News   Apr 22, 2026
 93     0 
News   Apr 22, 2026
 184     0 
News   Apr 22, 2026
 313     0 

Star: Join Us at the Wrecker's Ball (Hume)

Walking by Spire the other day we had a chuckle at the advertising on the hoarding which says, "Look out over New York", or something silly like that. It was wrong on so many accounts. Overall I am struck by how banal most of downtown looks, and how really very tired too.
 
What ever happened with Miller's architectual review panel? Are we still awaiting the enabling provincial legislation?
 
"Look out over New York", or something silly like that.

What's silly about it? If you are high enough up you will most certainly see New York State. That's what the sign is referring to.
 
After a period of generally positive commentary, Hume now seems to be reverting back to his overriding "not much is good about Toronto" theme. Adma's point is well taken; most of his criticisms of prominent buildings seem to relate to those put up in the 60s and 70s. Laugh if you like, but I have always kinda liked the Sheraton Centre, except for its ground level which doesn't try to relate to the street. FCP was an impressive building, when it was built, and still is IMO, as a readily recognizable Toronto landmark.

Sure most structures from that era would not be built today. The two I have mentioned, and no doubt others, were considered pretty impressive and even leading-edge at the time.

I'd like to take the wrecking ball to St. James Town. It also was up to the minute design, at the time it was built. Going back even earlier, so was Regent Park in its time.

If we could fast-forward to about 2025 no doubt we would eavesdrop on people at that time saying similar things about today's buildings, perhaps even the ones of which we are currently most proud, and wondering what could the architects have been thinking? There's always the danger of judging work of a past time by today's standards instead of setting it into its own context.
 
(ignoring our own sect 37 for a sec ... not as extreme) and who pays for all these additional costs to the developer

this has been standard practice in vancouver for more than a decade. calgary has recently gotten on board and montreal is beginning to do the same.

who pays for the additional costs? uh, the developer. that's because he's making extra profit from the density and height bonuses awarded to him from the city. to put it very simply: "build us a park and we'll let you add another 10 floors onto your building." thanks to this system, the yaletown neighbourhood in vancouver has gotten several new parks; a new community centre and exhibition space; a new elementary school; streetscape improvements; and a new film centre for the vancouver international film festival.
 
It was Archiv. who emphasized the 60s/70s point more than me--though my point might have been more that Hume's engaging too much in 60s/70s/80s-style paint-by-numbers "newspaper architectural criticism" here. "DAMN those anti-urban slabs", etc. Without accounting for the fact that those who've lived with them all their lives might be a little more acclimatized. It's like with the WTC when it was still around; after a while, people started finding ways of loving and creatively relating to that so-called anti-urban horror.

Now, of course, re Hume, there's the inevitable those-in-glass-houses-shouldn't-throw-stones situation; and inevitably, a Star letter-writer brought that point up...
Aug. 20.

When listing the ugliest buildings in Toronto, the Star building at One Yonge Street can't be ignored. And sadly, this concrete eyesore, which is most offensive at pedestrian level, is situated at a strategic focal point of our long-awaited waterfront.


--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Ken Ferguson, Toronto
 
Even if stinkers like Sheraton and HBC were never built, there's no guarantee that what would have gone up in their place would have been good - or any better at all. I don't mind the destruction of good buildings so long as what replaces them is equal or better. Hume's wrecking ball rant would be relevent to the rest of his article if he had bothered to state what the Sheraton, HBC, etc., replaced and what will replace Bridgepoint or Inn on the Park.
 
From photographs, what Sheraton replaced was strip flotsam that was redlined for the NPS-environs master planning; so technically (and ironically), it *is* sort of "better", unless you want to be hyperactively Jane Jacobs about it.

I'll assume the whole beef about Sheraton is not what it replaced, but where it's located; if one can compare typical Manhattan "worst building" candidates, it's more akin to Pan Am hovering over Grand Central than Madison Square Garden replacing Penn Station.

And--again, sort of like Pan Am--as an object in and of itself, Sheraton *isn't* as bad as detractors might have it. If you compare its Brutalism to, say, the Delta Chelsea, it's actually pretty suave--imagine it located anywhere but the S side of NPS (well, maybe where the Delta Chelsea is), and it might be borderline-likeable, or at least inoffensive like Sutton Place.

If you notice, hardly anyone knocks that ultimate hovering Brutalist slab, the Manulife tower, and it remains a genuinely stylish place to live, and not just on "nouveau riche" grounds...
 
Borderline-likeable...er...hmmm, well, it definitely could be into inoffensive territory almost anywhere else - as you say, its cousins Manulife and Sutton Place manage to be so...and if Sheraton had windows on the sides and a perpendicular twin, it'd become the Leaside Towers, which many people outright like. The building just east of it, the one at the SW corner of Bay & Queen, is so firmly in the realm of the invisible-via-inoffensiveness that its name escapes me, and it's not much 'better' than Sheraton.

I'm not suggesting that the Sheraton replaced something better (although I do think we'd be better off replacing it), but if Hume is going to rant about tearing down the wrong buildings, he should mention some lost treasures or lost opportunities, and the Sheraton surely counts as an example of the latter...even a forgettable, ordinary building would have been better if it 'met the street well.' Yes, some of Sheraton's awfulness is due to Brutalism bashing, and a good portion is due to its location, but even if Sheraton existed somewhere else and in a different era, the all-important ground level would still kill it because it is so putridly bad, about as bad as anything else in the city as far as I'm concerned...the sidewalk along Queen literally becomes a dank alcove.
 
The building just east of it, the one at the SW corner of Bay & Queen, is so firmly in the realm of the invisible-via-inoffensiveness that its name escapes me, and it's not much 'better' than Sheraton.
The Thomson complex? Actually, one difference there is that it *did* replace something significant (the old Foresters building)...
 
the sidewalk along Queen literally becomes a dank alcove.
This could probably be addressed, but they never seem to, despite renovations.
 
The main problem w/the Queen sidewalk is that the parking ramp gouges out a big stretch. But by and large, I think the Queen side isn't half as repugnantly, deadeningly oppressive as the Richmond side...which *was* "the back", after all. (And it sure treats Richmond as nothing more than the westbound lanes of an urban speedway like nothing else out there...)
 
Interestingly, two of the replies find the new opera house to be the ugliest of Toronto's buildings. Very interesting:


Ugliest buildings: Your picks
If Star readers had a rocket launcher, Toronto's skyline wouldn't look the same
Aug. 27, 2006. 07:57 AM



--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Last week, Christopher Hume wrote about the lack of coherent urban planning that has allowed Toronto to raise unfortunate buildings while razing fine ones. We asked readers to send in their candidates for ugliest edifice. It seems Torontonians can be quite impassioned in their hatred of some buildings. A selection of responses:

I couldn't let this pass me by. This is my chance to beef about the new high-rise apartment buildings that everyone driving through the city on the Gardner Expressway is forced to look at. The buildings in particular are those with the dreadful dark blue windows. We're treated to more of them across from the Rogers Centre on Spadina. Since they look pretty bad now, what are they going to look like in 10 years?

I am not against high-rise buildings. It is quite possible to create attractive buildings that enhance the skyline, but I'm afraid the builders have missed the mark here.


The most ill-conceived, poorly planned building and soon to be the greatest eyesore in Toronto is the new addition to the ROM.

The new addition to the ROM, the "luminous veil" on the Bloor St. viaduct, just about anything that involves an architect's pathetic attempt to add a new addition to an old or historic structure.


A ruling government with antiquated policies and procedures runs our multicultural city. People with sheer boredom with no character or colour designed our buildings.

I nominate as the ugliest building in Toronto the Graduate House of the University of Toronto at Harbord and Spadina. It is so Soviet bloc ugly that it almost defies description. Tiny windows in a city where light is at a premium most of the year; ugly, dreary facade, with an incredibly stupid "O" that hangs over the street. Ychhh!


Communal building vacant in style and conviction on a rambling scale. Soulless, dull additions of inconceivable blandness, artificial architecture void of symbolic heroic theatre found within.


225 Jarvis (Grand Hotel): as RCMP headquarters, it was an honest structure. Now gussied with stucco, it's suburban junk fitting an airport strip.


Building at Bathurst & Queens Quay W.: It's a big, huge cement building called the Canada Malting Co. that obstructs the view of the Harbourfront and is SO UGLY!



That big barn on Bathurst and Bloor: Ed Mirvish's Bargain Palace or whatever. Can't remember the name; I think I blocked it out. That is the tackiest neon, Vegas-style eyesore I have ever seen.


When listing the ugliest buildings in Toronto, the Star building at One Yonge Street can't be ignored. And sadly, this concrete eyesore, which is most offensive at pedestrian level, is situated at a strategic focal point of our long-awaited waterfront.

The Rogers Centre: when the roof is closed.


Bravo on your Sunday (most worthy of the front page) article on the sterility of Toronto's supposed "new" and "modern" architecture.

On the corner of Charles St. W. & St. Thomas, there are three or four delightful gingerbread brick homes that will be victims of that vile wrecking ball within the next few months.

In their company is a now lopped-off 80-year-old oak tree that shaded the street for years.

Of course, there are the ever-being-constructed half-empty condos. Is there anything we can do to save these beautiful historic homes and buildings?



The absolutely worst building in Toronto is the oldest. It's the monstrosity on Yonge near the Greek restaurant/North York "town centre." Knock it down!


Dundas Square, no lie: The Eaton Centre is a perfect overseas cousin to Dragon City. You can thank expansion and H&M for that. Everything, from the AD-dictive, overgrown posters — and the building on the northeast corner that takes over 15 years to build — to the people who flock to Yonge and Dundas, heartless people from all walks of life, with nothing but disregard for other people. Oh and the police cameras now cherry-top the cake ...

First Canadian Place: The entire façade of the building is falling apart! It's owned by a bank ... surely they have the funds to fix it.


Four Seasons Opera House: charcoal box! Had the building been raised off of the ground with walkthroughs, with something like an art park, it would have looked better.



My nomination goes to the new Four Seasons Opera House. Brutal is too kind a description for the Richmond façade, not to mention that horrible bleak box built as a cover for the fly tower. Severe, unpleasant, unimaginative and empty describe for me the overall appearance.


77 Elm St. (a.k.a. The Nightmare on Elm Street): brutalist, concrete, with a five-storey above-ground parking garage at its base, and seemingly random, pointless sun blinders jutting out from the windows.
 
I wonder how many of these comments came from UTers... I'm guessing quite a few.
 
I'm with Observer Walt with respect to the Sheraton Centre. The building itself is an excellent example of the style. But I also agree with his comment on how it meets the street: it sucks.

But then the whole street area right there needs alot of tender loving care because it is such a prominent place in the city. Right now it looks dowdy and somewhat incoherent.
 

Back
Top