I'm quite fond of 790 Bay. Sorry.
To return to earlier posts and rebuttals, every time I posit that most buildings in any city are in fact ordinary, what I am usually reacting against are comments that I consider ill-informed and overly dramatic, such as "we get the worst buildings in the world in this city because all our politicians are on the take", or something like that. What I am trying to suggest is that there is no place, not Hamburg, not Tokyo, not New York, where every building is aesthetically pleasing and well attuned to its neighbours. Since it is not possible that this will happen, not here not anywhere, might as well get used to it. But I'll address some responses in particular:
Aspiring to be better motivates our best architects - no disagreement there, but most of the buildings actually existing in the city were not built by the best architects, nor will they ever be. US - your particular response to this fact is simply to filter out what you don't really wish to see - which is a particularly good response for someone with a keen eye and interest in aesthetics. Not so good for someone interested in the city as a whole, in what is rather than what is better.
our city ought to mandate [better buildings] on our behalf - again, no disagreement here. Toronto has a long history of by-laws and regulations determining what gets built where, and its relationship to other buildings and to public space. In that sense, a design review is simply an extension of that interest, rather than anything new. However, lest we get too excited about the impact of Design Review Panels, it's best to remember that supposed "experts" do in fact disagree, sometimes vehemently, on what is worthy in the city. If we had Lisa Rochon, Christopher Hume, and Urban Shocker on a panel, what would they have said about the ROM, the Gardiner Museum, and the Four Seasons Centre respectively, and how would that have played out? (Not to mention the waterfront office building). The idea of design panels excites me as I am in favour of greater oversight into the built realm, but city building will always involve compromises and disagreements and there is no absolute and final word on these things, much as we might wish there to be. I also think that Vancouver, with its dullish repetition of worthy towers, should act as a cautionary note for Toronto.
isaidso said this: We get better buildings precisely because people do complain and do ask for better. If the whole city were filled with people who rationalized that it's ok because other cities do it too, we'd never end up with those 'beauts' you mentioned. US also mentioned the possibility of demanding consumers gravitating towards better buildings. In both cases, there is an assumption that consumers can be made to agree on aesthetics and that they will incorporate good design into their choice of buildings. I think this is not true, and will never be true. I'll try and demonstrate in two ways.
A very common, very sensible requirement of the city is that buildings contain retail at their base when they are almost anywhere that could support retail, and especially in discussions here this has become gospel, which I think is a good thing. However, I have rarely seen a building advertised or ever heard mention in any puff-piece in the Toronto Star or the Condo Guide that advertised retail at the base as a feature of the building. This in itself leads me to believe that consumer do not "choose" to live in a building that lends vitality to the city as a whole, and that this fact is recognized by savvy developers who simply omit this fact from their pitches. The fact is, what is good for the city and what is good for condo dwellers is sometimes quite different. If I were to live in Humber Bay Shores, for instance, I would be loathe to be right on top of a restaurant with a patio, for obvious reasons. But I am pleased that the city required this of one of the buildings in that area, and I wish they had required it of more.
My other argument against the notion that consumers, properly educated, will choose good design, simply starts with a question. Where do you live? Is the house or highrise in which you live architecturally significant? Or is it just a plain-Jane building that serves its function? If not, how did you come to live there? Quite seriously, I am asking you to put your money where your mouth is - and unless you happen to live in a building that exemplifies good design, then I conclude that what you are really saying is that good design is something you wish other people to choose, and not particularly so much yourself, thank you. I will state that I live in City Park, a building which I consider to be groundbreaking in its day and which I am proud to support because I strongly support co-operative housing in Toronto. I chose to live there because the rent is cheap, it is close to the bars that I frequent, and I can walk to work. Design (especially that in evidence from the outside of the building) had zero to do with it, and it's only by happy coincidence that I can appreciate the building from that point of view as well. Both US and isaidso have essentially made the argument that we need to encourage consumers to choose Spire over Bloor Street Neighbourhood, but the fact is that the choices that people make are influenced by many factors, design being one of the least important. This will always be so, and I am willing to bet that you are no different from anybody else in that regard.
My point really is that most buildings in the city, this city and all cities, always, are workaday buildings that break no new ground aesthetically or in any other way, and that is OK. I have always believed that how buildings relate to each other and especially how they relate to the city is far more important. Though I am excited about the prospects for Design Review Panels, I am not under the mistaken impression that it will usher in an era of strongly enhanced design in general, nor are they even likely to bring agreement about what is a good building, as the Corus example so tellingly shows.
What I am not saying is that ugly buildings are good enough, that we should grateful for anything, and that we ought not strive for better. Please note this for future reference.
