News   Dec 13, 2024
 1.4K     0 
News   Dec 13, 2024
 998     0 
News   Dec 13, 2024
 2.2K     2 

Yonge-Dundas Square/Sankofa Square (Brown + Storey Architects)

Comparing a modern urban square with no history to centuries old European squares as an example of how it should be done is a little silly. We really need to be looking at modern 20th/21st century examples, I suggested one a couple of pages back.
I don't think that's necessarily the case. A lot of those medieval squares have been redesigned in recent decades and, like I said before, how they look is a result of relatively recent decisions. Those squares can be looked at as examples of public squares done right. Going back to the example of Dam Square in Amsterdam, it has a large centrepiece that acts as an informal gathering point year round. Most of the surrounding streets are permeable to pedestrians and the square blends seamlessly into the cityscape on all sides. No need for artificial canopies for enclosure. These features are shared with nearly all of the world's great squares and can and should be part of the design of squares developed more recently. Sure it wouldn't be the same atmosphere as Dam Square, but it wouldn't have to. The important thing is to get the fundamentals right.

That's not even getting into the advertising structures that are being built in Dundas Square instead of simply surrounding it. Those decisions have nothing to do with the age of the city or square.

Having the edgiest and the most snazzy architecture is fun and lovely and I would love to see more in Toronto but it doesn't make any one 'Happier'
It's not about having the edgiest and snazziest architecture. It's about having better standards for how streetscapes and the public realm should look. A higher "bare minimum" standard for aesthetics. We're much worse than average in that respect, even if you don't look at Europe. But I think it's important to look at Europe because it gives us an example of what's possible.
 
Christ, why???

Yet again, a discussion thread about public space is overwhelmed by a debate how Toronto is awful/great versus everywhere else. This is not a debate that can be resolved as it is inevitably based on the anecdotal experiences and subjective preferences of the participants. More importantly, it always takes us way off topic, drowns out any discussion of the actual topic of the thread, and forces everyone else to plow through threads as to why X prefers city Y over city Z and where X has lived or visited. Nobody cares where X has lived or visited.

I know that comparables in other cities are relevant, and some very interesting points have been made here, but could we stick to comparisons directly related to Yonge Dundas Square, and try to stay away from the more general, pointless debate of "Toronto sucks" versus "Toronto is great". There are other threads for that discussion. Thanks.
 
As long as Toronto's frontier town streetscapes are considered acceptable people are going to keep complaining about them. And that issue is related to the design of Dundas Square and other public spaces around the city.
 
By me today:

wAb4VoR.png
 
Yes, hello, unabashed Toronto booster who chose to move from NYC to London to Toronto here, reporting for duty.

I moved from London to Toronto too and don't regret it one little bit. Dundas Square? It could have been executed better but overall I like that spot quite a lot. The latest addition is awful but I doubt it will be there a long time. Over time Dundas Square will evolve/improve so I'm not too concerned.
 
Last edited:
I moved from London to Toronto too and don't regret it one little bit. Dundas Square? It could have been executed better but overall I like that spot quite a lot. The latest addition is awful but I doubt it will be there a long time. Over time Dundas Square will evolve/improve so I'm not too concerned.
It only seems to get worse over time...

Still a long way to go.
 
I saw this in person and it is much better in real life, if only for the reason the signs are quite high. They are so high that if you are near the new sign, they are not at eye level....which I consider an improvement over the old sign (which was a fugly, cheap and outdated screen, practically at eye level, which blocked ones view of the square from across the road). Dare I say it, but this new sign is less intrusive than the old sign and configuration it replaces.
 
The one thing they needed to fix — the disgusting stage canopy that looks straight out of a shipping yard — is one of the few things that they're not touching. Of course.

I do appreciate the new lighting under the canopy. As expected, the new media tower's columns will indeed be clad. The columns under the main canopy also appear to be getting some sort of treatment. They're currently bare concrete.

Screen Shot 2018-03-27 at 1.23.18 AM.png
 

Attachments

  • Screen Shot 2018-03-27 at 1.23.18 AM.png
    Screen Shot 2018-03-27 at 1.23.18 AM.png
    1.4 MB · Views: 653
It only seems to get worse over time...

Still a long way to go.

That seems to be how Toronto does things. The majority of projects aren't very nice but over time the good stuff is kept and the rest gets improved or redeveloped. Often Toronto needs 3 or 4 cracks at the same site before it gets it right. It might take 30-40 years but it will happen.

It's why I no longer get too upset about buildings like AURA. We might have to wait 20-30 years before the windows start failing but then we'll get another crack at better quality. The podium and underground section will surely be re-done too.
 

Back
Top