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

Re: Public Process?

SNF:

That predicates on the highly unlikely assumption that TEDCO/Diamond et al. didn't treat the design as a fait accompli in the first place. If they are interested in having input in the design, they wouldn't hold an open house 3, 4 months before they plan to have shovels in the ground.

I think public shaming and flogging of the individuals are the only way to go, at this point.

AoD
 
Re: Public Process?

Alvin: Perhaps it is unremarkable in the Big-Hair-Architecture sense, but I think one must be careful not to fall into the trap of defining "design merit" as a context-free-zone where the iconic and the novel rule. Otherwise we end up seeing an Edifice Complex for tourists as the ultimate solution for our waterfront. Buildings are, after all, created for a purpose, and practicality is writ large in how TEDCO have grabbed the ball and run with it. For me, the jurisdictional tussle is the remarkable thing here - all that sniping between the two camps. I've heard plenty of architects pissing on one another's work after a few drinks at parties, but for something like this to break out in the open is such a rare pleasure! I'm not a supporter of TEDCO's ascendency in this matter, and have full sympathy with the Kuwabara people.
 
Re: Public Process?

babel:

But the "big hair" architecture (or at least architecture that draws attention) is exactly what's called for from the public plan - "the context". In this regard, the purpose of the building on the site, which is to act as the edifice for the district, is a failure. This has nothing to do with turning the entire waterfront into some Abu Dhabi fantasyland for tourist.

AoD
 
Re: Public Process?

Though - who knows - in the fullness of time we may actually come celebrate the fact that yet another grand vision for some part of our city has failed to materialize. A half dozen large, nicely proportioned and modest office buildings like Diamond's, with terraces, balconies and glass atriums, sitting side by side and facing our Grand Canal, may come to be seen as just what was needed ...
 
Re: Public Process?

I suppose that it is impossible to swap locations? I gather that both this site and the potential 'Toronto Museum' site are owned by the City. Why not have the Toronto Museum on this site (preferably with an open design competition) and this monstrosity over on the Bathurst site? Actually I would rather swap with some vacant plot of land on Steeles, but that might be too much to ask for.

Seriously, TEDCO is obviously interested only in 'economic development', defined narrowly as bringing office jobs and the like to Toronto, and ignoring intangibles, or even tangibles such as tourism that are difficult to quantify. They evidently don't care about 'fitting with the neighbourhood', so it should not matter to them WHERE their building goes up. Steeles Avenue should be perfectly fine for this.

On the other hand, the harbour site would be perfect for a Toronto Museum, especially one subject to an open design competition.

I know, it's too late to make such changes, especially against the steamrolling of Miller and TEDCO. But I can dream, can't I?

Bill
 
Re: Public Process?

babel:

Though - who knows - in the fullness of time we may actually come celebrate the fact that yet another grand vision for some part of our city has failed to materialize. A half dozen large, nicely proportioned and modest office buildings like Diamond's, with terraces, balconies and glass atriums, sitting side by side and facing our Grand Canal, may come to be seen as just what was needed ...
Click to expand...

That call isn't for Diamond to make, which is the point anyways.

AoD
 
Re: Public Process?

babel:

To be fair to him, only in this instance.

AoD
 
Re: Public Process?

Never underestimate the guile of the elderly.
 
Re: Public Process?

...or the restlessness of youth.

The problem here is that Jack has become soooo sober lately, he is not employing any of his guile in the design of the building, only the politics of getting it pushed through.

This place, regarding which it was emphasized during the PIC, is meant to be a vibrant site perfectly suited for all the creative new-media cutting-edge types who will apparently be working there. If this is Jack's response to that requirement, then I am glad he is being taken to task for it.

Why continue to design buildings when one has effectively retired from creative exploration?

42
 
re:public process

Hear, Hear! Well said! It's time for this city to rise above its institutionalized mediocrity (and cronyism).
 
Re: Public Process?

These poor hothouse flowers can't be so damned cutting edge if they can only work in some blobby/swoopy-curvy/spiky starchitect designed iconic Edifice Complex tower without collapsing into a heap of gibbering, quivering, building-induced, unproductive, new media withdrawal-symptom angst though, surely?
 
Re: re:public process

Huh?

Creative and beautiful architecture can be life affirming (moreso than the sole-killing blandness of a typical office building) and inspiring to those who get to reside and work in it. Just as an example, apparently the (creative) workers love the unconventional and inspiring aspects of the new Hearst building, designed by Foster, in New York. And apparently Hearst understood the need to spend a little more money than what was needed for a typical office space, because it understood the importance and the effect of the architecture on its (creative) workforce.
 
Re: Public Process?

Though rhyming off such cheery university thesis style rote doesn't disprove the possibility that the probably mid-level creatives who'll work for the as-yet-unnamed large knowledge industry corporation that will possibly occupy the Jack Diamond designed building - a blurry rendering of which we have all seen - will love the place dearly, generate massive amounts of original thought, gazillions of bright new solutions, and save the planet ...
 
You must log in or register to post here.

Back
Top