Toronto Monde | 149.95m | 44s | Great Gulf | Moshe Safdie

not at all what I was saying... my comment was mainly in reply to US who (by reputation as well as the previous comment) implies that this design is not part of his vision for Toronto, so I ended up turning the tables on that equation, saying that the design is too good for (his) Toronto.

in regards to the amount of greenery and WTO's vision... I am a huge fan of what they have done so far and have proposed moving eastward here. I'm just skeptical about whether Toronto is able to execute such a vibrant street level in reality. I guess I have to admit that my skepticism is based mostly on work of other entities since we have yet to see WTO execute "neighbourhood streets". Even with the best of intentions we know it is a challenge to grow mature trees in urban streetscapes in this city. I love their vision... but my fear is that somehow the finished product wont be so "cozy" and attractive. I certainly hope I am wrong.
 
Redroom Studios said:
not at all what I was saying... my comment was mainly in reply to US who (by reputation as well as the previous comment) implies that this design is not part of his vision for Toronto, so I ended up turning the tables on that equation, saying that the design is too good for (his) Toronto.

in regards to the amount of greenery and WTO's vision... I am a huge fan of what they have done so far and have proposed moving eastward here. I'm just skeptical about whether Toronto is able to execute such a vibrant street level in reality. I guess I have to admit that my skepticism is based mostly on work of other entities since we have yet to see WTO execute "neighbourhood streets". Even with the best of intentions we know it is a challenge to grow mature trees in urban streetscapes in this city. I love their vision... but my fear is that somehow the finished product wont be so "cozy" and attractive. I certainly hope I am wrong.
Click to expand...

I can by your argument regarding the cities ability to main the greenspace, we'll have to see.

But in terms of developing neighborhoods, we've had so many infill projects that have perfectly fit into the area they're located, in many cases adding a lot of retail and commercial use. The city doesn't have a problem with this. Having said that there's clear shortsightedness in regards to the design of cityplace and some of the other waterfront newer neighborhoods. The built form it self isn't great but the lack of retail is really what kills the area, at least for now.

Anyway, my point is, I'm fairly sure we have enough examples of things done right that we can.

Now I'm not expecting East Bay-front to be an architectural masterpiece, though I'd argue Sherborne park / Sugar beach are pretty darn amazing. Rather I hope we create a neighborhood that is a destination, not necessarily for tourist but for Torontians. For example, just like the beaches / Bloor W / Queen W ..... are today.
 
taal, yes - you were kind of reading my mind. I was refering exactly to areas that have been developed quickly from a blank slate such as CityPlace, Harbourfront and Southcore... hopefully WTO can deliver a better result. Certainly their vision is far and away better than any other large scale developments mentioned. I just felt it useful to point out that with all that WTO has done so far, none of them have been neighbourhood streets. I look forward to being impressed and must admit I am almost as impatient as Rob Ford for things to hurry up and happen here.
 
Redroom Studios said:
taal, yes - you were kind of reading my mind. I was refering exactly to areas that have been developed quickly from a blank slate such as CityPlace, Harbourfront and Southcore... hopefully WTO can deliver a better result. Certainly their vision is far and away better than any other large scale developments mentioned. I just felt it useful to point out that with all that WTO has done so far, none of them have been neighbourhood streets. I look forward to being impressed and must admit I am almost as impatient as Rob Ford for things to hurry up and happen here.
Click to expand...

We know the plans, and I believe they'll stick to the vision in terms of the amount of retail, I'm sure details will be cut, as always. So it's just a question of what retail we get, that takes time, maybe there are some tax consideration, who knows. But I have quite a bit of faith. If anything I'm impatient and just want it to start already ... :)

Regarding Ford, I think it's he's not going to have much direct impact. You're seeing WT willingness to work with him because at the moment there's little in the way of funding for the portlands area. To a certain degree I'd actually like to see a little bit of a tourist focus for the portlands so I don't mind a little bit of that.

I'm most concerned about commercial office space, there are plans for it, quite a bit! Even in east bayfront ... but will it pan out ? I'm afraid it may not, and when they can't lease the area it'll go all residential / retail. That's not exactly a winning combination. Sure it'll work here, but in the portlands it's more of a stretch.
 
I disagree that this design is "too good" for anyones' Toronto. Frankly, it's a showy and more jumbled example of the sort of resort architecture that was built north of the Quay near Harbourfront a decade ago - maybe a little tender loving care from an alert design review panel will whip it into better shape? And, getting back to the Globe link to Safdie's boosting of Singapore as a model of how to build a swell waterfront, perhaps his cartoonish Marina Bay Sands Hotel design ( mentioned by Rochon ) is an example of what he has in mind. I think that on a good day he's very, very good ( our wonderful Pearson airport, for example ... ), but he seems to teeter on the edge of pretentiousness ( thank God Bob Rae nixed his bloated Ballet Opera House design ) more often than not.
 
What I find most disappointing about this design is the uneasy relationship between the podium and the tower. They're related, but only in a half-hearted sort of way - the expression "two ferrets fighting in a sack" comes to mind; or as Mr. Buffard, my French teacher when I was 14, used to say, this thing is "neither fish, fowl, nor good red herring ...". The floorplate of the tower has been cleverly impressed into the south end of the podium, and there are balconies sticking out from the podium that also refer up to the tower, but I get the impression that the tower idea came first and then Safdie ran out of ideas. Perhaps the podium should have been more differentiated from the tower, instead? Stylistically, the whole thing seems stuck in some sort of no-man's land - too timid to be reeely, reeely "Big Hair" and equally determined not to be ordinaire. But what is it?
 
waterloowarrior said:
Rochon on Monde
http://www.theglobeandmail.com/news...phistication-to-east-bayfront/article2266804/

waterfront-condo-g_1351552a.jpg
Click to expand...

I thought the "jigsaw" end of the podium was far more sculptural and interesting before... the windows' arrangement as well as the stacking look much better in this rendering... in fact, it was one of my favourite touches that I felt was very flattering to the whole PoMo aspect of things:

ParksideNighttime.jpg
 
Urban Shocker said:
.... but he seems to teeter on the edge of pretentiousness ( thank God Bob Rae nixed his bloated Ballet Opera House design ) more often than not.
Click to expand...

Any self respecting opera house is by definition showy and pretentious. Safdie's Ballet Opera would have been a boon to the downtown. He was going to make it spectacular.
 
Urban Shocker said:
Ours is neither of those things, thankfully, and is one of the best in the world.
Click to expand...

The Paris Opera is unapologetically both of those things and defines the typology of 'Opera House'.

The Grand Public Staircase of the TCFTPA is a stage from within and without, and is certainly part of the tradition of seeing and being seen, dressed to the nines at posh events. It's a modern take on an old theme but is still showy and pretentious. It's all part of the experience.

Like Safdie's buildings or not, they are elegant in their execution and are well-liked by all (with the exception of the architectural community). But he doesn't give a shit about that.
 
Last edited:
You're the only one on this forum I can ever recall describing the Four Seasons Centre as "showy"!

If it is "pretentious", what is it trying to pass itself of as that it isn't?
 
Having been to other 'great' venues I'll give the 4SC credit where it is due; The sound quality is suburb .... second to none in my experience to date (and this is comparing it to other halls).

Architecturally it gives Toronto little ... sure the University facade provides a little interesting, but even then it's nothing special. The rest, is essentially a disaster, making an already bleak North side of Queen even worse ...
 
Urban Shocker said:
You're the only one on this forum I can ever recall describing the Four Seasons Centre as "showy"!

If it is "pretentious", what is it trying to pass itself of as that it isn't?
Click to expand...

Don't get me wrong, I like the building. The stairs are designed to see and be seen - both from the street through the highly transparent west elevation, and from within. Walking up and down those stairs is like walking down a catwalk. Wear your best gown and strut your stuff. If that doesn't meet the criteria for showy and pretentious then we have different definitions. This isn't intended derogatorily, that's just what the experience of going to opera is all about, not for all, but certainly for some.
 
"Showy" I get that, yes, as it relates to the people - those of us who wear our grandest ballgowns and spend as much time as possible swanning around with drinkies in our hands in the City Room and the fancy lounge that overlooks Queen Street. But when has the exterior of the building ever been celebrated as showy? I think of the interior - auditorium and City Room - as a backdrop for we operagoers to desport ourselves in; I don't think it competes with or overpowers us like the Garnier and it isn't showy in that sense - mostly it's a neutral-toned vehicle for us to be our best in and we don't have to compete with gold paint and red velvet and decorative Classical columns. There's a ritualistic element to going out, to the opera or theatre or ballet or whatever, which includes the public promenade and seeing-and-being-seen but that happens in many other places in different ways ( at the gym, for instance ... ).
 
You must log in or register to post here.

Back
Top