junctionist
Senior Member
People like novelty. As long as there's nothing offensive about it, people will enjoy seeing it 100 years from now.
I'm so torn whether building a huge modern glass building over a small old brick building actually adds any architectural value to the city beyond the fact that at least the old building wasn't torn down.
Are these just Frankenstein structures? 100 years from now will they just be looked at as oddities?
No. I see it as a very context-driven design response, and it is defining Toronto's built form. It's a context that is defined by a) the critical need for more density in a booming city and b) the desire to preserve the pre-existing fabric of what is largely low density heritage built form.
In fact, this is what will separate Toronto from other cities, more so than icons or starchitecture per se which can be found pretty much anywhere these days. Designing from context is what will make Toronto feel like Toronto (unlike City Place for example)... and in this case the unique experience of Toronto's urban realm will be that of a newer, taller, and higher density city rising from the foundations of an older one. The coexistence will be the new Toronto.
This is why M/G feels so perfect, or 5ive, or the Massey Tower, or the Distillery District...
This is the kind of well written, positive and optimistic response that keeps me coming back to this forum. Thank you.