1 St Thomas (Lee Development, 29s, Stern)

[Urban Shocker]

What's wrong with enforcing good contemporary design by outlawing faux buildings completely? We introduced public health measures and sanitation a century ago to combat the spread of virulent diseases, protect the public, and bring them into the contemporary world - so why not protect them from making retrogressive design choices as well? Progress shouldn't be denied to people just because they don't "like" it.

I assume that's why we have a design review panel - to re-educate those who see themselves as eighteenth century French aristocrats and need pippypoo and doodad-encrusted highrise chateaux in which to further their aberrant, deleusional lifestyles.

adma: Hasn't Toronto always been a bit slow in adapting? Isn't that an aspect of our style?

 

[Zephyr]

I doubt that very much. People don't move to foreign countries to get a better apartment.

You can doubt it, but I'm not in the trade of making up evidence to support my view. And that restatement of my view is not accurate. I would emphasize the word choice over better, that is what motivates.

Some people would have gone anyway, even if all things were equal, or a little better in Toronto - call it wanderlust. But I suspect that whatever other reasons they may have, this is the chip that pushes people over after their cognitive dissonance is resolved. If the competition were Honolulu I wouldn't believe them either, but Chicago is somewhat like being in Toronto - the weather, the similar institutions, the population size, orientation to a Lake, etc. Those to whom I have spoken, without prompting, returned to these themes of choice in housing, something more up-to-date, over and over.

The emphasis on architecture is a Chicago preoccupation, especially in skyscrapers, and recently in residential properties in particular. That city's goal is to draw people back from nearby, or new prospects both local and from points beyond. I just wish I could see the same level of committment from Toronto. This should never be a take-it-or-leave-it scenario, but a broadening and encouraging of creative highrise design for residences that are not drawn to either schlock or faux-past.

 

[Bogtrotter]

I suspect that any building that stands out as a cut-above the rest in some way is going to attract buyers with money and mobility from abroad- whether it it be an exquisitely designed Stern building or in the shape of a double helix by the latest trendy architect.

 

[AndreaPalladio]

Maybe if you had any evidence, you would be more convincing. Particularly since, aside from the Hancock, Chicago came later to the downtown highrise apartment boom than Toronto, and most of the buildings they've build look exactly the same as the new apartments that have been built here.

 

[Zephyr]

Maybe if you had any evidence, you would be more convincing. Particularly since, aside from the Hancock, Chicago came later to the downtown highrise apartment boom than Toronto, and most of the buildings they've build look exactly the same as the new apartments that have been built here.

I suppose your evidence is stronger.

There have been a number of studies that trace back to the 1990s, the residential increases in the 42nd ward of Chicago - the "super ward" that contains most of these downtown residents. They show a massive increase in overall units, occupancy, and a greater variance in residents' origins as the the time has elapsed. Tax base studies alone have encouraged many a developer to go in the direction of residential building, when their past specialty was more in line with office buildings.

Mayor Miller has appeared in Chicago recently, reported on CBC, and is quoted as saying "... we have much to learn from (Chicago) ... in bringing people into the city to work, play and live."

The Hancock is not the beginning of the residential boom in Chicago, because there have been several significant booms both before Hancock was built, as there have been several afterwards. Maybe you need to learn a bit more about these booms, before you throw that line out again. The most current boom extends to the essentially untapped South Loop, the so-called LakeShore East, and to three supertalls (and possible fourth) all on the Chicago River.

I have presented studies of the Chicago market to clients in Toronto, St. Louis, and Calgary, because they are aware that something is going on there in that city worth noting. My charts go back to 1960, and show how the market has rose and fallen, and what is unique about the most recent boom.

I just thought it would be better not to get into any of this type of discussion on this site, so I opted for the comments made by fellow and now former Torontonians. You'll find the latter have also invaded the blogs on the SkyscraperPage forum for Chicago, and they speak very well for themselves without any interpolation from me.

I am sorry I can't accept that the "highrise apartments ... look exactly the same" either. Some do of course, alot of them don't: in Chicago they vary from conversions to preserve landmarks, like the Wrigley Building, which was once an office building with oddly shaped rooms, to the sleek and modern/spartan, like Waterview, Contemporaine, and Skybridge. And least I forget, the soon to be constructed Aqua followed by Calatrava's Chicago Spire - the former a supertall in LakeShore East with unique balconies, and the latter near the Lake, at the mouth of the Chicago River. Chicago Spire is Chicago's Absolute World, with its developer team labelling it the tallest building in North America, as well as the tallest, all-residential building, in the world. The rooms there look out of convex/concave window walls, and are uniquely shaped, due to the rotating floors and multi-helix design of the exterior.

Choice is paramount in a competitive environment such as this.

 

[Bogtrotter]

The emphasis on architecture is a Chicago preoccupation, especially in skyscrapers, and recently in residential properties in particular. That city's goal is to draw people back from nearby, or new prospects both local and from well beyond. I just wish I could see the same effort in scale for Toronto. This should never be a take it or leave it scenario, but a broadening and encouraging of creative highrise design for residences that are not drawn to either schlock or faux-past.

I definitely agree with you here with the exception of Stern's work, which I believe generally rises above schlock or faux-historic. StThomas isn't the Cheddington or Regency- Stern's work strives for more than just revivalism. However with the rest I tend to agree, but don't you think the trend in Toronto is moving towards that? How does the Ritz, Shanggri LA, Four Seasons stand-up, they don't break barriers but they are sleek, modern and very contemporary. What about the L tower, Pier27, and the spiralling Absolute towers? Personally I think the designs in Toronto are getting much more daring and contemporary. This is Toronto the Good and Proper afterall and not CHicago which has a history of architectural innovation.

 

[MisterF]

Add to this that residential skyscrapers typically will lag behind office buildings and also a selective group of public buildings in taking on riskier design innovations, that allow a given city to surge ahead in areas of creative architecture.

I don't think I'd agree with that. The most daring designs in Toronto are residential while the new office buildings are more safe. It used to be that residential buildings would be mass-produced slabitecture while office buidings were designed by big name architects. Not anymore.

What's wrong with enforcing good contemporary design by outlawing faux buildings completely? We introduced public health measures and sanitation a century ago to combat the spread of virulent diseases, protect the public, and bring them into the contemporary world - so why not protect them from making retrogressive design choices as well? Progress shouldn't be denied to people just because they don't "like" it.

You'd make a good dictator. If I didn't know your posts better I'd assume that was an attempt at satire.

 

[buildup]

I am sort of mystified by criticism of high quality "historicist" architecture. Yes, its about choice, even Urban Shocker acknowledges the right to choose, but the implication is that its misguided choice.

If you look at the furniture we buy: sofas, chairs, tables we don't criticize people for buying items which have traditional element. Many of us look at hyper-modern pieces of furniture and think "this crap will look dated in 5 years".

Yet we somehow expect people invest a very large portion of their wealth in ultra-modern buildings which they may possibly have to live in for 25 years - while running the same risk

As far as I'm concerned Stern is "safe" and "tasteful" (what's wrong with tasteful?) and while that might not satisfy the needs of passer by; I think its an acceptable position for a buyer to take. It may not be cutting edge, but no particular building has the obligation to deliver that.

That said, I don't think 1StThomas is trying to imitate anything. No-one would believe (nor is anyone expected to beleive) that this is a straight copy of a New York apartment building of the 1920s.

There are incidently a large number of similar themed super-tall condos or co-ops in Chicago in sales right now.

Finally, I say that those award winning, cone shaped condoc in Mississauga look kind of corny (corn-on-the-cobb) corny. There is serious execution risk.

 

[scarberiankhatru]

What's wrong with enforcing good contemporary design by outlawing faux buildings completely?

That's assuming contemporary design is always good...if we outlaw everything else, 99% of what gets built will be garbage that even you couldn't justify.

 

[Zephyr]

I definitely agree with you here with the exception of Stern's work, which I believe generally rises above schlock or faux-historic. StThomas isn't the Cheddington or Regency- Stern's work strives for more than just revivalism. However with the rest I tend to agree, but don't you think the trend in Toronto is moving towards that? How does the Ritz, Shanggri LA, Four Seasons stand-up, they don't break barriers but they are sleek, modern and very contemporary. What about the L tower, Pier27, and the spiralling Absolute towers? Personally I think the designs in Toronto are getting much more daring and contemporary. This is Toronto the Good and Proper afterall and not CHicago which has a history of architectural innovation.

Before I attempt to answer your question, I have to continually remind myself that it is Stern's building that is the subject of this thread. I've slammed him severely not so much for what he has done, as much as what he represents to me. Much like the Sirens in mythology who lured ships to their watery grave, with seductive song, the best of the least-risky residential towers may wreck the salvation of Toronto's future residential balance as I have defined it, with extreme prejudice.

When I fly into Toronto today, what flashes before me are all those grey edifices that I remember from when I was a much younger person. And now the glitter and glass that is edging into the city is inspiring by contrast. But all I have to do is leave and go to another North American city that has captured the magic, and I remember that Toronto still has a ways to go.

Mind you, I am not for disposing the past, as I have stated, but to make a committment to a more progressive but balanced future, which will require some overloading on the modern side just to catch up. I have excluded office buildings from all my extrapolations because I think Toronto is increasingly progressive in that sphere, and I have confidence that this will continue.

But that is not so much what I see in residential. You have listed a few exceptions - big fan of L Tower and I have already praised Absolute World being that it is a kind of a mantra for me of where we should be headed on the high end - but does this entire list constitute a trend? I guess I have already come down on the side that it is not yet a trend. The people I've worked with here are looking for ways to address the residential lag that they also see, but my perspective is limited to them, not the rest of the influencers and the powerful that can ensure that residential design can or even should move in a more progressive direction in this city. The guage that I would apply is based on quantity right now, but that can change with each addition, led by something like an Absolute World in the city limits of Toronto - take your pick of starchitects if you must.

Prior to going to Chicago, my models for progressive building were Hong Kong and New York. Chicago captures your heart because so many there from taxi drivers to politicians, blue collar to white, young and old, are conversant in architecture to a greater degree than is normal. Perhaps it has jaded me toward Toronto, because I know that the agitation exist for many there, but is more suppressed. I remembered what Frank Gehry said about his hometown and architecture - although he really doesn't propose too many skyscrapers, he is a force practicing elsewhere instead of in this city, part of a long list, too long to recite.

Stern, if he should read this thread, might laugh all the way to the bank after the frequent slights I have given him here. I do agree with what you have listed as being progressive, but we will need more than a few progressive buildings to get us going, and I won't be happy until that happens.

 

[Urban Shocker]

The OSC protects the public from abuses to the capital markets, so why shouldn't purchasers of objects such as houses and condominiums be protected from bad design by a similar control and enforcement mechanism? I think of our new design review panel as just such an agency; they could work with similar bodies across the country - places such as Vancouver for instance - to harmonize acceptable standards of contemporary design. This is hardly a new idea - the UK's Design Council was founded in the 1940's, to, "promote by all practicable means the improvement in design of the products of British industry". The Italians ( following the lead of such companies as Olivetti in the 1930's ) and Scandinavians did much the same. Arts Councils and Crafts guilds have existed in Canada for decades too. We'd end up with products - including condominium housing - that are the result of design culture rather than of marketing culture and are created under the auspices of a body that can advocate for excellence on behalf of the public.

 

[AndreaPalladio]

Why on earth would anyone hold up British housing as a example to be followed?

And why should people be forced to live in a way some group of appointed experts believes they should? Surely people should be free to buy the home that they want. You'll recall that when the Bauhaus was designing sleek machines for living for inter-war German workers the first thing those German workers did was put all their brick-a-brack. Because they wanted that brick-a-brack in thier homes regardless of the "design culture" saything they shouldn't have it.

 

[AndreaPalladio]

Stern, if he should read this thread, might laugh all the way to the bank after the frequent slights I have given him here.

You're assuming that one of the most honoured architects of our time, Dean of the Yale School of Architecture, cares about slights of a Toronto contractor who counts the design cognescenti of St. Louis and Calgary among his clients.

 

[Urban Shocker]

What have you got against high standards of design, AP?

 

[Zephyr]

You're assuming that one of the most honoured architects of our time, Dean of the Yale School of Architecture, cares about slights of a Toronto contractor who counts the design cognescenti of St. Louis and Calgary among his clients.

I have worked with honoured architects throughout my career, of which you only have a glimpse. We'll leave it at that.