Toronto MEC Queen Street (Mountain Equipment Coop) | 21.03m | 3s | Parallax | Sweeny &Co

This is disappointing.

It's uninspired and uninspiring, seems to offer little towards reinforcing the MEC identity, and really neuters the side street. The front doors could have been placed at the corner with aspect to both the south and east, allowing the quieter sidewalk to become a useful plaza with street vendors - a vibrant existing use of the current site that deserves to be maintained and encouraged. The bicycle parking area set against a blank wall feels sadly under-cooked and vestigial. IMO, this is a real step backwards from their existing King Street building.
 
I agree. Although I like the building...I would like to see something a little less 'safe' in its design. This is going to be the main Toronto store is it not?
 
Safe, boring, forgettable, cheap, generic, suburban, awkward... am I forgetting any adjectives for this dud? ...(Now cue all the UT Pollyannas saying this is just the kind of contextual dreck we need more of.)

A flagship store for a Canadian company on Toronto's main shopping strip is an incredible opportunity... but I guess this is what happens when our architects and business leaders dream big.

I have another adjective: PATHETIC! :p
 
You forgot "unimaginative".

I have to agree: there is very little to like about this. Do I even see some suburban faux-stone treatment on the lower portion of the pillars facing Queen?
 
Yes, dreck indeed. I couldn't agree more with this being a lost opportunity. It bears a certain resemblance to a newer tim hortons - beige and brown, while maybe slightly more designed. Overall, I feel &Co not only missed the boat, they ended up ended up designing it.
 
UrbanFervour said:
(Now cue all the UT Pollyannas saying this is just the kind of contextual dreck we need more of.)
Click to expand...

You're lashing out at whom? And based on what? No one is defending this, and I'm not sure I've seen any project that looks much like this, let alone anything like this that people have rallied around. Way to win friends and influence people!

There's nothing contextual about this beyond it fitting within a three-storey height limit for the conservation district. It doesn't look urban. It doesn't look typically suburban. It doesn't look like it belongs on a mountain, nor on a popular pedestrian shopping street with narrow storefronts.

It's not ugly exactly, but there's not much that's easily identifiable as a quality it can boast of having. Its front door should address the corner so that the sidestreet doesn't feel like such a leftover. If the bays along Queen are meant to mimic the narrow Victorian stores to the west, they should probably borrow from the predominating colours found on the street (red) to emphasize that relationship. The way it is, it looks like it's just been airlifted in from a Lifestyle Centre parts warehouse, instead of being designed for the Queen Street context. It's also got one-too-many cladding materials (the way that CN Tower ad had one-too-many fonts).

Does the Design Review Panel look at buildings as small as this? If not, should they when a building is going into an Heritage District? Or is the District just fine as long as the height limit is respected? Whatever should be done here, there's something missing from the process as it is, it seems.
 
WiddleBittyKitty said:
You're lashing out at whom? And based on what? No one is defending this, and I'm not sure I've seen any project that looks much like this, let alone anything like this that people have rallied around. Way to win friends and influence people!.
Click to expand...

I was pre-empting the "at least it's not a parking lot anymore" or the "not every building needs to be iconic" argument we're so often subjected to when an objectively bad proposal is harshly criticized and someone takes it personally. Thank you for the advice on how to get nameless, faceless strangers to like me though, point taken.

I also agree with what you've written. I think this design was probably intended invoke the rhythm of brick storefronts on Queen, but the setback completely breaks the existing street wall. The material palette is also out of context (but not so out of context that it makes any kind of bold impact). If the relationship to the corner and side street isn't urban or suburban as you claim, then would we call it ANTI-urban?

This is big-box smart center meets ye olde Queen Street meets contemporary architecture trends circa 200os. To me, it fails on all accounts - neither standing out nor fitting in. It's a cheap, clumsy lipstick job on a pig.

Maybe they're expecting it to be torn down in a few years for another condo (like the current store)?
 
ChesterCopperpot said:
From the planning site

L4pfDoU.jpg
Click to expand...

To @UrbanFervour's point that the setback here breaks the street wall: that's an illusion in the rendering. This is not set back any further than the other stores on this stretch of Queen, it only appears that way because hidden behind that portable baby winnebago (this close relative, the MEC Happytrails Child Carrier Backpack is $139
4011-890_NAV00_view1_150x150.jpg
) there's a single storey Lush store. That's why there's a gap between the MEC and the Victorian at the left.

So, one point in this design's favour? I agree that there are several points against.

42
 
This is all sorts of awful. Wasn't Adam Vaughn going to make this site into an urban plaza / park?
 
what a disappointment...
such a prime spot, for an unnecessary store. MEC-- really???... like this is needed in this area..
what is with all these new tenants - Michael's now MEC-- prime spots, for stores that do not belong in this area..
 
You must log in or register to post here.

Back
Top