not valid at all
There is a name for your forceful, aggressive invective, and it is “bullying.” It seems to me that you are the one putting yourself on a pedestal as judge, jury and executioner. Perhaps you feel you have the right to this based on your 1’200 posts to my measly 50. Speaking to that, you might wish to note that I’ve been a member on this forum for longer than you. I try to restrict myself to discussions about architecture where I have a thoughtful opinion, information or photos I can supply, questions, and appreciating others for their good work (whether architects, developers or fellow forum members). That does not make my comments any less valid than yours, Madam/Sir, and does not preclude my calling even the most senior UT member out for rude dismissal of dissenting opinion.
You’ve mixed up the two elements of my argument. Let me tease them apart:
Firstly, to your question and the subjective discussion of tallness/squatness: yes, I find TD to be well proportioned, with a strong vertical presence, even if it isn’t the tallest tower around (and no, I’m not claiming that TD looks taller than Shangri La). My perception has to do with crispness, tautness and subtle detailing that emphasizes upward presence rather than detracting from it. I also find that D+S’s Charlie and Sick Kids projects mark their vertical place in the sky similarly to TD; they draw my eyes up and feel tall to me, irrespective of actual height. An even better example than TD: while Shangri La feels hulking to me, Burano soars in my eyes. I can’t quite put my finger on exactly which design elements make this subjective effect happen, but I suspect it is more to do with good proportion and shape than ornamental elements.
Secondly, regarding Shangri La’s University (specifically, northern) elevation, I agree that it feels tall when viewed from, say, College & University, and that the vertical lines (and eventual LED illumination) contribute to a feeling of tallness and verticality. No dispute there. However, you will recall that my comments about perceived squatness apply to the western elevation Shocker mentioned, not the northern one. My comment about the northern face is that there is more to its presence on University than just verticality (about which I have no dispute). I do not feel that – despite LED strips and vertical lines – the north face contributes significant aesthetic interest or beauty to the view, hence the missed opportunity. I suspect you and I disagree on this one.
Finally, I took you to task for dismissing an opinion that I think is valid. I’m sorry you think I’ve been rude to you, but I’ll stand by my comments, which responded to your dismissive “It is not valid at all, just looking for something to hate about a building that isn't a box,” in #3759. As for rudeness, let me quote from your last two posts:
- What in the hell are you talking about?
- Of course not because that doesn't go against popular opinion and take away from the appearance of being on the high pedestal
- What a ridiculous claim
- Not a good start to the site.
- You best watch the way you speak
- Ridiculous.
- It is not valid at all
There is a name for your forceful, aggressive invective, and it is “bullying.” It seems to me that you are the one putting yourself on a pedestal as judge, jury and executioner. Perhaps you feel you have the right to this based on your 1’200 posts to my measly 50. Speaking to that, you might wish to note that I’ve been a member on this forum for longer than you. I try to restrict myself to discussions about architecture where I have a thoughtful opinion, information or photos I can supply, questions, and appreciating others for their good work (whether architects, developers or fellow forum members). That does not make my comments any less valid than yours, Madam/Sir, and does not preclude my calling even the most senior UT member out for rude dismissal of dissenting opinion.
Urban Shocker
Doyenne
interested:
The question of how siting sculpture in front of condo buildings defines public art in Toronto came up at the panel discussion on Monday night at Flavio Trevisian's show at 80 Spadina. There were critics of the approach, and it's certainly true that the locations of these new buildings "maps" and I suppose restricts the location of major new art installations, but it's also a way of defining Toronto's reach as a city of arts and culture that we're getting such a diverse display of public art.
The question of how siting sculpture in front of condo buildings defines public art in Toronto came up at the panel discussion on Monday night at Flavio Trevisian's show at 80 Spadina. There were critics of the approach, and it's certainly true that the locations of these new buildings "maps" and I suppose restricts the location of major new art installations, but it's also a way of defining Toronto's reach as a city of arts and culture that we're getting such a diverse display of public art.
Irishmonk
Senior Member
I get what all the critics are saying, re: turning its back on University. In a perfect world the east facade would be angled to keep it flush with the curve of the street. That would create a very dramatic view from the north. Perhaps the developers were determined, for whatever reason, to have a symmetrical tower so as to maintain a conventional floor plates. Or they were just lazy and wanted to reproduce the one in Vancouver.
caltrane74
Senior Member
By me
More more
More more
interested
Senior Member
^^^^
Sweet.
Nic pics Cal.
Sweet.
Nic pics Cal.
caltrane74
Senior Member
Thanks...
Miscreant
Senior Member
Member Bio
- Joined
- Oct 9, 2011
- Messages
- 3,625
- Reaction score
- 1,808
- Location
- Where it's urban. And dense.
Great shots, thanks for those.
My somewhat philistine tastes result in my quite liking the north-bound view of this building. It makes a statement.
My somewhat philistine tastes result in my quite liking the north-bound view of this building. It makes a statement.
vatche
Senior Member
That second pic is gorgeous
vegeta_skyline
Senior Member
Shangri-la turns its face away from University?
No more than the 4 Season's turns it face away from Bay street;
(Images courtesy of caltrane74)
Care to point out any dramatic differences between those two facades?
And for the record I think they both look great.
No more than the 4 Season's turns it face away from Bay street;
(Images courtesy of caltrane74)
Care to point out any dramatic differences between those two facades?
And for the record I think they both look great.
mdparker
Active Member
Gorgeous pics Caltrane... I think when finished this building will really pop on this type of sunny day... I personally like the slender side showing on University...
Redroom Studios
Senior Member
the problem with both of Shangri-la and 4S is that neither of them have a face to show on any side... its all a monoculture expanse of glass. But I get it that that is what defines neo-modernism. Give me a good old fashioned building with a defined face any day.
Red October
Senior Member
Ehh I'd say the east side is a legitimate "face".