Toronto Hotel X (was Hotel in the Garden) | ?m | 27s | Exhibition Place | NORR

Indeed - to go further - the extant architecture of at the Ex suggests there is something special about the place. The building in question have the dubious distinction of standing out in this unique landscape by the way of being a part of the much replicated mediocrity elsewhere in the city.

AoD
 
That's a good point. What is particularly frustrating about this is that this site is not some privately-owned parcel anywhere in Toronto. This is public land, in the middle of a public precinct, where the City of Toronto was in the driver's seat and could have demanded better architecture and better materials. This isn't just a mediocre development, and a huge missed opportunity, but it's also a complete failure of the public authorities to protect a public asset.
 
Skeezix said:
That's a good point. What is particularly frustrating about this is that this site is not some privately-owned parcel anywhere in Toronto. This is public land, in the middle of a public precinct, where the City of Toronto was in the driver's seat and could have demanded better architecture and better materials. This isn't just a mediocre development, and a huge missed opportunity, but it's also a complete failure of the public authorities to protect a public asset.
Click to expand...

I am of the school that think that anything the City gets involved in directly have a great tendency to be subjected to so much constraints that mediocrity is the only possible outcome. Hard to expect anything exemplar when there is nothing exemplar from the top down. Put some bit councillor with no track record of excellence in the driver seat, and the tenor is set downward. Like the vision thing?

AoD
 
Deep down I agree with you guys. I used to have faith and hope in great designs and executions, but after being totally beaten down by our experience buying into a 'high-design' project that everyone loves but has no clue how awful it is quality-wise (River City), I've lost all childish-enthusiasm for any project in the City.

So seeing a nice lobby here and entrance is enough for me to hold on to, considering that even 'high-design' turns out to be udder crap anyway.
 
Quite convenient it's at Exhibition because next time there is an exhibit of Stalinist commie blocks they could use this building as reference point.
 
I'll obviously be in the minority here, but I really don't think its all that bad. Is it groundbreaking? No, but it's also not terrible from a layman's eye. It's also currently a dead zone in the city except for when an event is taking place - so you have to start some place. Works for me :) .
 
I think it will be an improvement over the massive parking lot that was there. The project isnt completed yet so hard to know if its a flop, once the landscaping is done and the dust settles it could be a nice addition. There is history in the ex, but its all scattered around, this site was completely barren land with nothing of historic value in its near vicinity other than the Stanley Barracks which I think they will be incorporating quite nicely here.

You guys dislike the arcitecture of the building itself, but it doesnt necessarily mean that it is being unjust to the history of the ex. I do not see the relation. Sadly much of the history has been demolished and the ex is now a pretty odd space. Chopped up, devoid of its historical aura and out of touch with the present. Theres not many reasons to go down there for a stroll through the seemingly endless parking lots to get to a little piece of a park and then back into a parking lot, so the more that is added at ground level the better, I agree the ex is a very special place historically but it needs some TLC for the future. I think this project aside from the architecture will add something current and some life to the area.
 
Is anyone claiming that is was good to have surface parking here? No.

Is anyone saying that a new hotel, convention and sports facilities is a bad addition to Exhibition Place's offerings? No.

What we are saying (if I can be so bold) is that this building does not represent the quality of architecture that expect at a venue that is a showcase for the city. The Ex's Board should be demanding of a certain level of quality, and there's no evidence that they are. These people are entrusted to run Exhibition Place in a way that should make Torontonians feel proud, not embarrassed, and not angry. The Board should resign or be fired for their incompetence.

The way I feel about this complex is best summed up in Salsa's last photo: look at the size of that L-shaped blank wall at ground level (one that's only going to get larger). That's beyond ugly, and those responsible should not have jobs in any way related to architecture or design. Essentially it's a giant buttress facing north and west, and that's no way to treat Stanley Barracks. Reprehensible.

salsa said:
22922524279_f5efa1a6d9_h.jpg
Click to expand...
 
gradeA said:
I agree the ex is a very special place historically but it needs some TLC for the future. I think this project aside from the architecture will add something current and some life to the area.
Click to expand...
To which I'd counter that designing and building great architecture is the epitome of adding TLC to a place.
 
More so the landscaping, quality of material and whats at street level and accessible to the public. I do not see the architecture of the building itself as being so important in this case, thats more about opinion of what you like and don't. Its also not finished yet so I will hold back any serious judgement of the project and will take in others (bold) judgements as premature.

Off topic maybe, but I see architecture as art, how would demanding and putting rules on it make the architecture better, look at art, when artists pander to the masses and certain people they end up being less innovative and there tends to be less diversity. Not using this in defence to this project because its not much different than other buildings going up in the city but I question the technique of popular/city regulation in architecture, and maybe the problem of the poor architecture in this city is further down the totem pole? Developers maybe, architecture firms, schooling?


I think you can say any area in the city is a showcase, yeah there are quite a few attractions here but like I said I think the Ex has lost its aura and should move on in some sort of way. Focus on heritage preservation/integration, general upkeep, creating more diverse attractions, using the bandshell year round and not shutting certain projects down because of its sense of reputation. Why, because of its past, is it going to demand amazing architecture when its past is long gone.
 
Where to begin?

The Ex "should move on in some sort of way"... kinda vague, innit? And this business of the bandshell being used year-round: well, we have this thing called winter. Were you around last February? It was kinda frigid. Down by the water, exposed to the wind as that area is, it gets worse. Can you still draw people out? Sure. People like to skate at City Hall. But at least they're moving, keeping warm. You have to offer something at the bandshell that makes sense for each season.

As to your contention that when artists pander to the masses they become less innovative - well, that's a bold statement too; care to list an example to back you up? It's a very broad generalization. And we're not the masses, by the way - this is UT, home to urban geeks, architecture lovers, photographers, height fanboys and the like. That's a fairly small segment of the city's population.

Finally, you say we're being premature in judging this building, whereas you're content to wait until the project is fully completed. All fine and dandy! The thing is, landscaping on this thing will still be lipstick on a pig. It might soften the blow, make it a less repulsive, but the main chance has been blown. Landscaping is rarely anything but decorative; architecture is structural.
 
Last edited:
gradeA said:
More so the landscaping, quality of material and whats at street level and accessible to the public (Point 1). I do not see the architecture of the building itself as being so important in this case, thats more about opinion of what you like and don't. Its also not finished yet so I will hold back any serious judgement of the project and will take in others (bold) judgements as premature (Point 2).
Click to expand...

Point 1 - Streetlevel experience does not in any way negate the need for high quality architecture; and it's not about what you like and what you don't - if that is ever the case, G+C or gawd, even NORR would equal Lord Foster, which is patently absurd.
Point 2 - There is nothing bold about the judgement - the building is so substantially complete, and the vocabulary substantially established that you can see it isn't great. Only those who have no eye for quality or architecture would argue that you need the final project to come to any sort of "early" conclusion. Judging that a blank precast concrete wall right up against a heritage feature of the precinct sucked isn't bold - it is basic.

Off topic maybe, but I see architecture as art, how would demanding and putting rules on it make the architecture better, look at art, when artists pander to the masses and certain people they end up being less innovative and there tends to be less diversity. Not using this in defence (Point 3) to this project because its not much different than other buildings going up in the city but I question the technique of popular/city regulation in architecture, and maybe the problem of the poor architecture in this city is further down the totem pole? Developers maybe, architecture firms, schooling?
Click to expand...

Point 3 - By mentioning this, you are applying it as a defence on behalf of this project, why mention it otherwise. And of another note, there is absolutely nothing all that different about this building relative to other projects - in fact, it is exactly the problem - it's dreck that had more in common with the condos down Fort York Blvd.

I think you can say any area in the city is a showcase, yeah there are quite a few attractions here but like I said I think the Ex has lost its aura and should move on in some sort of way. Focus on heritage preservation/integration, general upkeep, creating more diverse attractions, using the bandshell year round and not shutting certain projects down because of its sense of reputation. Why, because of its past, is it going to demand amazing architecture when its past is long gone (Point 4).
Click to expand...

Point 4. What does "moving on" mean, exactly - you can suck that it is a diverse attraction, preserve all that is unique, provide high quality upkeep (which is all about showcasing) and then blow that forget about quality architecture because we have moved on from showcasing.

AoD
 
Last edited:
I've moved on too, some people here could keep on blowing there minds, 'on what it could have been'
oh well, its all insignificant to what this development has to offer

Lets not forget what 'it could have been' ................http://urbantoronto.ca/news/2012/07/hotel-garden-receives-new-name-and-new-design
Hotel in the Garden Receives a New Name and a New Design

Having already been redesigned to respond to the criticisms of the Design Review Panel, notice of approval conditions have been issued by the City Planning Department. As such, this latest incarnation of the project will regrettably not be subject to further scrutiny by the panel.
 
Last edited:
You must log in or register to post here.

Back
Top