Toronto Ten York Street Condos | 224.02m | 65s | Tridel | Wallman Architects

[jetsbackincanada]

I wasn't comparing Ten York to office buildings and I wasn't comparing it to internationally recognized icons like the Petronas Towers. All I was comparing it to was its own original design. I think that the previous design was better, and I specifically laid out my reasons for thinking so. If we're not allowed to make such critiques, then what the hell is the point of this forum anyway?

I honestly think your opinions, thoughts, and critiques are always well informed , and fall on both sides of the tracks... I have never once read one of your posts and rolled my eyes... You are one of the best on this forum, I do not think anyone would argue with that!! You always bring a lot to the table...

There are some though that just whine and nag, and feel so inferior all the time, like Toronto is accepting so much less than EVERYBODY else.... That kind of comment is SAD!!!

 

[jetsbackincanada]

As it happens, isaidso posted just a few hours ago at SSC, on this exact topic:

This is so awesome!!! Great news!!!!!! This only will make the city wealthier, and provide more services, and even spur subway and transit alternatives.... ( light rail?) I feel like in 25 years , the rest of NA, will look back at this era, and what Toronto is undertaking as a model to sustain urban vitality!!!! I can not imagine the waterfront in say even 10 years time!?!?

Also, I think the traditional definitions of downtown here are in need of expansion ?? Would say, the Ent Dist, be included in those numbers?? Southcore??? I mean that area housed NO ONE , in '06.... so has that been added??? Of course same for Cityplace, and the west lake additions??? They are all a part of downtown NOW, if they are not already!?

 

[Mongo]

Also, I think the traditional definitions of downtown here are in need of expansion ?? Would say, the Ent Dist, be included in those numbers?? Southcore??? I mean that area housed NO ONE , in '06.... so has that been added??? Of course same for Cityplace, and the west lake additions??? They are all a part of downtown NOW, if they are not already!?

Well, the definition of downtown that isaidso used is shown here:

Which includes all of the above.

 

[Torontovibe]

So does that mean Fort York, Liberty Village, Regent Park, Korean Town, Cabbagetown and Little Italy are all not a part of downtown? They all seem pretty downtown to me.

 

[jn_12]

I'm sure the architects and builders of these projects don't give a rats ass what i or anybody else on this forum think. They will build what the city allows, and what people buy. Not everyone is going to agree they are great buildings. Settling for second best is sometimes better than nothing, but continually lowering standards and accepting inferior projects results in, well inferior projects. Ten York is much better than a parking lot, but not as good as it might have been. Hopefully 50 Bloor west will up the anti.

Why must every building be held to a world-beating standard? I get the sense that people around here want every building to be better than the last (and frankly I don't see anything wrong with this building), and inevitably unless it rivals [other big city]'s best developments its complained about. While I think what's happening at street-level is far more important, I'm all for good design and architecture (which I think subjectively you can argue that this is), but to complain that it falls short of some of the one-offs built elsewhere just doesn't make sense to me. As already mentioned, many cities would die to even have this project nevermind the fact that it's just a blip in the grand scheme of things in this city.

 

[bmiller]

They don't have to be held to a world beating standard as you suggest, but the core of any city should be held to the best standard that can be achieved. Toronto has had an inferiority complex for
25 years. The last few years has seen a building boom which has captured the eyes of many cities world wide. The chance to make an impression will fade in a few years, and there is no iconic
buildings being constructed that will capture the attention of travelers and tourists. The CN Tower will still be the structure that people will relate to Toronto, as the RCMP and their red uniforms are a symbol
of Canada, no matter how out of date that is. The CN tower as a symbol of TO is sad considering all that has gone on the last 10 years. Our time to shine is fading , and it is being wasted with the mediocre.

 

[Contra]

So does that mean Fort York, Liberty Village, Regent Park, Korean Town, Cabbagetown and Little Italy are all not a part of downtown? They all seem pretty downtown to me.

I feel like Cabbagetown is almost like Toronto's Brooklyn. Very close to downtown, but a neighbourhood of it's own. It could be debated that Fort York is downtown, but for now they seem too disconnected. I'm sure our definition of "downtown" will change as development progresses.

 

[jn_12]

They don't have to be held to a world beating standard as you suggest, but the core of any city should be held to the best standard that can be achieved. Toronto has had an inferiority complex for
25 years. The last few years has seen a building boom which has captured the eyes of many cities world wide. The chance to make an impression will fade in a few years, and there is no iconic
buildings being constructed that will capture the attention of travelers and tourists. The CN Tower will still be the structure that people will relate to Toronto, as the RCMP and their red uniforms are a symbol
of Canada, no matter how out of date that is. The CN tower as a symbol of TO is sad considering all that has gone on the last 10 years. Our time to shine is fading , and it is being wasted with the mediocre.

Ya, sad in the same way those tourist-less cities of Paris and New York have relied on the old and boring Eiffel Tower and the Empire State Building, right?
I'm really sorry but as someone who has worked in tourism policy at the municipal and provincial level, one new fancy skyscraper isn't going to attract people to this city. Otherwise an edgy (no pun intended) project like the ROM would be attracting people by the millions. And it's not. Sure, there are people who travel for all sorts of reasons, architecture being one of them, but by no means is building a fancy skyscraper going to turn a city into a mecca for tourists. One example I can think of is the Bilbao Guggenheim, but seeing as how it's a museum, it's really not in the same ballpark.

 

[bmiller]

When i travel to cities, great architecture leaves an impression. Bland architecture also leaves an impression on people, but not in a positive way. It's the first thing people see driving into the city, or flying in for that matter. When i think of Paris, i think of much more than the Eiffel tower. London is more than Big Ben. There is history, of which we have little of in comparison. Shanghai has architecture that leaves a lasting impression, as do a lot of other Asian cities. Chicago has the waterfront which was well planned out, with the city as a backdrop. Vancouver has the mountains which draw the eye away from the skyline. We all see things differently, and i guess my vision differs from those on the forum, but be assured there are a lot of others who will have the same impression i do, they just won't be vocal about it.

 

[fouronesix]

...but be assured there are a lot of others who will have the same impression i do, they just won't be vocal about it.

Well at least us elitists can celebrate the fact that the bootstrap-pulling, god-fearing silent majority have become far more sophisticated in their tastes.

 

[bmw007]

Nothing wrong to leave the impression to the tourists that Toronto has CN tower surrounded by many tall buildings because of the housing
boom lately.

 

[jn_12]

When i travel to cities, great architecture leaves an impression. Bland architecture also leaves an impression on people, but not in a positive way. It's the first thing people see driving into the city, or flying in for that matter. When i think of Paris, i think of much more than the Eiffel tower. London is more than Big Ben. There is history, of which we have little of in comparison. Shanghai has architecture that leaves a lasting impression, as do a lot of other Asian cities. Chicago has the waterfront which was well planned out, with the city as a backdrop. Vancouver has the mountains which draw the eye away from the skyline. We all see things differently, and i guess my vision differs from those on the forum, but be assured there are a lot of others who will have the same impression i do, they just won't be vocal about it.

That's great that you like architecture. So do I. But, you made the suggestion that a fancy new skyscraper would attract tourists, and you've done absolutely nothing to prove that that's true. You're right that places like Paris and London rely on more than a single fancy building. That's kind of my point. We have our one iconic building already in the CN Tower, and if that isn't good enough to attract people, then it goes to show that there's more to attracting people than just one building.

I also think your little bit about us not having any history just goes to show how narrow your supposed "vision" is. We actually have plenty of history. Thousands of years of it really, but for whatever reason people (like you, for example) have decided to ignore it.

 

[freshcutgrass]

So does that mean Fort York, Liberty Village, Regent Park, Korean Town, Cabbagetown and Little Italy are all not a part of downtown? They all seem pretty downtown to me.

East of Parliament to the Don should be included on that map, as should the Annex. Officially, everything south of Queen to Dufferin is also considered "Downtown".

 

[buildup]

I also think your little bit about us not having any history just goes to show how narrow your supposed "vision" is. We actually have plenty of history. Thousands of years of it really, but for whatever reason people (like you, for example) have decided to ignore it.

That's a bit of a stretch unless you are talking about geology and paleontology. I'm not really aware of much that is tangible older than 300 years. Please don't point me towards Viking mounds in NFLD, flints, and Totem poles.

The Native people had a fascinating history and culture but it didn't leave a physical footprint for tourists like in South America or the US Southwest. Tourists do not come here for History.

 

[jn_12]

That's a bit of a stretch unless you are talking about geology and paleontology. I'm not really aware of much that is tangible older than 300 years. Please don't point me towards Viking mounds in NFLD, flints, and Totem poles.

The Native people had a fascinating history and culture but it didn't leave a physical footprint for tourists like in South America or the US Southwest. Tourists do not come here for History.

So in other words, you're saying that our history doesn't count because it's not the history you're interested in. The ROM actually has a rather large amount of local aboriginal artefacts both on display and in storage that can help tell the story of pre-contact Toronto. Post contact, Toronto has tons of history filled with rebellions, fires, politics, war, famous people, local heroes, infrastructure, geography/geology and so on. Like every place, we have our stories, and that's what makes us different from any other place. It's just a matter of sharing it.

I'd argue (and have successfully done so in my Masters thesis and have written reports/strategies on the relationship between our history and tourism for municipalities and the province) that history is actually something that many tourists are looking for here. But by all means, since you and bmiller seem to be experts on tourism in this province, feel free to enlighten me about your own research on the topic. Maybe we can discuss it over here instead of cluttering up this thread.