News   Jul 17, 2024
News Roundup for July 17, 2024
 431     0 
News   Jul 17, 2024
Don Valley Floodway
 943     0 
News   Jul 16, 2024
Minto Submits Modifications to Grand Park Village Plan in Mimico
 1.1K     2 

Toronto building boom

Urban Shocker said:
Agreed, though I think what this thread's been dealing with of late, in the Chicago/Toronto waterfront discussion, is a comparison between their consistently grandiose or monumental approach, going back for more than a century of developing their open space by the lake and keeping it generally open and park-like, with big focal points like the Kapoor and the Gehry statements, and our notion of extending the street grid down to the lake, taking a finer-grained approach with such things as the "cultural village" expansion of York Quay Centre, and not so much of the grand gesture. As Americans, they're more culturally conditioned than Torontonians are to solve problems by throwing money at them. That's why we're not them and they're not us. It's like when Bernini submitted his design for the east front of the Louvre - imposing a Roman Baroque model on Paris - which Louis XIV rejected for Perrault's more regimented, severe, and fundamentally home-grown Classical approach.
Click to expand...

I fail to see anything about the Louvre that is not a grandiose gesture, whether Roman Baroque or French Classical. And while it's six of one and a half dozen of the other I dare say Bernini's plans would be just as admired today if they were realized.
 
But they weren't realized, that's the point, and for similar reasons Chicago is not setting up Millennium Park to look like Toronto's Harbourfront ... or vice versa. I can't see why Chicago would want to adopt a model such as ours ( and vice versa ... ) when they have a long-established approach to developing their waterfront land that's uniquely their own.
 
Ladies Mile said:
America produces plenty of home-grown culture at a very high level and Chicago specifically is the location of much of the development of modern architecture worldwide. If commissioning a house by Frank Lloyd Wright in 1902 was simply a matter of "throwing money" at something, then I wonder how you define progressive patronage at ANY level differently. The thought that it's all imported either then or now is frankly pig-ignorant at best.
Click to expand...

The comparison wasn't to commissioning a house from Wright in 1902, though.

Was commissioning Kapoor "progressive patronage"? No more than buying any other art at the top of the market.
 
Urban Shocker said:
The comparison wasn't to commissioning a house from Wright in 1902, though.

Was commissioning Kapoor "progressive patronage"? No more than buying any other art at the top of the market.
Click to expand...


So if Toronto bought a Kapoor tomorrow, you'd turn your nose up at it.

All righty.
 
Last edited:
Hey guys, since we are Talking about Chicago/Toronto, I just got back from Chicago. Have been there many times.
The whole city revolves around Michigan, the river and the lakefront. Once u go west of Michigan, there's not much. It's not pretty. Chicago appears to be much richer than Toronto. They seem to be careful in choosing the buildings that go up. Even though they have their share of ugly buildings. E.g. The new ritz going up is not a glass building, it's all stone, emulating the other old architecturally rich structures. There's no glass at all. It's kinda nice, cause all that's going up in Toronto right now is glass and it's giving the city more and more of a bland cold look, we have to be careful.
The city has a very rich history, we don't, we either lost it all or we just never had it.
The restaurants over there are grand and big...with a lot of money spent spent into decorating them. Even the sushi restos are grand, lol. I'm not sure I like them.
Toronto is better for exploring neighborhoods.
Racially, chicago is less diverse, a lot more white people, even though it has gotten much more diverse compared to the 90's when I lived there.
The architecture is impressive in some ways. The buildings are not squished into each other like they are in Toronto. Toronto seems to be more dense, Chicago has more open spaces with fountains and green space and open piazzas which makes the person walking to look up and enjoy the buildings and surroundings in a more pleasant way.
The big buildings are in the downtown core and run from north to south along the waterfront, which is nice, cause u have access to the water from anywhere.

Overall they're similar yet a lot different. They're both nice in their unique ways.
Didn't go to the millennium park cause it takes forever to get to it and I was right next to the trump tower.

Chicago is definitely prettier.
 
Ladies Mile said:
So if Toronto bought a Kapoor tomorrow, you'd turn your nose up at it.
Click to expand...

Toronto's 1995 Kapoor Untitled ( Mountain ), is a landmark work, one of his earliest public commissions and dating from a time before he began working in polished steel, and I think that would be classed as an act of "progressive patronage" more than the later Chicago work.

But I'm sure Toronto could fit another one in - just as we added Serra's Tilted Spheres out at the airport, long after his important, landmark Shift ( 1970-72 ) was constructed in King City. Serra gave the Toronto collector who commissioned it a couple more sculptures, as a thank-you, for his garden.
 
Frankly arguments about progressive patronage are fairly idiotic. There's no way of knowing if today's unknown is tomorrow's genius. Both Toronto and Chicago have and continue to invest in emerging artists as well as the international blue chip market; hits and misses on both sides are going to be inevitable. Chicago has a history of architectural and design patronage that, if seen in terms of "progressive patronage" (let alone quality), blows us out of the water (along with most other places). That said, the Kapoor at MP is a superior work to the one in Toronto, and if "throwing money at it" is what got it installed, so be it.
 
vatche said:
Hey guys, since we are Talking about Chicago/Toronto, I just got back from Chicago. Have been there many times.
The whole city revolves around Michigan, the river and the lakefront. Once u go west of Michigan, there's not much. It's not pretty. Chicago appears to be much richer than Toronto. They seem to be careful in choosing the buildings that go up. Even though they have their share of ugly buildings. E.g. The new ritz going up is not a glass building, it's all stone, emulating the other old architecturally rich structures. There's no glass at all. It's kinda nice, cause all that's going up in Toronto right now is glass and it's giving the city more and more of a bland cold look, we have to be careful.
The city has a very rich history, we don't, we either lost it all or we just never had it.
The restaurants over there are grand and big...with a lot of money spent spent into decorating them. Even the sushi restos are grand, lol. I'm not sure I like them.
Toronto is better for exploring neighborhoods.
Racially, chicago is less diverse, a lot more white people, even though it has gotten much more diverse compared to the 90's when I lived there.
The architecture is impressive in some ways. The buildings are not squished into each other like they are in Toronto. Toronto seems to be more dense, Chicago has more open spaces with fountains and green space and open piazzas which makes the person walking to look up and enjoy the buildings and surroundings in a more pleasant way.
The big buildings are in the downtown core and run from north to south along the waterfront, which is nice, cause u have access to the water from anywhere.

Overall they're similar yet a lot different. They're both nice in their unique ways.
Didn't go to the millennium park cause it takes forever to get to it and I was right next to the trump tower.

Chicago is definitely prettier.
Click to expand...

That's quite an objective description.

Chicago doesn't have a lot more white people, I think. You think so because you were hanging out in the north side. On the south side, some neighbourhood is 80% black. It is less diverse for sure in general for sure.

You are absolutely about the architecture part, which beats Toronto hands down. We have too much glass and too little stone. Their downtown is not filled with skinny but long two/three storey houses either, mostly large and grander buildings which makes the city more urban and chic. In general, Chicago looks a lot more wealthier.

True that you go west of lake Michigan, there is less and less to see. However, we don't have much to see away from Yonge st too, just bland suburbs outside downtown. But we have less poverty in bad hoods because we pay more tax.

One would be totally insane to deny that Chicago is a lot prettier than Toronto and overall one or two notches above us. Plus their two airports are both connect to the subway, which is nice.
 
kkgg7 said:
That's quite an objective description.

Chicago doesn't have a lot more white people, I think. You think so because you were hanging out in the north side. On the south side, some neighbourhood is 80% black. It is less diverse for sure in general for sure.
Click to expand...

That is correct. Chicago's neighbourhoods are also a lot more segregated than Toronto's. Chicago has the largest Latino population outside of LA and NY. Also has the third largest South Asian population in the US.
 
gabe said:
That is correct. Chicago's neighbourhoods are also a lot more segregated than Toronto's. Chicago has the largest Latino population outside of LA and NY. Also has the third largest South Asian population in the US.
Click to expand...

I don't consider segregation a bad thing, as long as it is voluntary, there is nothing wrong with it. Integration is not possible in the real sense. Assuming you are white, how much time do you really hang out with a bunch of Asians, Blacks and latinos for real? I feel with most white Canadian, all I can talk about is always superficial stuff such as weather and travel, not even sports since I have no interest in hockey, and then you run out of things to talk about. With people of similar background, I can talk for hours.

If you walk on the campus of UofT, you will find in 90% of the cases, white kids hang out with whites, Asians with Asians, Indians with Indians. It is human nature and is not a bad thing.
 
Last edited:
If you walk on the campus of UofT, you will find in 90% of the cases, white kids hang out with whites, Asians with Asians, Indians with Indians. It is human nature and is not a bad thing.
Click to expand...

I think you have amassed enough fictional statistics to publish a book.



Frankly arguments about progressive patronage are fairly idiotic.
Click to expand...

Well, it isn't "idiotic", but in terms of investment, it's pointless, as cities don't invest in public art for the purpose of selling for a profit. But in terms of bang-for-buck, it's quite prudent to use whatever art savvy a city may have to recognize and acquire good art from emerging artists at much better prices.



That said, the Kapoor at MP is a superior work to the one in Toronto, and if "throwing money at it" is what got it installed, so be it.
Click to expand...

If faced with the shocking fiscal mess in Chicago, there's no way you would approve of $23 million for that Kapoor, as cool as it may be.
 
You must log in or register to post here.

Back
Top