The Tenor (10 Dundas St E, Ent Prop Trust, 10s, Baldwin & Franklin)

[caltrane74]

I am definitely not proposing a traditional urban environment. Far from it; I am into contemporary design, ie. Herzog + De Meuron, Rem Koolhaus, Richard Rogers, Renzo Piano, Zaha Hadid, Coop Himmelblau, etc, etc.
I love got the Dutch and Danes are doing with great contemporary architecture at the Rotterdam and Copenhagen waterfronts, respectively. I should have mentioned that instead of Paris. I am just referring to high design standards in urban environments. That's all.

That sounds good to me!! -

Developers take note now. I find it funny that people involved in the real estate, design and development process here in Toronto, have all probably studied great architects, ground breaking designs in other countries and cities. And yet when it comes time for them to create ….we get what we get. We have a very functional but not very attractive built form, with the exception of some really outstanding recent and past designs. But design issues aside, they have created a very vibrant and distinctive, at least in a North American perspective, downtown.

Metropolis-TLS is a prime example of that. – If will be functional to the extreme, very vibrant, but as many of you have noted, not the most glamorous building on the block.

 

[Pfloyd]

Archivist:...but then again, why couldn't we have been? We had a blank slate in many regards, and look what we've done with it. I'm not suggesting chestnut tree-lined avenues and second empire architecture, but I'm talking about a core value system that believes in the "city beautiful", rather than just talking about it as some alien, unattainable fantasy. Toronto is pragmatic and utilitarian, we are the city equivalent of 'sensible shoes'. This is our choice, however. We can be something else, and well I want Minolos dammit!!

I agree.

 

[Pfloyd]

That sounds good to me!! -

Developers take note now. I find it funny that people involved in the real estate, design and development process here in Toronto, have all probably studied great architects, ground breaking designs in other countries and cities. And yet when it comes time for them to create ….we get what we get. We have a very functional but not very attractive built form, with the exception of some really outstanding recent and past designs. But design issues aside, they have created a very vibrant and distinctive, at least in a North American perspective, downtown.

Metropolis-TLS is a prime example of that. – If will be functional to the extreme, very vibrant, but as many of you have noted, not the most glamorous building on the block.

Interesting point...
I guess the social dynamics and social policies in our society have contributed more to the vibrancy of downtown Toronto than our substandard built environment.

 

[caltrane74]

Found this.

Meteor54 on flickr.com ( is this you paul451?)

 

[yin_yang]

Interesting point...
I guess the social dynamics and social policies in our society have contributed more to the vibrancy of downtown Toronto than our substandard built environment.

well yes, our population is pretty cosmopolitan and seems to like being downtown...friends tell me that they find downtown awesome and try to come down as often as they want. you can likely equate subway ridership statistics with vibrancy, i would think.

 

[JasonParis]

I love got the Dutch and Danes are doing with great contemporary architecture at the Rotterdam and Copenhagen waterfronts, respectively. I should have mentioned that instead of Paris. I am just referring to high design standards in urban environments. That's all.

Although, I'd still take Toronto's waterfront over Rotterdams. No joke, but it's much more lively, attractive and vital.

 

[Jdot]

I hate making these comparisons since we have all rejected them, but they are useful.... here it goes:
Neither Picadilly Circus nor Times Square were built to their current ad design from the beginning. It took time. There is an evolution in "over-the-top consumerism" spaces like Y-D Square. Sure, most of the signs are of the cheaper, back-lit kind right now, but that may not remain. Companies are not going to jump on the bandwagon and spend big dollars to advertise on glitzy LCD billboards. They arent going to invest in long term advertising leases either. They wont commit 100% to Y-D Square (and the TLS building) until it is proven to sell their product, therefore cheaper ads for shorter periods of time.
Give it some time, and we will likely see a long-term ad tennant with higher quality signage.
Add some more store signage (hopefully not in red... lets get different signage colours on that building) to the base of the building, cover up that column on the east side, and install the final large billboard (eastern edge) and this building will look even better.
We often look at pictures of just TLS on it's own. It needs to be taken in context with the larger area around it. The last pic posted shows that. TLS looks great beside the media tower over Forever XXI (old Gap building). Once the Torch is re-done, and hopefully an ad-friendly building constructed on the current Hakim site, the area will come together much better.
I am being cliche, but Rome was not built in a day.

 

[JasonParis]

Good post!

They arent going to invest in long term advertising leases either. They wont commit 100% to Y-D Square (and the TLS building) until it is proven to sell their product, therefore cheaper ads for shorter periods of time.

I think we'll start to say the quality of ads improve significantly when City-TV (and OMNI) start broadcasting from Torch. And hey, that's barely a year away!

 

[I-Z1]

Companies are not going to jump on the bandwagon and spend big dollars to advertise on glitzy LCD billboards.

Can anyone tell me the location of an LCD billboard....I've never seen one.

 

[Archivist]

I also strongly agree with Jdot's post. Things take time. Many cities all over the world have a place like Times Square or Picadilly Circus, I've seen examples in Buenos Aires and Mexico City, and a long long time ago I remember seeing a hideous little ad covered building in Copenhagen - not sure if it's still there. No, Dundas Square is not Times Square, and it will never be. It will slowly improve, though, over time, and seem less like a rawness on the streetscape. I don't turn to ad covered buildings in Times Square for architecture, so whether or not TLS is architecturally significant is beside the point, I think.

Also, I think many posters look at everything European with an unrealistic eye. The centre of Paris is tourist and rich-Parisian land, from what I understand the suburbs are pretty dreadful. I have walked twice along the new waterfront in Amsterdam, some of it I like very much indeed, but some of it was absolutely appalling. The Dutch seem to have a fear of commercial activity, and right alongside an architecturally distinguished building, just outside a market and beside a tram stop, was a kind of tent-like apparatus, in what passed for a commercial zone, where someone was selling flowers. It was a complete failure of urban design:

Nice building!

What's this? (See lower left in upper photo).

Frankly, though I'm glad I went to Adam's waterfront, area, I won't be back. (That wasn't the only thing I didn't like about it). My point is not to slag Amsterdam, but merely to point out that the process of building a city is a long term and difficult one, full of hits and misses. I am certain that they might go back and fix some of their mistakes. But yes, they do make mistakes.

I do think that, in general, Europe gets it more right than we do, but the context of those cities in terms of the support for city building, their age and history, their land use policies, etc. is so different, that, unfortunately or not, we aren't going to have the same kinds of developments here.

What I object to is the tiresome kind of cherry picking from web cruisers that goes on. We're not Paris! Look at what Tokyo just built! What can't the Four Seasons be the Sydney Opera House? I have yet to visit a city where the majority of buildings are not banal everyday structures because that is, for better or for worse, what most cities are made of. You can stamp your little feet and demand Manolos all you want, and feel envious of what Marie over there has on her feet (even if they are causing her blisters), but it doesn't mean you are going to get them.

 

[CDL.TO]

Thank you Archivist for that post. Nowhere is perfect. Nowhere!

I also saw that building when I was in A'dam, and I enjoyed it. However, looking at that building again in your photo, the siding looks and windows both look extremely cheap. The wire mesh and overhang at the ground floor are far from urban. If not for the amusing architectural cuts, that would be one hell of an ugly building!!!

 

[Urban Shocker]

That fragile little tent structure does have charm, though, like the little sidewalk set-ups I sometimes see in Chinatown East during the winter - where cold, huddled people sell ... well, whatever it is they're selling, food I think. And Dundas Square has a temporary shantytown of sorts, on weekends, where knicknacks and jewellery and other wares are hawked on little tables beneath awnings. I rather like how, all over the world, such marginal vendors come along, set up for a while in some Big Hair commercial zone, and then fold up their tents and fade into the night, adding another level of layering to the great consumerfest ...

 

[indense]

I guess I have to go find that building now. I've never noticed it.

Those flower stalls are everywhere in the city - 50 tulips for 5 euros in the spring.

 

[janschot]

Although, I'd still take Toronto's waterfront over Rotterdams. No joke, but it's much more lively, attractive and vital.

As the son of an immigrant from Rotterdam, and someone who's visited several times, my take is that Toronto's urban fabric is generally much better. Downtown Rotterdam is a depressing 1950s area with depressing Modernist buildings. After the German bombing campaign destroyed most of the city's centre, Modernist urban planning sealed its grave. Most of the more recent buildings are pretty bland too.

 

[Archivist]

I actually kinda liked Rotterdam, though to be certain it's not a lively town. Taking a day trip to Amsterdam from there was like culture shock - the people, and the craziness.

Rotterdam, in spite of what you say, had an architecture festival in 2007 in which they very cleverly highlighted 40 of the city's best buildings. I went to each and every one, enjoying a delightful gin and tonic to celebrate the effort. Toronto could easily do the same, but we do not have a culture of celebrating what we have.