Toronto Velocity at the Square | 122.52m | 40s | HNR | P + S / IBI

TonyV has already identified your "D&S hatefest parade" and running a history on your posts makes your bias abundantly clear.
 
Hey don't get me wrong... I don't want you to lose your job or your consulting contract or whatever it is with D + S... I have no desire to see you fail.

But it's important to point a finger at star-turns, even on an internet forum.

Looking forward to your first positive post (with renderings?).
 
Urban Shocker said:
ProjectEnd: What exactly are the "lofty ambitions" of Dundas Square that you claim this building is supposed to play a supporting role in? I think caltrane hits the nail on the head with his most recent post on that thread when he says about the Square, "yay!! ..lots of pretty lights." Given the design of the tower, I think it actually asserts itself rather sensibly in the face of the massive visual clutter that surrounds and defines the Square.
Click to expand...

While the building does not officially have a role in the square, surely a structure which looms over it should be thought of as part of it, no? The Diamond building is great but it also exemplifies how insulated architecture can be. Blank space, uneasy angles, PIP concrete and small, contemplative details are all things which architects and architecture enthusiasts love, but are the same factors which can drive the unknowing public away. I am in no way arguing that architects are wiser than the average person, but that we have a certain conception of space and composition; one which is often at odds with the general public. When formal aesthetics and public approval come together in a project (the Gardiner comes to mind), everybody wins. I fear however that Shocker may be relying too much on his textbook than a realistic conception of how this structure would change Dundas Square. Renders are nice, reality usually isn't.

Shocker defends Diamond's tower because it's a 'sensible assertion' into the urban fabric yet still argues that Dundas Square lacks 'ambition' and even questions my use of that term. While Cal's post does sum up the tacky mess which DS has become, when we speak of ambition, its not about what exists, but what potentially could exist. Can we not agree that DS is a misguided attempt, but one which will improve over time and eventually become the symbol of 'Casual, Cultural Toronto' which the 1998 brochures assured us it would be?
 
I think the Square itself is lovely and has achieved its potential from the point of view of how well it is used. Right from the get-go the average hoser understood it, got it, and used the place as casual unprogrammed space. With the fountains, the seats, the tables with umbrellas, the stage, it is a very well used place for much of the year. People sit, chat, eat their lunch, play with their kids, play card games at the tables etc. And the City tweaked the Square's business plan fairly early on, once they understood that people were getting annoyed by having this supposedly public space put out of bounds by having it fenced off for private and corporate events more often than it should be. The surrounding advertising is gruesome but I have always accepted that if horror vacui belongs anywhere in Toronto it is here, and the Square is clearly following that star wherever it will lead.

The limestone thing, I dunno. Are there many 45 storey residences in town clad in it, or that really need to be clad in it? Why does this one? Will limestone save the planet? Will it make the Square work better? Will it keep the advertising that's creeping over everything at bay? I've always thought of limestone as a rather preciously used material - I assume that the opera house designers avoided using because of the pretentious status-driven message it gives off, and opted for proletarian brick partly for that reason. It doesn't look any better than precast concrete after a rainstorm either. I think we can get a little too carried away with this "quality finishes" stuff at times ...
 
19 & 21 Dundas Square

Not sure it this has already been posted eleswhere.

From yesterday's Toronto Star:

Notice of Application

Amend Zoning By-Law to permit a 35-storey mixed used building with commerical on the first five floors and 245 residential units above, including demolition of one and retention of two historically listed buildings and demolition of two-storey commerical building.

19 and 21 Dundas Square, 252-258 Victoria Street
Southwest corner of Dundas Square and Victoria Street

Louroz
 
Would this be the infamous 'blank-space' development of Urban Shocker fame? The one overlooking the square from the south?
 
Guessing it's this site (runs from Victoria to Yonge behind HNR). Not sure if this is the chosen design.
hnr.jpg
 
alklay said:
Adornment? I want less blank precast. Replace it with windows or balconies or something creative (lord forbid an architect should have to use creative imagination every so often).
Click to expand...

Silly alklay. Creativity comes from slavishly imitating the a handful of architectural works from sixty years ago.l
 
Imagine somthing like Trump Chicago right there. Major Salivation.. K I'm dreaming but there's no reason why this shouldn't be zoned for 180+ metres when they've proposed/approved Hullmark Center in NYCC!
 
You must log in or register to post here.

Back
Top