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

Although from my posts it might seem as though I've wanted to see this building washed into Lake Ontario (or at least be airlifted to some nearby college), I have to say that as a stand-alone object it's turning out to be as duly sleek and efficient as a good sales pitch. All that fine tailoring (and our tax dollars) seem to be paying off to create a very good looking regulation Diamond and Schmitt office building.

As for context - where live/work is concerned, we'll be getting KPMB's compact George Brown campus around it. So it should fit right in, anchoring a few square blocks of terribly tasteful, thoroughly functional utilitarian scholastic usefulness. An area with all the slight luxuries intact, in a neat, clean, perfectly fine neo-modern enclave of class and classes, schedules and lessons.

That's not a complaint, exactly. Still, I'm wondering if I should go wander around it with an ice cream cone, bathing cap, water wings and a speedo to check out the details when it's all done.
 
Last edited:
Ah, the Chicago Institute of Arts Modern Wing. Saw them putting the finishing touches on that two weeks ago. Looks nice from the outside and will integrate really well with Millennium Park.
 
After touring the Universite Paris Diderot last fall, I realize that even before we've started, most of this areas' potential has been squandered.

Whereas in Paris, firms were selected on the basis that their work differed, here, we seem to be selecting architects because they offer us varying shades of grey. This is not a criticism of Corus' cladding (that has been dredged already), but of the larger precinct plan itself. Don't get me wrong. I love Brucy KMPB as much as the next UTite, but when two firms with such similar portfolios are selected to create neighboring buildings, the potential for conversation between them becomes somewhat muted.
 
16 May 2009 photo update

Grey-on-grey...hey, it looks okay, if rather conservative:

dsc01719d.jpg
 
I find the 'conversation' between the TD Centre and Commerce Court West, which is based on what the buildings have in common ( size and proportion ) enlivened by what differentiates them ( placement, texture, colour ) to be more engaging than, say, the 'conversation' between FCP and Scotia Plaza - where I'm still searching for common ground. And, frankly, ( Frankly? ) the much anticipated 'conversation' between OCAD and the AGO's titanium box sounds to these ears more like two monologues - lively though they be. I've high hopes that KPMB's George Brown campus - in relation to Corus and Pier 27 - will be more like what we're seeing with the new Regent Park, or Freedville, or their National Ballet School - where fitting in and expanding a context is the basis for happy talk.
 
Urban Shocker said:
I find the 'conversation' between the TD Centre and Commerce Court West, which is based on what the buildings have in common ( size and proportion ) enlivened by what differentiates them ( placement, texture, colour ) to be more engaging than, say, the 'conversation' between FCP and Scotia Plaza - where I'm still searching for common ground. And, frankly, ( Frankly? ) the much anticipated 'conversation' between OCAD and the AGO's titanium box sounds to these ears more like two monologues - lively though they be. I've high hopes that KPMB's George Brown campus - in relation to Corus and Pier 27 - will be more like what we're seeing with the new Regent Park, or Freedville, or their National Ballet School - where fitting in and expanding a context is the basis for happy talk.
Click to expand...

Fair enough, but each example you note already has neighboring structures within which the new building was inserted. Here, besides the water itself, there is no context - it is up to us to create one. I suggested Paris Diderot because like our own waterfront strip, they started anew, regenerating a former industrial district and rail yard into a lively and engaging campus. Each building contains different elements which inform one another and the resulting whole is that much stronger because of this dialogue.

For all his talk about contextualism and 'fitting in,' Jack's works often seem insular, with an eye towards the interior. Buildings such as the Downtown YMCA (which I wandered through yesterday) contain an excellent mix of space, light and surprise, while retaining the functionality one would expect from a rec center. The exterior however, never ceases to disappoint - the alternating bands of brick don't continue to the corners, there are large expanses of bland, windowless, wall and the parkette around the back seems like a sad afterthought.

I am not anti-Jack by any stretch - the Four Seasons Center always delights my tired, morning-eyes when I emerge from the Osgoode Station and the Hudson is one of the better high-rise structures in recent memory. I question however, his ability to create whole districts since his strength lies in creating great, individual works of distinction. For further evidence, just have a look at his (loosing) plan for this precinct in which he emphasizes a uniform street grid (not necessarily a bad thing, just sort of unimaginative), uniform roof lines and uniform beige brick...the whole thing still reminds me of the khaki section at Gap.
 
ProjectEnd said:
... just have a look at his (loosing) plan for this precinct in which he emphasizes a uniform street grid (not necessarily a bad thing, just sort of unimaginative)...
Click to expand...

What's wrong with a uniform street grid? I wish all new roads in the city would form a grid. Destroying a street grid (a la Second Line West or Creditview Rd in MississaugA) upsets me, whereas reinvigorating the street gred (a la Dufferin Jog Eliminiation or Ossington extension into the former asylum lands in Toronto) makes me happy. Just have always preferred straight lines on a map I guess.
 
Obviously when the area in question is a serving space, it demands an efficient grid pattern. Manhattan is the best example of how a uniform grid makes wayfinding and pedestrian/vehicular access a breeze. Our waterfront however, is a served space - one that is a destination rather than a route. In that context, I think it wouldn't hurt to get a little inventive. This does not mean that I advocate suburban-style cul-de-sacs and other meandering nonsense, but merely that off kilter roads can create interesting plots of land upon which new structures may rise. Think Foster's Willis Faber Dumas headquarters in Ipswitch - the sinuous line of that building follows the road which curves beside it...sexy.
 
The concept behind Diamond's plan for East Bayfront was different though - more residential buildings with enclosed courts, some colonnades, and less open space with Pavlovian "sexy curves" structures waiting to be admired. And less retail - maybe not such a bad idea considering the vacancy rates on the Quay. So the form of his design was bound to be less like a Winners designer label remainder bin and more like a Gap khaki section.
 
Urban Shocker said:
The concept behind Diamond's plan for East Bayfront was different though - more residential buildings with enclosed courts, some colonnades, and less open space with Pavlovian "sexy curves" structures waiting to be admired. And less retail - maybe not such a bad idea considering the vacancy rates on the Quay. So the form of his design was bound to be less like a Winners designer label remainder bin and more like a Gap khaki section.
Click to expand...

Flippant fashion faux-pas' aside, why must Jack's 'different concept' still beat us over the head with the same dull structures? Though a change in concept shouldn't necessarily imply a new design each time, if he's starting anew (yeah right...), why not create something worth looking at? at the end of the 90's, Ada Louise wrote a beautiful retrospective about what architects may or may not have learned in that decade. In it she writes: "What counts more than style is whether architecture improves our experience of the built world; whether it makes us wonder why we never noticed places in quite this way before." There's much in that loaded sentence to satisfy both of our hungry architectural appetites, but while she notes (in a very Diamondesque way) that style is not an end goal, she is careful to explain that whatever the resulting structure is, it should nourish onlookers in ways they never imagined possible. With all Diamond's talk of receding buildings and fabric buildings and invisible architecture I question whether he is creating anything worth looking at. As I mentioned before, while the Metro YMCA is fantastic on the inside, it is a bit of a Palin-in-lipstick on the outside - a brute trying to hide that she is, in fact, a brute.
 
I think what Diamond went for with his plan was more in keeping with the scale and variety of the back street Venetian canals, with their network of courts and walkways, than with the Big Hair effect of an ostentatious Grand Canal.

http://www.readingt.readingcities.com/index.php/toronto/comments/mistake_by_the_lake/

That said, of course, when the galley slaves row my golden Doge's bucentaure down the Don River and across the inner harbour in a few years time, I'll have a lovely view of the grand palazzi of Corus, and Pier 27, and George Brown from my raised throne, as we pull along the shore and head towards the Western Gap in all our glory.
 
Let's take a look at this article again in 5 Years

Urban Shocker said:
I think what Diamond went for with his plan was more in keeping with the scale and variety of the back street Venetian canals, with their network of courts and walkways, than with the Big Hair effect of an ostentatious Grand Canal.

http://www.readingt.readingcities.com/index.php/toronto/comments/mistake_by_the_lake/
Click to expand...

I clicked on the article link noted above. It will be very useful to read it again, say in 5 years, when (and if) there is any more development on the East Bayfront.
 
Personally, I feel this building is an incredible disappointment, especially given the lack of silver flubber-like jellybeans. But my remarks are premature, no doubt.

The building has not even finished yet. Moreover, I truly believe every building is defined by its context, no matter how beautiful it may be. And that can only come with time. We will see how this building, and its surroundings, develop over the years.

Ask me again on this subject in five years.
 
You must log in or register to post here.

Back
Top