News   Apr 26, 2024
Sustainability Month: ReHousing — A Multiplex How-To Guide Explores What’s Possible in the Yellowbelt
 491     1 
News   Apr 26, 2024
Mattamy's Soleil and Mile & Creek Condos in Milton’s Flourishing Landscape
 204     0 
News   Apr 26, 2024
Galleria on the Park Soon to Welcome First Residents of Masterplanned Community
 673     0 

Sheraton Centre (123 Queen West, new windows & exterior repairs)

Successful and popular precisely because of its location. I can't think of one hotel that has a better location than the Sheraton. Walking distance to all the landmarks, subways, streetcars, office towers, Yonge St/Eaton centre.

I am not proposing to demolish it. Just pointing out the fact that 1) it IS ugly and blocks views due to its size and orientation 2) things can be done to make it less dull and lifeless. Replacing the windows is simply far from enough.

And see? Tons of people dislike all the concrete near NPS and many are shy to spit it out because there are plenty of art/architecture police here that are always ready to gibe at them mercilessly.
 
Just a reminder that this building was the loser, of the two finalist, in a design competition organized by the City of Toronto. The winning bid, which featured two slim towers of equal height, but not quite as tall as the Sheraton proposal, could not secure financing and the city had no alternative but to go with the Sheraton. In retrospect the winning proposal would have been a much less foreboding presence across the street from Nathan Phillips Square.
 
ksun said:
And see? Tons of people dislike all the concrete near NPS and many are shy to spit it out because there are plenty of art/architecture police here that are always ready to gibe at them mercilessly.
Click to expand...

So? That's their problem.
 
This site is perfect for something designed by Snohetta, or Jean Nouvel. The New City Hall architecture is begging for something sympa'. It's not gonna happen, though, given the nature of the land rental agreements in place. It's really too bad. And again, terrible terrible use of the sidewalk space.

This all does lead one to wonder (it's futile) how a Snohetta type would handle the whole Queen East stretch from Bay to Osgoode. Right now there is really only potential; it's a gross mess.
 
ksun said:
get over yourself. Your opinion is as valuable as the next one in line.
Click to expand...

not true. some people's opinions are worth far more than others. why? because they know more.

i've never watched a hockey game in my life. would you care to hear my thoughts on what makes a good player? no? didn't think so.
 
I can't see more than 10 storeys at this location if it were destroyed.

Big fan of the tower's massing but, I wish the elevators cores on the south side were addressed differently. In this case, modern day ideas of concealment would be preferred.
 
Youranthony1 said:
Not true. Get off your high horse.
Click to expand...

Every forum reader gets to decide for themselves whose opinions they value and whose they don't. Everyone has the right to post here, but as in everything in life, one builds a persona and reputation over time on Urban Toronto, and that member is taken more seriously by some and less by others depending upon how they value the posts.

How can you argue thedeepend's comment regarding hockey? It makes a lot more sense to me than "get off your high horse".
 
WiddleBittyKitty said:
Every forum reader gets to decide for themselves whose opinions they value and whose they don't. Everyone has the right to post here, but as in everything in life, one builds a persona and reputation over time on Urban Toronto, and that member is taken more seriously by some and less by others depending upon how they value the posts.

How can you argue thedeepend's comment regarding hockey? It makes a lot more sense to me than "get off your high horse".
Click to expand...

Except the beauty of a building or a public square is not hockey, which is more technical. The city is for everyone to live in and enjoy. If 5% experts are in favour of project one based on their sophisticated highbrow taste while the remaining 95% average residents prefer option B, should we say "well, too bad you don't like it but since you had no training and I know better, your opinions don't matter"?

The topic here is aesthetics of a building, not the structural soundness. There is no absolute beautiful or ugly, but if a building is disliked by most people who use it or even pay for it, then it is not a good one. It doesn't matter a handful of know-it-alls say it is such a marvellous piece so their opinion trumps everyone else's. It is just their own *preference* after all. It is not exactly rocket science where the experts can actually get things done with their solid background in engineering while others can't, so they have to shut up and listen.

It is like a bottle of wine. Does it matter if the sommeliers say one particular kind is good or not? What matters more if *you* like it or not. I am not gonna like a bottle of wine, or even try to like it just because the experts say it is great with 100 justification, none of which is objective or can be substantiated. I feel no qualm in saying I hate that $200 bottle and prefer the $15 one. Should we feel sorry for someone who don't like the wine the experts praise?

Usually the difference between "good" and bad taste is a matter of ingrained snobbery, pretentiousnes and a result of peremptoriness.
 
ksun said:
Except the beauty of a building or a public square is not hockey, which is more technical. The city is for everyone to live in and enjoy. If 5% experts are in favour of project one based on their sophisticated highbrow taste while the remaining 95% average residents prefer option B, should we say "well, too bad you don't like it but since you had no training and I know better, your opinions don't matter"?
Click to expand...

Actually, I'd reckon that the vast bulk of that remaining non-"expert" 95% is at worst indifferent, or else Doors-Openny flexible and accepting. And the ones who are really, horribly super-actively letter-to-the-editor rip-it-down incensed over, uh, "concrete aesthetics" are at most, ultimately not much less marginal than the 5% "experts"--and if we may make "merit points" adjustments, in the end, the expert argument still wins out over the cranky-anti argument.

Of course, all is circumstantial--like, if it was a matter of the present-day aspect of the Sheraton Centre vs Snohetta/Nouvel as opposed to the present-day aspect of the Sheraton Centre vs this, we'd be dealing with something quite different. But that's *really* big thinking--in the meantime, with "work needing to be done", a certain deft and not-disrespectful bow to the status quo will do--yeah, the parking ramp up front and the fortresslike Richmond aspect remain problems; but let's not get ahead of ourselves, one thing at a time. It's economical, with a lemonade-out-of-lemons bow to the f*yeahbrutalism tumblr crowd.
 
ksun said:
Except the beauty of a building or a public square is not hockey, which is more technical. The city is for everyone to live in and enjoy. If 5% experts are in favour of project one based on their sophisticated highbrow taste while the remaining 95% average residents prefer option B, should we say "well, too bad you don't like it but since you had no training and I know better, your opinions don't matter"?

The topic here is aesthetics of a building, not the structural soundness. There is no absolute beautiful or ugly, but if a building is disliked by most people who use it or even pay for it, then it is not a good one. It doesn't matter a handful of know-it-alls say it is such a marvellous piece so their opinion trumps everyone else's. It is just their own *preference* after all. It is not exactly rocket science where the experts can actually get things done with their solid background in engineering while others can't, so they have to shut up and listen.

It is like a bottle of wine. Does it matter if the sommeliers say one particular kind is good or not? What matters more if *you* like it or not. I am not gonna like a bottle of wine, or even try to like it just because the experts say it is great with 100 justification, none of which is objective or can be substantiated. I feel no qualm in saying I hate that $200 bottle and prefer the $15 one. Should we feel sorry for someone who don't like the wine the experts praise?
Click to expand...

Ditto.
 
adma said:
Actually, I'd reckon that the vast bulk of that remaining non-"expert" 95% is at worst indifferent, or else Doors-Openny flexible and accepting. And the ones who are really, horribly super-actively letter-to-the-editor rip-it-down incensed over, uh, "concrete aesthetics" are at most, ultimately not much less marginal than the 5% "experts"--and if we may make "merit points" adjustments, in the end, the expert argument still wins out over the cranky-anti argument.

Of course, all is circumstantial--like, if it was a matter of the present-day aspect of the Sheraton Centre vs Snohetta/Nouvel as opposed to the present-day aspect of the Sheraton Centre vs this, we'd be dealing with something quite different. But that's *really* big thinking--in the meantime, with "work needing to be done", a certain deft and not-disrespectful bow to the status quo will do--yeah, the parking ramp up front and the fortresslike Richmond aspect remain problems; but let's not get ahead of ourselves, one thing at a time. It's economical, with a lemonade-out-of-lemons bow to the f*yeahbrutalism tumblr crowd.
Click to expand...

Not necessary, really, and once again preachy (at the very best). And a straw man to boot, wrt "French Quarter".

Queen between Bay and Osgoode is an absolute mess and the citizens of this city deserve a better civic block. Some old farts adjudicated the look of the hotel, the dumb and useless overhead walkways (all of them, including the one over Queen) and the bad bad bad forecourt in front of NPS. A wistful and populist approach would be refreshing over the present day crap. Alas the area will probably stay as is for another fifty years.
 
ksun said:
Usually the difference between "good" and bad taste is a matter of ingrained snobbery, pretentiousnes and a result of peremptoriness.
Click to expand...

Not true. The difference between good and bad taste is very much a function of experience and knowledge. To borrow your wine analogy: there tends to be a pretty clear progression of taste the longer one drinks wine and the more experienced one's pallet becomes, i.e. from simplistic boldly fruity wines to ones that are not (different taste profiles, more subtle etc).

The fact is, the pretension and snobbery you mention comes about when one's taste is asserted as 'equal' even in the absence of experience or knowledge... which is why, in the past, when we were young and inexperienced we learned to keep our mouths shut. This didn't mean we didn't have an opinion (and likely a very impassioned one), only that we were too naive to understand our opinions were immature, largely uninformed and certain to incur mockery. Ah the good old days before the internet! Now any schlub with a computer is a self-professed expert on any subject.

Edited to add- This doesn't mean you can't have an opinion that differs (or taste), only that to be taken seriously and respected you better have a better line of reasoning than 'most of the unwashed masses side with me so i must be right and you must be an out-of-touch snob'.
 
Last edited:
You must log in or register to post here.

Back
Top