Toronto building boom

[Tewder]

I agree with Hipsterduck and others.

That said, the simple reality in Toronto is that we desperately needed in-fill far more than we needed icons.

Lest we forget:

Toronto built its icons in the 1960s and 1970s, at a time when it needed to make a statement about itself and its aspirations... and what a statement those icons made when you consider the wider context of the picture above!

... but, icons do not a city make, and in many respects the construction boom we are seeing now is fundamentally about fully realizing - in fact, playing catch-up with - the soaring potential and lofty ambitions that post-war Toronto staked out for itself.

 

[AlvinofDiaspar]

The picture above is directly the result of trying to create a lofty image of one-self through "reinvention". In some instances, what was made pales in comparison to what was as per that photo. But all things considered, St. Lawrence turned out to be iconic in its' own way - one of the new examples of "master planned" developments of its' time that worked and aged well.

AoD

 

[Memph]

I think part of the reason why Toronto hasn't built that many iconic buildings is that our building boom hasn't been as much due to an economic boom as a shift in what kind of places people live in (suburban homes to condos). In order to build very big (supertall) and spectacular buildings, you need a major economic boom. If the demographic that moves into most Toronto condos is similar to those that move into suburbs of Houston or Atlanta, it's not too surprising that the towers being built in Toronto are rather average looking. Toronto's economy as a whole has been doing alright throughout the condo boom, but it still hasn't boomed as much as Calgary, Houston or Dallas.

If you want to see whether Toronto has the potential for an iconic tower, it would make more sense to look at how much office space or luxury condos (Shangri-La, Trump, etc) it has built compared to other cities. If you look at it like that, I don't think Toronto's numbers would be that impressive.

On a side note, does anyone know how many condo units have been sold each year for the last decade or so? I know 28,000 were sold in 2011, which is a record... I wonder for instance if downtown's population will have grown more from 2011-2016 than it did from 2006-2011. It grew "only" by about 40,000 which amounts to 8000 people per year, or maybe 5000 condos per year downtown. The 2011 condo sales suggest downtown might grow a lot more in the next 5 years, even if a lot of condos sold are outside downtown.

 

[freshcutgrass]

On a side note, does anyone know how many condo units have been sold each year for the last decade or so?

2002 15,286
2003 10,802
2004 12,364
2005 16,224
2006 16,114
2007 22,654
2008 14,469
2009 15,425
2010 20,491
2011 28,190

Total 172,019

I wonder for instance if downtown's population will have grown more from 2011-2016 than it did from 2006-2011.

I think it will. A larger amount of sales that will be built and occupied by the time the 2016 census is done, with downtown also representing an even higher percentage of total condo sales. It may depend on how sales go in 2012 & 2013, but I doubt they will tank.

 

[Tewder]

I think part of the reason why Toronto hasn't built that many iconic buildings is that our building boom hasn't been as much due to an economic boom as a shift in what kind of places people live in (suburban homes to condos).

... which sort of plays into my theory. The focus in this boom has been on city building rather than image building, and at a time when the idea of urban living has come back into favour in a way not seen since before the second world war. In this respect it is fitting that this boom has overwhelmingly been about condos, residential, in-fill and new neighbourhoods than it has anything else (a smattering of office towers and some cultural buildings notwithstanding).

My prediction is that the next stage in Toronto will be about the public realm and public infrastructure as increasingly people will want to improve their surroundings and the conditions they live in, to bring these things more in line with the urban aspirations/ideals that are being staked out right now. That said, I do feel there will come at least one icon/monument to the condo era at some point, which will probably come to signal the end of it.

 

[freshcutgrass]

I think part of the reason why Toronto hasn't built that many iconic buildings is that our building boom hasn't been as much due to an economic boom as a shift in what kind of places people live in (suburban homes to condos).

Iconic buildings are far and few between....anywhere.

Toronto's condo boom hasn't produced any (yet), because it is something largely consumer-driven and low budget. This does not preclude iconic possibilities, but the laws of averages has made it so.

If Toronto has produced any iconic buildings recently, they would not be towers...but smaller buildings. Some might say the ROM Crystal might be Toronto's latest iconic building, but I think it falls a little short of that. I would say the only iconic building Toronto has produced in recent years is Alsop's Tabletop. What makes it more unusual, is the fact that it bucks the trend of being a high budget project. Not a bad accomplishment for less than $20 million.

I think being iconic has something to do with context. The Marilyn Towers are certainly iconic for Mississauga, but had these been built in downtown Toronto, they may have been an interesting addition to the skyline, but I doubt they would have taken on some kind of iconic status for Toronto.

Iconic also needn't have anything to do with aesthetics or design. Maple Leaf Gardens is one of Toronto's most iconic buildings, yet has little to do with the aforementioned qualities.

 

[Tewder]

I would agree with OCAD. No question it has joined the ranks of the most photographed buildings in Toronto and almost always pops up in travel/tourism photos.

I would add the ROM Crystal, however. No matter how shoddy the cladding may be its location and impact are undeniable, and it is also definitely among the more photographed of newer buildings.

 

[Urban Shocker]

"Iconic" can also refer to the collective statement - Dubai's mismatched, punchline skyline is iconic in an embarrassing sort of way; all those simple little white-painted houses on the Greek islands are as iconic as the Acropolis in making us think of that culture; Toronto's distinctive Victorian bay 'n' gables, and the many contemporary and seemingly interchangeable "boring glass boxes" now going up, which have a collective expression of Toronto's local design culture, for instance.

 

[dt_toronto_geek]

I think it will. A larger amount of sales that will be built and occupied by the time the 2016 census is done, with downtown also representing an even higher percentage of total condo sales. It may depend on how sales go in 2012 & 2013, but I doubt they will tank.

Councillor Wong-Tam tweeted today about contaminated soil with stats., and new projects are being announced regularly:

Kristyn Wong-Tam
Ward 27 is building 8800 condo units. Where does the soil go? Is it being treated for contaminations? We need to care. @morainecantwait

 

[JohnCollins]

I really like the Toronto skyline as it is. In fact with all the new condos downtown it has changed more than I wish it did.

 

[Tewder]

"Iconic" can also refer to the collective statement - Dubai's mismatched, punchline skyline is iconic in an embarrassing sort of way; all those simple little white-painted houses on the Greek islands are as iconic as the Acropolis in making us think of that culture; Toronto's distinctive Victorian bay 'n' gables, and the many contemporary and seemingly interchangeable "boring glass boxes" now going up, which have a collective expression of Toronto's local design culture, for instance.

Good point US, and as you've said before aA are doing wonderful work creating an iconic vernacular form for Toronto, and the fact that they are achieving this whether with stand-alone new projects or with projects that incorporate older heritage structures speaks to the strength of their vision.

 

[FinchConnection]

We need more public art.

 

[freshcutgrass]

"Iconic" can also refer to the collective statement - Dubai's mismatched, punchline skyline is iconic in an embarrassing sort of way; all those simple little white-painted houses on the Greek islands are as iconic as the Acropolis in making us think of that culture; Toronto's distinctive Victorian bay 'n' gables, and the many contemporary and seemingly interchangeable "boring glass boxes" now going up, which have a collective expression of Toronto's local design culture, for instance.

Strictly speaking, I think there is a distinction between "characteristic" and "iconic".

The Bay'n gabled streetscapes might be considered as having a collective iconic status. They've been around a long time, are very pervasive, and will continue to be, as we aren't ripping down victorian neighbourhoods any more. Their iconic status may become more pronounced as time goes by, because as Toronto becomes more and more of a major city in the world, they will be considered an oddity, as big cities just don't have that kind of inner-city victorian residential vernacular. A lot of Toronto's quaint victorian "small town" look will remain a distinctive part of what is a fairly big global city.

As for the myriad of condo towers that have been, and will be built, I don't see any collective or individual iconic status for them, any more than the huge numbers of rectilinear apartment blocks of the 60's & 70's are. There will be a lot of them, but they will be mixed in with a very large. dense & diverse collection of high-rises. Yea, I can tell the difference between a aA designed glass tower and something else, but I bet most people can't. We will look back and be able to point out their work, just like we can Dickinson or Prii, but I just don't see it attaining an iconic status.

Vancouver's glass condo towers might, but that's because they are the dominating built feature there. Come to think of it, I don't see anything iconic in terms of built form in Vancouver at all...everything iconic about Vancouver has to do with the natural geography.

I think it's possible to lose iconic status as well. Look at the Royal York. For a good part of the 20th century, it was probably the #1 iconic building in Toronto. And its loss is not just do to the fact that it is no longer a dominating structure on the skyline, but the romance attached to it no longer plays a role in the zeitgeist of the city. And that's important. The Gooderham (flatiron) Building has maintained its iconic stature (and quite high on the list too), yet there really isn't that impressive in any way. It just has certain something about it. Union Station, as important, big and impressive as it is, was never iconic.

 

[kkgg7]

I say let's forget iconic and fill all those ubiquitous and ugly surface parking lots with decent buildings first, let it be residential or commercial.

 

[freshcutgrass]

I say let's forget iconic and fill all those ubiquitous and ugly surface parking lots with decent buildings first, let it be residential or commercial.

What makes something iconic is generally left up to serendipity. I wouldn't go so far to say it is accidental, but planning to be iconic is like planning to be cool....the harder you try, the less likely you are to succeed.