Why Is Toronto Aesthetically/Architecturally Boring? Answer Needed!

[taal]

I'll chime in here ... I'd like to know specifically what European cities they're comparing us to but I found most to have a similar amount if not slightly more interesting new developments, in other words, they're just as boring or not boring depending on your view ... take London for example ... and many other European cities. So I'm not really sure what there argument is - many will argue some of the perceived interesting modern architectural in some European cities is not interesting at all ...

But in terms of street scapes ... yes, Toronto's is quite under maintained - and that's even compared to other American cities ... this has been Toronto for a long time now. It seems like things are changing on Bloor and maybe QQ in the future but either way, we're a relatively ugly city for those who stare down.

 

[Parkdalian]

I think, whenever some random foreigner from Europe (from Europe! They must be right!) makes a disparaging comment about Toronto being ugly, we should imagine that they are actually calling Toronto "fat." It'll help us gain perspective:

"Why do you live in such a fat city?" "Can't you do anything to fix how fat your city is?" "I wouldn't be caught dead with such a fat city!"

The stream of comments above nervously justifying Toronto's beauty or worrying that those mean girl-foreigners might be right just highlights the city's insecurity, and the insecurity of a bunch of tourists slagging off their friend's hometown.

Toronto has plenty of aesthetic interest and is not architecturally boring. No further argument is needed. There have been many times throughout history where people have been unable to appreciate something which was later found to be invaluably gorgeous. This does not prove the deficiency of the objects, but of the people doing the looking.

 

[syn]

A couple of visitors from Lyon, France a few years ago were quite impressed with the city. The modern architecture (even some of the condos we think are crap) blew them away.

 

[Tewder]

I think, whenever some random foreigner from Europe (from Europe! They must be right!) makes a disparaging comment about Toronto being ugly, we should imagine that they are actually calling Toronto "fat." It'll help us gain perspective:

"Why do you live in such a fat city?" "Can't you do anything to fix how fat your city is?" "I wouldn't be caught dead with such a fat city!"

This is an interesting point, and all the more so if you consider it from a perspective that believes that being 'fat' is a choice. In other words if Toronto is 'fat' it is because we choose to be fat (ugly), which from the viewpoint of your typical garden-variety European would be an indefensible position, one that implies sloth, ignorance, lack of self-control or refinement etc. etc... and isn't this really how many of them would view the 'colonies' anyway and our crass, indulged super-sized lifestyles?

 

[dahusbandofbath]

I like your analogy about Toronto being "fat", Parkdalian! At the risk of simply slinging mud back, you gotta wonder about people who come to a city which is vastly different in age, history and architectural style than their own only to comment on how much better their own city is. If skyscrapers, flashing lights and crushing crowds on the subway platform are your thing, then most European cities suck!

 

[Urban Shocker]

Given our recent addiction to skinny point towers, perhaps "anorexic" would be a more accurate insult to ... um ... hurl.

 

[cfloryan]

I'll weigh in:

It might have something to do with Toronto's "newness," lack of cultural legacy. The fact that we are young means we haven't yet developed a unique architectural style (at least not one most of us are aware of). You can't take pride and strive to improve and perfect an architecture you don't know you have. With time Toronto will take possession of its building style and make it more presentable to the world.

 

[Urban Shocker]

Chatting to some former OCA(D) friends one evening recently, strolling up Yonge Street past the sleek and lovely Casa after our party, one of them said how refreshing it was to get back to a city of boxes after all the curves and frou-frou pippypoos she'd had to live with during her recent stay in Italy. When you consider how pared down our bay 'n' gables were - simple, gestural takes on Gothic when compared to the equivalent, overwrought Victorian Mock Goth residential buildings in Britain, say, I believe that our architectural take has actually been quite consistent through the years.

 

[urbandreamer]

^How do you explain the real modern architecture of the GTA--those new mcmansions popping up everywhere, or the suburban tract housing?

Casa etc is like comparing a church/castle in 16th century England to a commoner's cottage.

 

[golodhendil]

Not a very coherent post, but a few observations from my recent trip back to Toronto and journey through Europe (BeNeLux / Germany / France):

1) While it is a well known fact, it was still fairly surreal to see how few European cities have highrises or skyscrapers of note.
2) Rotterdam, and Netherlands in general, indeed has very "daring" modern architecture in terms of their use of shapes and colours. "Exciting", perhaps, but whether they are necessarily prettier is really up to personal taste.
3) I can't speak for cities mentioned above that I haven't visited (Munich, Berlin, Hamburg), but modern low-midrise infills in many of the other cities that I did visit are every bit, perhaps even more, boring than new infills in Toronto or other North American cities.
4) While bussing/training between cities, I was actually pretty shocked to see how boring and ugly are the newly constructed / under-construction suburban housing in Europe. I find it hard to believe to be saying this, but the McMansions and suburban "cookie-cutter" houses around Toronto are significantly more architecturally interesting than those suburban houses that I've seen.
5) Before I moved away I've never taken a good look at Toronto's Victorian architecture, but walking through the old inner neighbourhoods on this visit, I was fully captivated by the simple beauty of our bay-and-gables.

 

[CN Tower]

Multi-level marketing scams driven more by speculative flipper schemes than end user driven aesthetics.

To even things out a bit, however, I will add that Toronto purportedly contains the 2nd most buildings/structures of any city in North America, behind only New York, and thus it might be simply a matter of the mundane outnumbering the monumental, despite the fact that the monumental in Toronto might actually outnumber the monumental in many other large world cities.

 

[Urban Shocker]

^How do you explain the real modern architecture of the GTA--those new mcmansions popping up everywhere, or the suburban tract housing?

Casa etc is like comparing a church/castle in 16th century England to a commoner's cottage.

Roy's Spanish visitors complained that every building in the city looks like a shoe box - I assume they were referring to our downtown buildings as compared to certain unnamed non-rectilinear buildings in their own country. My suggestion was that, had their great great grandparents visited Hogtown in the 1880s, they might have found our simple bay 'n' gable take on the Gothic just as restrained ... compared to the decorated residential architecture of their own country at that time. In other words, there's an aesthetic to what we do that is consistent across time.

 

[HHC]

Multi-level marketing scams driven more by speculative flipper schemes than end user driven aesthetics.

To even things out a bit, however, I will add that Toronto purportedly contains the 2nd most buildings/structures of any city in North America, behind only New York, and thus it might be simply a matter of the mundane outnumbering the monumental, despite the fact that the monumental in Toronto might actually outnumber the monumental in many other large world cities.

But once the monumental outnumbers and completely engulfs the mundane, people tend to focus on what they see more of. Look at the development along the waterfront; 95% mundane. Someone viewing the city from the lake on a bright day could conclude Toronto has no architectural diversity at all. It's all through perspective and relativity.

If Toronto stopped developing in the 50's, today people would be bowing down to Toronto's architecture stock. Am I not right?

 

[adma]

If Toronto stopped developing in the 50's, today people would be bowing down to Toronto's architecture stock. Am I not right?

You mean, if Toronto stopped developing and other centres didn't? Sure. But you can practically say that about any city out there.

And besides, from an urbanistic rather than strictly architectural POV, Toronto has *already* proven your thesis, i.e. by avoiding the worst sins of urban renewal and highway evisceration, the town that Jane Jacobs made home came to be internationally appreciated as, well, the town that Jane Jacobs made home...

 

[HHC]

You mean, if Toronto stopped developing and other centres didn't? Sure. But you can practically say that about any city out there.

And besides, from an urbanistic rather than strictly architectural POV, Toronto has *already* proven your thesis, i.e. by avoiding the worst sins of urban renewal and highway evisceration, the town that Jane Jacobs made home came to be internationally appreciated as, well, the town that Jane Jacobs made home...

Many US cities, especially in the midwest literally seized all development since the 50's/60's. Definitely there are cities like that today; see Cincinnati/Cleveland/Baltimore/St Louis/Detroit/Buffalo ...list goes on. Most of these cities were not victims of urban renewal unlike Toronto. As if Toronto's historical stock was not strained enough, urban renewal really made a huge negative impact in respect to historic architecture (see Eaton's Centre, Yonge/Dundas, FCP, etc... ). I suggest you check out the "Then and Now" thread on the Picture forum and just see for yourself what urban renewal did to the city.