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

A concert stage would have been too much spectacle for people to handle? lol Somebody should tell harbourfront. Toronto the bland
Click to expand...

I hope you scrubbed those toes today.
 
Sugar Beach is an unfortunate design as far as public engagement with the building is concerned, since it kills Diamond's original intention - linking it with the exterior public space at the west side. Replacing a point of engagement with a grove of trees that acts as a backdrop to piles of imported sand along the water isn't a sympathetic solution.

Grey is the ultimate neutral, since it contains all the other colours and accessorizes with everything. Those who crave multi-coloured spectacle everywhere, and not an inch of undecorated space on any building, should be delighted by this. A garishly reclad Redpath, for instance - pimped out with the latest technical innovation to look even louder than Waterloo's Pharmacy building - will stand out like a deliciously sore thumb.
 
Holy shit, this debate has been totally construed - this is not about adding huge amounts of colour or whippty-do's everywhere, and making it into a giant spectacle - at least that is not what I am suggesting. And then to throw the idea that Sugar Beach will be this overly colourful spot which will contrast with Diamond's grey palette. I am not advocating for the use of multitudes of colour in the building, but one could think about the facade in a more intelligent way. Intelligent facades are far more than just coloured windows and panels.

The people of this city love the grey, beige palette, so its no wonder that colour automatically is referred to as "tacky," "garish," and "sore thumb" like..I am not going to debate the use of colour or lack there-of because I, as well as many here know that it is dependent on the structure, context etc., but our fear of standing out, even somewhat is where the problems arise.

maestro -
Get off your high horse. Not sure what Diamond did to you and don't really want to know. So it isn't a building to send shockwave throughout the architectural community. Who bloody cares. I'm not sure what makes this plot the ideal spot where anything but is a total failure.
Click to expand...

I fail to see your argument that I am on a 'high-horse,' I was merely stating that we need to look at other buildings of the same nature before we start to compare apples and oranges - especially, when most here automatically think of colour as being tacky and garish. I am not professing to have more knowledge or of being better educated in the matter, yet I seem to be on some high-horse pontificating away.!!!

pfive
 
Last edited:
Though we Torontonians simply adore our beiges and greys, brick red is the commonest building colour hereabouts.

SP!RE refers to the unique blue of the Corus glass ... but that's a result of ambient lighting conditions. As with the Four Seasons Centre, which appears to change colour throughout the day, grey adapts.
 
Colour or, the lack thereof, is just the lastest fad in an obsession that dates to when the designer was first revealed. Yeah, the people of this city don't understand colour.

I haven't the foggiest idea why this particular development brings out such derision however, it certainly helps fill the void inbetween Hume articles. (Although Hume would likely do his homework to know a waterfront concert stage already exists a couple stone throws away)
 
Urban Shocker said:
Sugar Beach is an unfortunate design as far as public engagement with the building is concerned, since it kills Diamond's original intention - linking it with the exterior public space at the west side. Replacing a point of engagement with a grove of trees that acts as a backdrop to piles of imported sand along the water isn't a sympathetic solution.

Grey is the ultimate neutral, since it contains all the other colours and accessorizes with everything. Those who crave multi-coloured spectacle everywhere, and not an inch of undecorated space on any building, should be delighted by this. A garishly reclad Redpath, for instance - pimped out with the latest technical innovation to look even louder than Waterloo's Pharmacy building - will stand out like a deliciously sore thumb.
Click to expand...

I agree that the current Sugar Beach proposal is underwhelming but this does not relieve the building itself of any folly. Shocker, no one here has suggested that color belongs everywhere or that it is a Panacea for all of Toronto's urban ills. I therefore must ask: beyond Diamond's tired defense of this obviously bland and uninteresting building, namely "I like architecture which fits in," what is there to like here? Furthermore, is there even something here which one to attach oneself to?

I much prefer Alsop's mantra that above all: "architecture should be fun." It should not try to recede into the shadows or make halfhearted attempts at 'fitting in.' This does not mean that all of Diamond's buildings are bad or bland and Alsops are perfect. I for example, love the Four Season's Center and defend it whenever I can. To me, its 'Renzo-lite' structuralism and calming material use are a refined and much-appreciated addition to the city.

Whether you like Alsop/OCAD or not, you still have to agree that architecture should be fun. Diamond's Corus building however, is not.

At least they got one thing right here - the heavy use of gray materials surely matches Diamond's gray design...
 
Last edited:
/\ The only problem that I can see is that radio stations like The Edge pride themselves on their 'street-level studios' which allow people to peer in at broadcasts. 107 does the same thing in the base of the Hard Rock on Dundas Square.
 
Alsop's OCAD is 'fun' because it's an art school. If he designed a Holocaust Museum one would hope that it wouldn't be 'fun'. He isn't designing Corus, Diamond is, and in that light it is worth noting that he isn't chirpily doctrinaire either - he admires Mies, and argues that both Prince Charles and Quinlan Terry have a right to influence the design of buildings.

Here's an interview he gave to Lynn Barber for the Observer in April 2007:

http://www.guardian.co.uk/artanddesign/2007/apr/08/architecture
 
Urban Shocker said:
Alsop's OCAD is 'fun' because it's an art school. If he designed a Holocaust Museum one would hope that it wouldn't be 'fun'. He isn't designing Corus, Diamond is, and in that light it is worth noting that he isn't chirpily doctrinaire either - he admires Mies, and argues that both Prince Charles and Quinlan Terry have a right to influence the design of buildings.

Here's an interview he gave to Lynn Barber for the Observer in April 2007:

http://www.guardian.co.uk/artanddesign/2007/apr/08/architecture
Click to expand...

None of what you've said contradicts Alsop's 'fun' dictum. Furthermore, simply stating that because Jack is blowing this building, one cannot muse on other architects' potential for the site is ridiculous. ShonTron really hit the nail on the head by stating that this is an entertainment building and therefore has every right to look as 'fun' as OCAD.

I'm sure few UT members wouldn't prefer Alsop's Filmport building here over what is currently being constructed.
 
Last edited:
While I have a hard time really enjoying Diamond as an architect, there is truth in the argument that some of his buildings are good architecture, if anything for their fundamentals. Yet, he like most Toronto architects refuse to use any colour to define their projects, which seems to me by the comments on this board, as being tacky, or ill-conceived and if anything amateurish.

p5
 
p5connex said:
While I have a hard time really enjoying Diamond as an architect, there is truth in the argument that some of his buildings are good architecture, if anything for their fundamentals. Yet, he like most Toronto architects refuse to use any colour to define their projects, which seems to me by the comments on this board, as being tacky, or ill-conceived and if anything amateurish.

p5
Click to expand...

So are you for, or against more colour? That was somewhat unclear. Would more colour be amateurish, or is the current work amateurish for not knowing how to tastefully diversify the palette?
 
ProjectEnd said:
/\ The only problem that I can see is that radio stations like The Edge pride themselves on their 'street-level studios' which allow people to peer in at broadcasts. 107 does the same thing in the base of the Hard Rock on Dundas Square.
Click to expand...

Well eventually this area will be much different, but as of right now it is definitely not the kind of place they fit into.
The reason I asked, is because when bands come to the stations, that outdoor concert stage would have been perfect.
 
You must log in or register to post here.

Back
Top