Toronto Corus Quay | ?m | 8s | Waterfront Toronto | Diamond Schmitt

Automation Gallery said:
Of course it makes sense, all along throughout the years all we have seen is mediocre developments on Toronto's waterfront ......Why are they building office buildings by the waters edge anyways, when other land is avaiable in this so called masterplan, the mayor is always blabbing that the waters edge is for Torontonians. Please:rolleyes: this is the start of again more bad planning with yet another mish-mash of proposals.:mad:
Click to expand...

We were also told that the first new building on that waterfront will have design excellence to set the bar high for what's to come. Be careful what you promise, people might actually take you at your word and expect you to deliver.
 
tkip said:
While the design of the building certainly could have been better, it's still just a low rise office building. I would imagine that the next wave of buildings will get more attention and hopefully look better. This building isn't the end of the world.
Click to expand...

Trust me....from what I have read, the City of Toronto is fully aware of the blandness and sterility of this first attempt. I've seen better office buildings in Mississauga and Brampton.
 
Hmmm... instead of endlessssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssly bitching about how "bland" and "sterile" and "pathetic" this first development on the East Bayfront is, why don't people here contact the city or go out to planning meetings for this master plan and help put forward your ideas for bettered future phases?

I just think that most people here are getting tired of the "OMGweshouldhavehadtheCopenhagenOperaHouse" rhetoric.
 
Seeing that opera house in Copenhagen on the waterfront, and thinking of Sydney's example as well, was there ever a proposal to build ours along the waterfront at any point?
 
Torontovibe said:
We were also told that the first new building on that waterfront will have design excellence to set the bar high for what's to come. Be careful what you promise, people might actually take you at your word and expect you to deliver.
Click to expand...
Exactly.

MadMax said:
Trust me....from what I have read, the City of Toronto is fully aware of the blandness and sterility of this first attempt.
Click to expand...
So? Doesn't mean the city's going to do anything to prevent future Coruses. In fact, they probably won't. Complacency's their middle name.
 
Last edited:
AG:

Of course it makes sense, all along throughout the years all we have seen is mediocre developments on Toronto's waterfront ......Why are they building office buildings by the waters edge anyways, when other land is avaiable in this so called masterplan, the mayor is always blabbing that the waters edge is for Torontonians. Please this is the start of again more bad planning with yet another mish-mash of proposals.
Click to expand...

Actually, the waters edge is indeed going to be for Torontonians - by the way of a wide public promenade similiar to that of Harbourfront Centre. What do you want on the site - yet another park? Don't we have enough of that already?

And why shouldn't office buildings be on the site, along with other uses - e.g. residential, institutional and even low impact industrial? Mixed use is what animates an area, which is exactly what the goal should be.

condovo:

So? Doesn't mean the city's going to do anything to prevent future Coruses. In fact, they probably won't. Complacency's their middle name.
Click to expand...

Actually in this case the authority (if it can be called that) rest with the WT Design Review Panel. The city has as a whole has relatively little to do with the architectural aspects of individual buildings on the waterfront.

re: Copenhagen Opera House

Well, if you can find a local Maersk to pay for a similiar project ($300M++) in full, I am all for carving out a site on the waterfront for such largesse.

AoD
 
Last edited:
This building is not stunning, but it's not that bad. The only reason it stands out so much right now is that the rest of the area has not yet been built around it. Give it some time.

Having offices and similar mixed-use buildings like this will bring people down to the east waterfront year round, including in the winter when parks, boardwalks and cycle paths will be otherwise eerily empty. This building is a good start, but it is only one piece in a very large puzzle. I don't think we should be holding it up to such intense scrutiny just because it's the first.
 
Urban Shocker said:
The main entrance to the opera house on University Avenue or to the atrium entrance on the waterfront promenade side of Corus don't have to be experienced in the same way as the entrance to the delivery areas on the opposite sides of the building, or the stage door at a side of the opera house. Buildings can be enjoyed in all their multi-dimensional splendour for what they are. You're the one who sees only one dimension; I'm fully engaged with all functional aspects of these buildings and how they're represented in their varied forms.
Click to expand...

Oh I'm engaged, and the Opera House and its sister in Copenhagen are far from 'bad' - that's not my problem though. I simply can't stand when one side or sides of a building were clearly meant to show off (something you and Jacky seem to dislike), while the others suffer at their expense. Newer structures, especially those wonders coming out of the aA factory (X, Casa, 18 Yorkville, etc.) do celebrate themselves on all sides and I know you would argue that they are that much stronger for it. That's why I find it disingenuous that you would claim that I am the one who is stuck in one dimension while you cherry-pick examples with urbane serving spaces.
 
PukeGreen said:
This building is not stunning, but it's not that bad. The only reason it stands out so much right now is that the rest of the area has not yet been built around it. Give it some time.

Having offices and similar mixed-use buildings like this will bring people down to the east waterfront year round, including in the winter when parks, boardwalks and cycle paths will be otherwise eerily empty. This building is a good start, but it is only one piece in a very large puzzle. I don't think we should be holding it up to such intense scrutiny just because it's the first.
Click to expand...

I think that's one of the main reasons why we should hold it up to such intense scrutiny. Also, would some (relatively cheap) sports facilities not bring more people down, and for more reasons than aimless promenading? I can't understand the lack of such provisions in Waterfront Toronto's plans.
 
SP!RE said:
Hmmm... instead of endlessssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssly bitching about how "bland" and "sterile" and "pathetic" this first development on the East Bayfront is, why don't people here contact the city or go out to planning meetings for this master plan and help put forward your ideas for bettered future phases?

I just think that most people here are getting tired of the "OMGweshouldhavehadtheCopenhagenOperaHouse" rhetoric.
Click to expand...

Trust me, I have and it seems to go in one ear and out the other. During meetings we hear buzz words like "design excellence" and we are told we will be getting something spectacular, then we end up with something that impresses nobody. It can get very frustrating after a while, when you realize that no matter how much feedback you give the powers that be, the end result is almost always, the same. (second or third rate results)

Who wants to waste hours of your time, when you see little results for your for your input. I really believe those community consultations are just a game the city plays with us, to make us feel like we have some say in the matter, then it does whatever it wants. Even the smallest suggestions, like putting in benches, are ignored.

I was once told by my local councillor's office, that putting in benches, causes crime to go up, so people don't want them. People in Toronto don't want benches? I guess the city is only for people who can afford to sit in chic patios. Don't get me started!!! lol
 
ProjectEnd said:
I guess there are parallels to the large, equally impenetrable expanses of glass which clad the "grande horizontale" of the seemingly transparent Corus building.
Click to expand...

Our lady of the harbour need not be penetrable at all points, any more than the Copenhagen building is. Corus has a simple, unequivocal design - an office building that's also a window on the lake. The atrium runs north/south, flanked by offices which also face outwards: her general orientation and main purpose is clearly presented to the world. The snotty-nosed public will be permitted to wander in from their lakefront promenade and roam much of the main floor, probably buying stuff or eating and drinking in the odd restaurant, at certain times. I don't find her subtly banded exterior - emphasizing her status as a grande horizontale - any less engaging or appropriate than the stacked balconies of the monochromatic and minimalist Casa, the little Mondrian colour flourishes on X, or the subtly angled-out balconies on Spire.
 
Urban Shocker said:
Our lady of the harbour need not be penetrable at all points, any more than the Copenhagen building is. Corus has a simple, unequivocal design - an office building that's also a window on the lake. The atrium runs north/south, flanked by offices which also face outwards: her general orientation and main purpose is clearly presented to the world. The snotty-nosed public will be permitted to wander in from their lakefront promenade and roam much of the main floor, probably buying stuff or eating and drinking in the odd restaurant, at certain times. I don't find her subtly banded exterior - emphasizing her status as a grande horizontale - any less engaging or appropriate than the stacked balconies of the monochromatic and minimalist Casa, the little Mondrian colour flourishes on X, or the subtly angled-out balconies on Spire.
Click to expand...

Ah yes, the elitist snotty-nosed public. They shouldn't be allowed near the waterfront at all.
 
Urban Shocker said:
Our lady of the harbour need not be penetrable at all points, any more than the Copenhagen building is. Corus has a simple, unequivocal design - an office building that's also a window on the lake. The atrium runs north/south, flanked by offices which also face outwards: her general orientation and main purpose is clearly presented to the world. The snotty-nosed public will be permitted to wander in from their lakefront promenade and roam much of the main floor, probably buying stuff or eating and drinking in the odd restaurant, at certain times. I don't find her subtly banded exterior - emphasizing her status as a grande horizontale - any less engaging or appropriate than the stacked balconies of the monochromatic and minimalist Casa, the little Mondrian colour flourishes on X, or the subtly angled-out balconies on Spire.
Click to expand...

Sure they may be allowed to go there, but what's drawing them? Certainly not the architecture. Jack talks about buildings fitting in to their context and for the most part he's right. But there are times when the site in question calls for something a little more - what 'more' is would be for each firm/architect/designer to decide, but here, Diamond's less-is-more approach is really just less.
 
You must log in or register to post here.

Back
Top