New Toronto condos are ugly

[enrigue8]

I just want to show you that our architecture lack charm and beauty .
But there are some exception.

[WhipperSnapper]

Almost had me convinced.

Does make me curious what you perceive as beautiful. I don't need a list of award winning buildings that every dullard understands to be exceptional. Something tells me you're one to find aA's approach ugly. I'm not implying you need to like aA but, finding their style ugly is disrespectful to the quality they manage to put up time and time again.

[north 42]

Originally Posted by enrigue8

I just want to show you that our architecture lack charm and beauty .
But there are some exception.

You start a thread to say this? Pathetic

[enrigue8]

It not just the architecture that is horrible in Toronto.With the new condos there is no lifestyle at all and they give nothing to the citizens.It make the city uglier and very depressing.I will show you folks ,3 project in the world that where every one have a place. Every day, i see online other project around the world that crush Toronto and the rest of Canada and that make me so angry.
They have a pretty architecture,give vibrancy to the city and give pride to all citizens.I would like to see a better city for all citizens. Toronto is economic capital of Canada and should be pretty for its citizens and tourists. For the moment ,Toronto is like a third world city .

1-Miami world center(Miami)





Oceanwide Plaza(Los Angeles)





Skyland(Istanbul)

[WhipperSnapper]

NO THANKS! Over scaled tacky architecture with crass consumerism urban form. It's abundantly clear you don't know good architecture or what creates vibrant streets at all. Thanks. You finding Toronto ugly only reinforces that the boom is still heading in the right direction.

[Ramako]

enrigue8 - everyone's entitled to their own opinion, but after seeing you start this same thread about a half dozen times across multiple websites, and seeing numerous examples of what you consider to be good designs, I think your taste in architecture is really bad.

[enrigue8]

Originally Posted by Ramako

enrigue8 - everyone's entitled to their own opinion, but after seeing you start this same thread about a half dozen times across multiple websites, and seeing numerous examples of what you consider to be good designs, I think your taste in architecture is really bad.

You know, beauty is subjective.These project bring vibrancy and life to a city,a this is what is lacking in Toronto.Honestly the vast majority of condos doesn t have style and elegance at all and worst they bring nothing to the citizens.
This is why our country will never progress and stay always behind other countries.
Thank you.

[enrigue8]

Originally Posted by Ramako

enrigue8 - everyone's entitled to their own opinion, but after seeing you start this same thread about a half dozen times across multiple websites, and seeing numerous examples of what you consider to be good designs, I think your taste in architecture is really bad.

You know, beauty is subjective.These project bring vibrancy and life to a city,a this is what is lacking in Toronto.This is why our country will never progress and stay always behind other countries.
I will show the some of new condos tower on the market and i hope you will see the difference.







Thank you.

[BobLoblawsLawBlog]

My ratings
Clover - Good
Vita - Good
Rodeo - Good
81 - Meh
On the Park - Good
Entertainment - Building on left is extremely hideous.
401 King - Could do better facadism, overall okay.
Block 22 - Looks cheap and highlighter colours are so 2000's
Alter Condos - Weird irregular block windows
Church - Good
E Condos - Only thing bad is the name
88 Queen Street - If the building was repositioned to not look like a Jenga disaster it would be okay

[GeneralLeeTPHLS]

This thread is likely one of the most futile, and disappointing things I've come across on this website. To claim Toronto is "ugly" and to give vague and unrealistic justification for your opinion doesn't help anyone. Furthermore, providing examples that are from well known cities which generally attract more architects and harbour more people and a warmer climate just shows that you made little effort in finding these examples. Also, these developments don't really show much, except at street interaction. I can tell you right now, this kind of behaviour won't be held lightly by anyone if this is continued.

[333609543]

Originally Posted by WhipperSnapper

Almost had me convinced.

Does make me curious what you perceive as beautiful. I don't need a list of award winning buildings that every dullard understands to be exceptional. Something tells me you're one to find aA's approach ugly. I'm not implying you need to like aA but, finding their style ugly is disrespectful to the quality they manage to put up time and time again.

What exactly is 'aA' style? Just never heard of the term.

And while not every condo is 'absolutely fascinating' and 'exceptional', most of the towers aren't "ugly" either. You also fail to provide evidence other than condo renderings. Which doesn't really grasp what the atmosphere or vibrancy will actually be. You also have to remember that these are just homes for people; not some super tall (future) signature part of the skyline.

This response is poor mostly because I am not on my laptop at the moment and I have not really thought much of this through too much.

[WhipperSnapper]

Originally Posted by enrigue8

You know, beauty is subjective.These project bring vibrancy and life to a city,a this is what is lacking in Toronto.This is why our country will never progress and stay always behind other countries.
I will show the some of new condos tower on the market and i hope you will see the difference.



Thank you.

aA = architectsAlliance; a very active, very capable firm inspired by early modernist design.

A wide variety from good to even ugly. I don't think anyone that has studied architecture and/or urban planning would put these collectively behind the Miami, Los Angeles or, Istanbul developments. Beauty is subjective. Good urban design and architecture is not. A convoluted tower design or two on a LED laddened mall is just depressing. What so great about two legs and penis in a suburban setting?

[enrigue8]

I started this thread for one reason.
I just want to make people aware that we can have a better architecture.
We torontonians, deserve a good and respectable architecture.Sometime we can do something extraordinary in a special place like the waterfront.
I advocate for a change here. Just build the same repetitive building style everywhere in the city is making our city worse and uninspired.
A good architecture inspire,motivate and make citizens pride of their cities.
A beautiful city make everyone happy and pride.This is why diversity is important.
If everything look similar,it just boring and sad.
Architecture is a quick way to judge a civilization. We don t have the Eiffel tower,the Egyptian pyramids,the forbidden city in China or the Opera of Sydney,but we can compensate with a good modern architecture.
We have the CN tower, but it look very old now.
I don t ask we look like Dubai or every building look exceptional ,but there is room for improvement.
Some project like 1 Yonge ,Mirvish Gehry or 2 Carlton are a very good start.
But their future is not sure,because a real estate crash can occur.
And big development should bring more to citizens.I said that because 99% of time condos tower does not bring lifestyle at all to the city.I would like more parcs, more fountains and more amenities for all citizens.
Toronto is not very good in this field too.
Every big city do it well.
New York city,Los Angeles ,Chicago,Miami or San Francisco do it very well. Why not Toronto ?
I agree that every person has it own opinion but there is a undeniable truth here folks.
If someone refuse to see that truth,they dislike Toronto and lack pride for it.

[Ramako]

The thing you seem to keep missing, is that most people here (and other forums where you've posted the exact same topic) seem to disagree with your definition of "good architecture".

[shappy]

I don't think it's an architecture thing, but more of a public realm thing. The city is getting better and overall it's really not that bad but it's still on the somewhat shittier end of the scale IMO.

[WhipperSnapper]

For sure we have been lackadaisical with our public realm in the past and it shows now. Progress in the 5 years is quite compelling and will be completely overshadowed by the progress made in the next 5 years.

The good thing is most new developments do a decent job of enriching the public realm instead of reinventing it and ultimately destroying it. See Miami.

[WhipperSnapper]

Originally Posted by enrigue8

I started this thread for one reason.
I just want to make people aware that we can have a better architecture.
We torontonians, deserve a good and respectable architecture.Sometime we can do something extraordinary in a special place like the waterfront.
I advocate for a change here. Just build the same repetitive building style everywhere in the city is making our city worse and uninspired.
A good architecture inspire,motivate and make citizens pride of their cities.
A beautiful city make everyone happy and pride.This is why diversity is important.
If everything look similar,it just boring and sad.
Architecture is a quick way to judge a civilization. We don t have the Eiffel tower,the Egyptian pyramids,the forbidden city in China or the Opera of Sydney,but we can compensate with a good modern architecture.
We have the CN tower, but it look very old now.
I don t ask we look like Dubai or every building look exceptional ,but there is room for improvement.
Some project like 1 Yonge ,Mirvish Gehry or 2 Carlton are a very good start.
But their future is not sure,because a real estate crash can occur.
And big development should bring more to citizens.I said that because 99% of time condos tower does not bring lifestyle at all to the city.I would like more parcs, more fountains and more amenities for all citizens.
Toronto is not very good in this field too.
Every big city do it well.
New York city,Los Angeles ,Chicago,Miami or San Francisco do it very well. Why not Toronto ?
I agree that every person has it own opinion but there is a undeniable truth here folks.
If someone refuse to see that truth,they dislike Toronto and lack pride for it.

I understand and appreciate your desire for better and better designs and built form. That said, these trendy, grandiose gesture in both architecture and urban form you swoon over rarely stand up to the classic forms beyond the original trend.

There's some amazing curvy, angular, gravity defining architecture out there however, every cover of architect's magazine inspires hundreds of architects that are simply incapable of reproducing near that quality. You can't seem to delineate one from another. Good, bad or ugly doesn't factor in with you. You judge solely on a curve, an acute angle, a pole, etc.

The undeniable truth is that your own tastes need a whole lot of study before you should be making audacious claims like Toronto is ugly.


Toronto unfortunately has fallen into the trap when it come to landscape design for many of the new or rejuvenated parks. The end result is we have a bunch of pretty parks that aren't very practical to use.

[enrigue8]

Originally Posted by WhipperSnapper

I understand and appreciate your desire for better and better designs and built form. That said, these trendy, grandiose gesture in both architecture and urban form you swoon over rarely stand up to the classic forms beyond the original trend.

There's some amazing curvy, angular, gravity defining architecture out there however, every cover of architect's magazine inspires hundreds of architects that are simply incapable of reproducing near that quality. You can't seem to delineate one from another. Good, bad or ugly doesn't factor in with you. You judge solely on a curve, an acute angle, a pole, etc.

The undeniable truth is that your own tastes need a whole lot of study before you should be making audacious claims like Toronto is ugly.


Toronto unfortunately has fallen into the trap when it come to landscape

design for many of the new or rejuvenated parks. The end result is we have a bunch of pretty parks that aren't very practical to use.

You right about park.I know that my taste does not represent every one.
But people who travel and see different thing in the world,would agree with me.Toronto has many thing to improve to be among the prettiest cities in the world.A city must always be improved for its citizens.Architecture reflect it population. When i said Toronto is ugly,do you know how ugly is yonge street except the district of dundas square .Buildings here must be renovated.The only modern and pretty district is the Waterfront.The rest is old and ugly.
You can see that in picture.

The repetitive and ugly architecture

[IMG]http://urbantoronto.ca/sites/default...cache/display-
default/images/articles/2016/05/21054/21054-72238.jpg[/IMG]










Yonge street









Bloor street




The beautiful waterfront







I hope you can see that the waterfront should inspire the rest of the city.

[koops65]

You seem to have zero interest in any structure older than 10-15 years... also, what you call ugly and repetitive, I find to be a lovely mix of old and new, ugly and pretty, simple and brutal... exactly what you might find in any city a few centuries old... I wouldn't want the whole thing to be new and modern and shiny... a city needs some grit here and there.

[905er]

Toronto has several nice towers.. I wouldn't say it's a pretty city, but is most definitely is not an ugly city either. Opinions are all subjective, but I agree that the Miami proposals that have been suggested here as "more ideal" options are garish and tacky and most certainly wouldn't fit in to the style in Toronto.