Hakim Optical - Dundas Square

[thenay]

Wow that building will win awards... NOT!

Oh well, the good news hopefully will end up knocking down the old Hakim (where it is now) and they add something cool.

I heard a W Hotel was going to be there, or where Bond Place Hotel is, but that project ended up dying. Anyone else heard about that?

 

[nassauone]

The big Cadbury bar is more attractive than that.

ROTFLMAO

Honestly now. That is the worst rendering I have ever seen. Nothing is parallel - angles are off. Not to mention it is one ugly ass building. Times Square gets #4 and we get this!

So second rate. An embarassment. This crap makes me sick.

 

[Suicidal Gingerbread Man]

^
Um.. What's #4?

An embarassment? So second-rate? Holy overreaction. I would understand that if it were actually part of Metropolis, or something hyped as beinge huge. Its clearly not. Compared to the existing Hakim Optical Place, whatever.

Yes, its an uninspired design. I'm not embarassed by it, though. Geez.

 

[spmarshall]

I once heard that Mr. Hakim has one car for every day of the week.

Yep, and a luxury yacht, called Hakim, and I think a couple of McMansions. And really bad commercials and TTC ads that look unprofessional. It's like the Pizza Pizza of optical chains - how the hell he got so big I don't know.

 

[tudararms]

I agree with Nassauone. A little passion is what is needed here. All too often complacent and apathetic Torontonians lap up whatever detritus is shoved down their throats. Enough! This is Dundas Square. This Hakim Optical crap does not belong here. Somehow a message needs to be sent, through public opinion, that this kind of schlock is bad PR and may actually hurt their business. So maybe while sailing around Cancun and collecting his profits in absentia, he might chose to have a little respect for the city that made him. A little common sense and perspective is needed here, maybe Hakim should get a pair of his own glasses! 8)

 

[AlvinofDiaspar]

SGM:

I think he meant Conde Nast HQ by KPF - it has a sign with a "4" on top of the building.

AoD

 

[scarberiankhatru]

It's not aggressively offensive, although I'm more biased than the rest of you because I hate the *BUILDING WHOSE NAME WE DARE NOT MENTION HERE* with such a passion that we'd have to roll in something from Vaughan to beat it. This building makes no sense having one big ad...if it was clad completely in ads, the worst that would happen is that it gets immediately ignored and forgotten.

 

[nassauone]

SGM - I was referrring to Four Times Square better known as the Conde Nast building.

If Dundas square is meant to be taken seriously as a square where locals can come to enjoy Toronto - its festivals, concerts and fairs - as well as tourists can come and go "oh, ah. Bright lights, big city" then this building is completely out of context. At best, it belongs in the deep deep burbs. Why do we continually settle for the mediocre? (well for one we have no real say, sure we can lobby but really now) If Toronto wants to be seen a city that is actually moving forward in terms of culture it has to be done through smart city planning. This includes our architecture. University and Bloor is a fine example of a smart planning. Not only is it on a major transit corridor it has followed up with wonderful buildings. Dundas square has been designed around the life of the city. Its vibrancy and energy. One could argue that the billboards and video screens while completely overdone, ad to the emotion of the square. There is excitement there or at least the potential. This building robs the city of some of that potential.

What's that movie? Field of Dreams? "Build it and they will come" well in this metaphor it would be like rounding third to find that the base line had been replaced with impenetrable brick wall.

 

[mark simpson]

^^you do realize the building is outside of Dundas Square in which bright lights are severely restricted and most likely won't be seen by the majority of those who come here to specifically rate our city by its architecture

 

[alklay]

The Torch is the building that is THE great sin against the square. The old Hakim building is ugly as sin and looks like it belongs in a third world city. The Eaton Centre billboards have been empty for about half a year. Metropolis is unfinished and we are unsure as to how the finished product will look. And the present building beside the Torch, which this is replacing, looks like it might fall down any minute from neglect.

In this light, the refurnishment of the building as shown, is not such an awful thing.

 

[nassauone]

Mark - I do realise this. I also recognise that Torch is a massive failure as well. The whole East end of the square is an abomination right now.

I just think, as most of us here do, that we can do better.

 

[tudararms]

Of course we can, but it will take more than hollow architecture review panels and the lip service of 'city beautiful' initiatives, valiant attempts though they may be. What is needed is a fundamental change in attitude.

As mentioned in the "Tate Modern" thread regarding London, missing in Toronto is a basic and pervasive love for, belief in, and pride of the city. One that runs from top to bottom, public and private, such that an ugly, inferior building would be considered an affront to the public realm. The PR would be so negative that the offending building would stand far less chance of actually getting built. Would Hakim get away with this in Paris?

I don't know how you develop this sort of passion for the city, one that is embraced by all. One could argue it takes centuries, yet you sense it in places like New York, San Francisco, and Montreal too. I'm not saying these places are perfect and don't have their troubles, only that they don't seem to constantly walk the tightrope of mediocrity and squandered opportunity that we do here where the public and private sectors get away with mediocrity because we accept it.

 

[building babel]

I'm fine with architectural review panels if they have teeth and aren't "hollow". If we can beat SARS we can beat poor design in the public realm, surely? Joe average doesn't have to sweat the details of what is acceptable in architecture - specialization of tasks evolved early in our evolutionary path. But I do think that visual literacy should be taught in schools along with verbal and reading skills.

 

[interchange42]

tudar:

What have you got against architectural reviews panels that you call them hollow? Aren't they an indication that there is concern amongst at least some of the citizenry that built form is important? Isn't that some of the attitude change that you are looking for? And why are city beautiful initiatives mere lip service? Why rag on those things? They are steps in the very direction you wish to go!

42

 

[AlvinofDiaspar]

tudararms:

As mentioned in the "Tate Modern" thread regarding London, missing in Toronto is a basic and pervasive love for, belief in, and pride of the city. One that runs from top to bottom, public and private, such that an ugly, inferior building would be considered an affront to the public realm. The PR would be so negative that the offending building would stand far less chance of actually getting built. Would Hakim get away with this in Paris?

For the record, I certainly didn't find that proposal to be so ugly as to demand my immediate attention, unlike the Torch.

Now, time for a little reality check - say if Hakim goes for a really high end design by say Jean Nouvel, would the business be able to support the cost of the design? And if it is able to do so, what kind of surcharge would they have to go for in order to pay for it? The city can mandate competent design, but not superior design.

I don't know how you develop this sort of passion for the city, one that is embraced by all. One could argue it takes centuries, yet you sense it in places like New York, San Francisco, and Montreal too. I'm not saying these places are perfect and don't have their troubles, only that they don't seem to constantly walk the tightrope of mediocrity and squandered opportunity that we do here where the public and private sectors get away with mediocrity because we accept it.

I still don't get your whole thesis of community/city pride/passion in Toronto being second rate compared to the forementioned cities. Certainly, the happenings of the last few years (e.g. ROM public forums, AGO, the cultural renaissance, the waterfront) as well as the groundswell of net discussion on the city (see Spacing.ca for some interesting notes on that) points to a pride for the city almost unmatched anywhere. Besides, what you've said also ignores the institutional reality of urban life in Canada - Paris is the nee plus ultra primate city in France, for example; Toronto isn't.

AoD