Toronto TeaHouse 501 Yonge Condominiums | 170.98m | 52s | Lanterra | a—A

Quality architecture can be achieved in a variety of styles, but the particular PoMo dreck above proves that merely moving away from glass boxes will not do the trick in improving this city.
42

I agree, but that doesnt mean we cant have a bit of both...Take a look at Chicago with the new Ritz, Lincoln Park 2520, etc..It seems like they are doing it right with the mix..... http://chicagoarchitecturetoday.com/ontheboard.htm
 
Its amazing Chicago builds that much, It seems they don't have the same demand as here for growth, as well as the recession has hurt them....but then again I could be wrong.
 
What exactly would have you assume a "glass box" is "cheap"? The general shape of the structure is not necessarily a significant cost escalator (unless unique shifting forming is required) and glass depending on what systems are used can be rather expensive. I get rather tired of constantly hearing the word "cheap" tossed around by many people that don't have the slightest idea what the hard construction (labour + materials), land, impositions and softs costs/budgets for these structures actually are and what the challenges/risks involved in the process are.

Average $psf is continuing to creep upwards in large part due to cost pressures and that is not necessarily a good thing for long-term housing affordability, economic competitiveness with other major cities and for our quality of life here in Toronto. We all want to see better buildings, but to suggest a twin 58s project on Yonge Street designed by experienced and highly respected architects (yes they are somewhat repetitive, but Peter does produce very high quality work) situated on a small site that went for nearly $40m is somehow going to result in a “cheap†outcome is hyperbole to the extreme.

Another question would be - should everything be "expensive" rather than "cheap" - should we only construct high-end buildings with curtain wall, limestone and granite to LEED platinum standards for those that can afford very significant cost premiums? Where will the rest of us live? Or should public policy allow greater flexibility to provide for affordable middle class housing in a range of communities in a variety of housing forms/types. There is a responsibility to always strive to do better, but I'd suggest we are doing pretty well.

What ultimately is perhaps the greatest benefit of the condo boom the last decade is not necessarily architecture (nor should that be the only policy objective), but the way that the condo boom has revitalized many communities in the city, filled restaurants, retail strips, cultural institutions, bars and increased office demand while providing urban housing options for thousands of middle class households in the city (both through ownership and through investors that have become the de facto rental market).

Mike, you sounds like an apologist for sub-prime condos. The fact that the site went for $40 million is irrelevant. I'm sure the CP lands at Cityplace went for hundreds of millions and look at the urban blight that has left on the landscape.

I would never criticize Aa. They take directions from their client who instructs to build cheap Vegas-style projects that look decent from afar but crappy up close. Such is the market for these kinds of developments.
 
Mike, you sounds like an apologist for sub-prime condos. The fact that the site went for $40 million is irrelevant. I'm sure the CP lands at Cityplace went for hundreds of millions and look at the urban blight that has left on the landscape.

I would never criticize Aa. They take directions from their client who instructs to build cheap Vegas-style projects that look decent from afar but crappy up close. Such is the market for these kinds of developments.

What are these aA projects that look crappy close up?
 
CN Tower, you sound like one of those wannabe architects who thinks they know everything but obviously know absolutely nothing.
Anyone druling over the Dubai skyline must have never been there. Yes they have 2-3 incredible buildings, whereas the rest are all copy/paste and i letterally mean copy/paste. At least cityplace has a some different designs in the buildings. Yes they're all glass but they are not all square.
The Archtect, are you reffering to the Tour de la Bourse in Montreal? If you are, i have to ask you "Seriously?????".
 
I'm neither Everyman nor an Architect, somewhere in between. But I do not share the view that Cityplace is an "urban blight". Certainly is lacks some credible retail but neighbourhoods weren't built in a day. The young people I see down there seem to enjoy their environment. When the daycare, schools and so forth go in and trees mature things will improve.
Frankly I enjoy the scale and design of many buildings particularly those West of Spadina. I would not characteriize them as Glass Boxes either. The mix of green, grey and black glass works for me.
Secondly, the whole mixed-use criticism reminds me of something UrbanShocker said which is there is nothing inherantly wrong with pure residential neighbourhoods so long as retail is accessible. The vast majority of the city of Toronto is probably residential and always has been.
 
Last edited:
501 Yonge St.jpg
 

Attachments

  • 501 Yonge St.jpg
    501 Yonge St.jpg
    71.8 KB · Views: 785
I've made this comment several times and I'll make it again now; The city place buildings are by far and large among the top 20% of buildings that have went up in the last decade here in the GTA when you look from the 2nd floor up ...
 
Buildup, finally someone who understands and can see the bigger picture. Cityplace is still another 10 years away from reaching it's full potential.
And this whole argument that cityplace and the waterfront are pathetic neighboorhoods because they lack the retail environment are far from being true. I know several people who chose cityplace because they can be in the city without all the noise of the city. I have stayed overnight at my friend's place and it's a lot quieter than my yonge/carlton condo but he can still walk to do his shopping and dinning. It seems that there's a lot of people on here who can't seem to understand that not everyone wants to live in the middle of all the noise. Everyone has different tastes and it's about time some of you realise that and not argue like a bunch of babies.
 
I'm neither Everyman nor an Architect, somewhere in between. But I do not share the view that Cityplace is an "urban blight". Certainly is lacks some credible retail but neighbourhoods weren't built in a day. The young people I see down there seem to enjoy their environment. When the daycare, schools and so forth go in and trees mature things will improve.
Frankly I enjoy the scale and design of many buildings particularly those West of Spadina. I would not characteriize them as Glass Boxes either. The mix of green, grey and black glass works for me.
Secondly, the whole mixed-use criticism reminds me of something UrbanShocker said which is there is nothing inherantly wrong with pure residential neighbourhoods so long as retail is accessible. The vast majority of the city of Toronto is probably residential and always has been.

CP is not a neighbourhood. It's a residential district. Like District 9.

I wasn't criticizing Aa buildings. I was criticizing Lanterra buildings. 22 Wellesley, Mur/Burano, the buildings along Lakeshore (can't recall names) and Maple Leaf Square. All are attractive from afar but disappointing up close.
 
I wasn't criticizing Aa buildings. I was criticizing Lanterra buildings. 22 Wellesley, Mur/Burano, the buildings along Lakeshore (can't recall names) and Maple Leaf Square. All are attractive from afar but disappointing up close.

IMO all three of those projects look great up close especially Murano although I wish that the balcony undersides had have been painted at 22 Wellesley and enhanced landscaping would have been nice, but that's just a personal preference.
 

Back
Top