Less to do about bashing and more to do with people unable to take an objective look at their city from an aesthetics point of view.
"Endless bash" Errr what? If it walks like a dog, barks like a dog, then it's a dog. This city has an unhealthy fascination with grey and half-assing a lot of things. I gave examples, you and some others took it to heart. I never even mentioned crime.
My initial post was this:
"Just getting back from Chicago, we are really going about re-imagining this city the wrong way. We need to see better, bolder projects. Not the same old crap. Everything seems to be blue/green glass rectangle. We can't even change the shapes. Can't have stepbacks. Why can't we have a red or black tower? It's the same old shit. And you understand why sometimes the way people applaud this kind of stuff. Another forgettable project taking up important space."
This got you upset? Was I wrong? Majority of the new architecture here is bland. The public spaces are mediocre for the most part. Am I wrong? Yes, we have a few standouts. Why can't we have MORE of them? If this offends you then I'm sorry, might as well put me on ignore.
Getting back to this project, what exactly does it have going for it besides height? Explain to me how I'm wrong about this tower?
No color, no shapes, just same old same old. I don't expect every project to be unique but these guys don't even try and you have people fist pumping.
Did you notice I didn't respond to your initial post in the Toronto/Chicago thread. I was fine with it.
It was your response to someone else saying you were fine w/transit in Chicago that first put me off.
I just had a look at the schedules for the various L lines, most of the busy ones have service levels of 10-15m outside rush hour, some even worse, and none manage better than about 6m service, ever.
Right on the CTA's website you can seen a narrow-platformed outdoor station, which is the dominant form in Chicago, a place w/winters every bit as cold and snowy as our own.
Their bus service is an order of magnitude worse.
To compare the two systems set me right off.
All you had to do was answer that poster fairly, by saying 'yes, transit is better in Toronto, I was focused on the architecture/public realm.
Subsequently, you went on to talk as if flowers on Toronto streets are a rarity, when they're damn near ubiquitous.
The grand displays of University Avenue and Bloor are noteworthy, but there are planters all over the Entertainment District, Yorkville, St. Lawrence, the Financial District etc.
You also called Toronto 'blah' and didn't qualify that which is what prompted my response about restaurants and music as if Chicago's couple of top tier museums are the be-all, end-all of urban vitality.
Geeze, I like a lot of what Chicago has done, though i do think the giant bean is utterly worthless.....but I digress.
What I wanted was for you to stick to what you just did, critique the architecture going up, critique the public realm in recent projects. By all means demand more and better.
Then I saw you taking this subject from the other thread to here. Yes, I find that exhausting.
Your actual critique of these actual buildings is fair and on point. Stick to that, and you'll have my complete support.
Wander off of that in favour of 'Toronto sucks' and 'Chicago is awesome' and I (and others) will call you on that.
* note as this is really mostly OT to this thread, I think any further discussion involving Chicago, if warranted should return to the Toronto/Chicago thread.
Though as far as I'm concerned we've covered things fairly thoroughly. I will endeavour to get back on subject.
