Toronto Living Shangri-La Toronto | 214.57m | 66s | Westbank | James Cheng

I'm pretty sure I've seen those renderings about 5 or 6 months ago. They were in some architecture magazine (don't recally which one) but for some reason I forgot to buy it on my way out of the bookstore.

Also, just because it could be in any city doesn't make it any less of a beautiful building. (unless I've missed BB's sarcasm?) In the renderings it's one very sexy tower.
 
"Why is it laughable to point out that this tall building, so shiny that it entrances Sir Novelty, and an absolute killer to blixa442, could be built anywhere?"

Because you appeared to brush it off for that reason, which would be grossly unfair.
 
Well I did. All I'm interested in is innovation and aesthetics. Those are what raise things qualitatively, above the norm. They are what we celebrate, what survives.
 
All I'm interested in is innovation and aesthetics

Then why do you praise the opera house?

re:shangri-la

I like the look of this tower, especially now that they added the angular lines.
 
I'm going to go for a middle road here and interject that while I understand Babel's take on buildings (and there are many others on the forum who appreciate buildings from primarily an aesthetic perspective) that it's only one possible way of looking at the built environment. Aesthetics and innovation are worthy and interesting, but for me the question very broadly of whether a building is "good" for the city is actually more interesting. Not that I have a problem with an aesthetic approach, but for architecture I frequently find it wanting.

I frequently wonder whether a building is good for the city, which is one of the reasons I consider myself open to mediocre or average buildings and their merits. For instance, 18 Yonge strikes me as bland, but harmless, from a city building point of view. I would say that by offering a respite of vacuousness for the lower Yonge pedestrian and possible opportunities for commercial opportunities, it is kinder to its surroundings than they warrant (and they are unlikely to return any favours soon). From this point of view, it is an admirable building and welcome on the cityscape. Certainly not innovative or iconic, but of merit.

Of course, I have absolutely no issue with the fact that 18 Yonge would exist below babel's radar (I'm guessing). But if one were to take Toronto (or any city) and remove the non-innovative-non-iconic buildings they would all be reduced to windswept barrens. Queen Street is a great example, lined with frequently horrendous buildings, yet beloved by many.

I do have to say, though, in response to babel, that a perusal of any architectural publication with buildings of anywhere shows that pretty much anything built recently could be anywhere. I don't find the comment that something could be anywhere to have meaning.
 
Love this building. It will look great, and it will fit nicely.
 
Then why do you praise the opera house?

Good point. The Opera House is not particularly innovative or unique; it's the type of design that could be found in any city.

That's not to say it's a bad design; but I don't see why it should be praised if it shares the same lack of innovation and aesthetics as Shangri-La.
 
Since the building is covered in so much reflective glass, it won't end up looking anything like this rendering.
 
The opera house is a very Toronto building. To quote tudararms:

"The fact that this city achieved a 'jewel' of an opera house, that is anticipated to be extraordinary in its functionality, while still achieving elegance, simplicity and urbanity, on a tight city lot, and all within budget no less says a lot of good things about this city!! We have an opera that is right for here: not timid but modest, not bland but simple, not a scene-stealer but a scene-maker! I suspect that people will come to love it for the very fact that it does reflect Toronto, not in a negative way but in a good way."

The tall towers I mentioned aren't Toronto buildings, they're anywhere buildings.
 
We can't expect more?

I agree with babel. Of course we can't expect every new building to be innovative or beautiful but it would be nice to have an original, bold, iconic building come along every now and then. I'm surprised by all the UTers who are quite happy to have ordinary, 2nd rate buildings go up and not expect more. If you hired a painter to paint your portrait and he did an ok job, would you be happy to pay for that? What is wrong with having higher standards and demanding the best? (we can do) If we can have better quality, and of course we can, why not expect that. If everybody had the attitude, "it's good enough" the world would be a pretty bland place and we would have few of the advances we have. Thank god a few (perfectionists) people who care about quality still exist, obviously not on this site. (and I am not one of those perfectionists but I appreciate people who are)

At this point in time, we should be raising the bar and expecting quality, creativity and originality in our city. All the talk about Toronto being "world class" is useless, unless we back it up with actions. Architecture is one of the major ways in which a city demonstrates how it feels about itself. It's time Toronto started developing some confidence and started leading instead of following. I say bring on the iconic, original architecture and start some real city building. Give em hell, babel!
 
Re: We can't expect more?

This is not an "ordinary, 2nd rate building." The Maritime Life building at Queen and Yonge maybe, but not this. That's the problem with that argument.

I guess if this building was a little more "modest" "simple" and "on budget" it would qualify as a "Toronto" building and then it would be alright?
 
Re: We can't expect more?

Some will remember the Green Whine award that I commissioned:


whine.jpg



I have decided to commission a new UT award. Please feel free to nominate at will. Awards will given out weekly (Friday nights unless it conflicts with any important lottery draw such as Loto 6/49).

chris.jpg


Sometimes a picture truly is worth a thousand or so words.
 
Re: We can't expect more?

I guess you're either with Toronto, or you're against Toronto.
 

Back
Top