Toronto Velocity at the Square | 122.52m | 40s | HNR | P + S / IBI

Hmm.
I just started thinking about some structures that " stick out like a sore thumb" in this city.
Let see.., The TD Centre, The Museum's crystal, The Ontario Art Gallery, oh, and how about our biggest thumb, The CN Tower.
Can anyone think of more?
Hurray for sore thumbs.

..or should I say TWO THUMBS UP!
 
Last edited:
alklay said:
And its funny cause our present skyline started out with a tower or two from the TD Centre, which at the time, because of their colour, design and height, were the ultimate "Sticking Out Like A Sore Thumb" design. But you wouldn't want facts to get in the way of a someone's fantasy paradigm.
Click to expand...

What's "sore" about the TD Centre? I've never subscribed to that view, though it's clearly a fantasy of yours.

Ritz-Carlton-Gumbytower and that Libeskind thing ain't no TD Centre.
 
This building looks plenty weird in my opinion, and is a lost opportunity for something stronger like L tower on the east side. It will certainly blend however with existing towers.
 
Urban Shocker said:
What's "sore" about the TD Centre? I've never subscribed to that view, though it's clearly a fantasy of yours.
Click to expand...

*At the time*, i.e. consider how, before all the other towers mitigated things, the original TD Tower so dominated its surroundings in 1967. Technically, it "stuck out like a sore thumb", even if it weren't so sore as it seemed...
 
Exactly.

Just because something sticks out, does not mean that it is necessarily sore. It might be, but there are other possibilities out there.

42
 
No one ever said the search for quavelty was easy, mind you.

42
 
Urban Shocker said:
Yes, it's about quality, not novelty - though some can't tell the difference.
Click to expand...


...Implying that you can(?), you backpedaling sophomore. Novelty is never inherent - it is an emotion which can be harboured by any individual about anything and does not necessarily have to be shared by anyone else. That you find novelty/delight in the 'Bee Building' rhetoric of Monseur Diamond and, in a Fukuyamian twist, believe it to be the be-all, end-all in architecture is fine, but don't expect that others should/will subscribe to that view just because you purvey it.

Carr, and more recently MacMillan, wrote about the dangers of rewriting history to one's advantage - perhaps you might want to review those texts in light of your 'Miesian boxes didn't stick out' theory.
 
Last edited:
They don't dominate the skyline anymore, but our Miesian boxes *still* stick out (not that there's anything wrong with that).
 
And the first TD towers could have certainly been considered novel (if fact, they were considered by some to be revolutionary for their time, not just novel). Of course, if one keeps redefining phrases for ones own arguement ("sticking out like a sore thumb means what I want it to mean") and then add another layer of subjectivity to it ('quality, not novelty' and I am going to define quality too) then you could make up anything.
 
1970s-skyline.jpg

source: http://torontobefore.blogspot.com/2010/01/toronto-skyline-1970s.html
 
You must log in or register to post here.

Back
Top