[caltrane74]

More

http://farm4.static.flickr.com/3071/2520304272_b05b71de32_o.jpg

alex virt on www.flickr.com

[caltrane74]

From:http://wvs.topleftpixel.com/

http://wvs.topleftpixel.com/photos/2008/07/yonge-dundas_scramble_01.jpg

from a post at urbantoronto.

[J. Will]

The food court on Level 3 kicks ass. Several restaurants I've not seen in any other food court.

People criticizing this project who have never even visited it themselves are a joke.

[yyzer]

found this unusual pic of TorontoLife Square (formerly Metropolis) on flickr, photo by bensonkua...

http://farm4.static.flickr.com/3222/2832418000_315a31f933_b.jpg

[alex1]

The food court on Level 3 kicks ass. Several restaurants I've not seen in any other food court.

People criticizing this project who have never even visited it themselves are a joke.

dissention through intimidation is a joke.

this is exactly the type of project that can be criticized without actually having to be there. The very essence of its glitz component automatically renders certain details moot.

But beyond that, this project has been hyper-rationalized from a design perspective. As much as I despise Times Sq., at least it has grown organically into what it is today. In other words, schlock got built unnaturally onto schlock. There's some poetry exercised in that example even before pixels ever did their job.

[J. Will]

dissention through intimidation is a joke.

this is exactly the type of project that can be criticized without actually having to be there.

One could criticize it without having been there, but that would be ignorant and foolish. I've been there many times already, and IN PERSON it is a fantastic development visually, as well as in terms of amenities and urban design. I've never before seen in another downtown the style of balconies found in the fourth floor restaurants for example. And with about nine retail levels, it's probably the tallest (yet very compact mall) on the continent.

BTW, Dundas Square has also evolved into what it is today. This development isn't the whole square, it's just one building. Dundas Square has slowly evolved into what it is today over many years. This one building, pre-planned to have "schlocky", colourful advertising is no different than many of the recent buildings in Times Square. 11 Times Square for example, will have a similar look and feel, one which was determined long before it ever broke ground.

[alex1]

One could criticize it without having been there, but that would be ignorant and foolish. I've been there many times already, and IN PERSON it is a fantastic development visually, as well as in terms of amenities and urban design. I've never before seen in another downtown the style of balconies found in the fourth floor restaurants for example. And with about nine retail levels, it's probably the tallest (yet very compact mall) on the continent.

BTW, Dundas Square has also evolved into what it is today. This development isn't the whole square, it's just one building. Dundas Square has slowly evolved into what it is today over many years. This one building, pre-planned to have "schlocky", colourful advertising is no different than many of the recent buildings in Times Square. 11 Times Square for example, will have a similar look and feel, one which was determined long before it ever broke ground.

i have been to dundas square. unfortunately.

I'm just saying, this really is a project that can be chided without having visited. Then again, those who love pixels flashing the latest goods and events can fall in love. Its the consumerists red light district of today. Then again (again), it's a hyper rational system, where's the fun/interest?

glitz can be good sometimes. That pixel facade building in Beijing is pretty amazing for example. That particular system is functional on a sustainable level and works within the parameters that the sun gives it from day to day.


the "recent" buildings in Times Sq. are not generally anything like this structure. But yeah, they're real bad for the most part.

[J. Will]

the "recent" buildings in Times Sq. are not generally anything like this structure. But yeah, they're real bad for the most part.

Sure they are. Look at 11 Times Square (u/c) for instance. It will have big, garish, colourful signage from the day it opens. It will not be built upon "unnaturally over time". The same is true of other buildings from the last 10 years, like 4 Times Square. The only difference is TLS has more signage - going up to 100+ feet. And TLS has far more retail and far less office than buildings like 11 TS. In terms of being planned in advance to have lots of colourful, tacky signage (which is what you were addressing), there really is no difference.

[alex1]

Sure they are. Look at 11 Times Square (u/c) for instance. It will have big, garish, colourful signage from the day it opens. It will not be built upon "unnaturally over time". The same is true of other buildings from the last 10 years, like 4 Times Square. The only difference is TLS has more signage - going up to 100+ feet. And TLS has far more retail and far less office than buildings like 11 TS. In terms of being planned in advance to have lots of colourful, tacky signage (which is what you were addressing), there really is no difference.

well sure, the outsides function somewhat equally for some of the newer things. Obviously, the project in Toronto looked at Times Sq. and other such districts around the globe to become what it became.

However, projects like 4 Times Sq. can't completely hide behind the facade of consumerism like this project can. The NY structure has to actually live outside that world for the most part since it's office space first and foremost. 4 Times Sq. also contains a strong link to sustainable principals. In fact it does a pretty good job of doing so.

but I regress. It's all crap. You might be technically right in saying that "there really is no difference" except I think there is. NY has the original type schlock that's at least interesting in its intrusiveness and lack of concern for those behind the signs. In other words, Times Sq. tells me a story that's quite interesting, regardless if I don't like it.

[J. Will]

The NY structure has to actually live outside that world for the most part since it's office space first and foremost.

And TLS has to live outside that world because it's retail/restaurant/entertainment space first and foremost. It's not just some big wall with ads. It's a 500,000 square foot retail mall.

[alex1]

And TLS has to live outside that world because it's retail/restaurant/entertainment space first and foremost. It's not just some big wall with ads. It's a 500,000 square foot retail mall.

that's obvious nor are you getting what I'm saying. Not that I expect you to agree with me nor is that my aim.

TLS is a squat building that allows the most of the edifice to become littered with digital or advertising devices. in that realm, the outside structure is more about consumerism and less about architectural details.

How the advertising components get plastered up is amazingly stolid in this project. It's a weak and hyper-rationalized system which is strange when designing in this kind of world. They should have pushed the idea of chaos, but instead its a boring mish-mesh in the world of vapid attention seeking.

[J. Will]

TLS is a squat building that allows the most of the edifice to become littered with digital or advertising devices.

No, only most of the south side is plastered with that stuff. The west side only has signs for the stores like any other building would, and the north and east sides don't have any of that at all. You seem to be judging this development entirely on shots showing the south exterior of the building, and not the other sides, nor more importantly the interior.

[alex1]

No, only most of the south side is plastered with that stuff. The west side only has signs for the stores like any other building would, and the north and east sides don't have any of that at all. You seem to be judging this development entirely on shots showing the south exterior of the building, and not the other sides, nor more importantly the interior.

the entire design structure of this building is slanted towards its "glitz" facade. And as such the whole building falls prey to it.

most of these structures, 4 times sq. as you've alluded to walks this line. It screams on the sides it needs to and is more somber on the other sides.

I don't judge by "pictures", and I definitely don't judge without viewing the architectural whole.

[J. Will]

I don't judge by "pictures"

If you visited it yourself then, how are you judging it if not by pictures? I'm judging it based on personal experience, having been there many times already.

[alex1]

If you visited it yourself then, how are you judging it if not by pictures? I'm judging it based on personal experience, having been there many times already.

huh? if I've visited it myself, how am I judging it if not by pictures?

I'm judging based on personal experience as well, if that's your question. I haven't been inside the structure but I've never questioned the interior.

Malls aren't my thing. Very successful urban malls like Nordstrom's in SanFran or WaterTower Place in Chicago have always been places I found contrived. Not because they weren't humanized and made elegant but because malls by nature displace the organic elements that make cities unique and interesting.

But people love malls. I spent a week in San Salvador a few months back and they LOVE their glitz there as well. In fact, I felt like I was in Downtown Disney.

[J. Will]

huh? if I've visited it myself, how am I judging it if not by pictures?

I'm judging based on personal experience as well, if that's your question. I haven't been inside the structure but I've never questioned the interior.

Malls aren't my thing. Very successful urban malls like Nordstrom's in SanFran or WaterTower Place in Chicago have always been places I found contrived. Not because they weren't humanized and made elegant but because malls by nature displace the organic elements that make cities unique and interesting.

But people love malls. I spent a week in San Salvador a few months back and they LOVE their glitz there as well. In fact, I felt like I was in Downtown Disney.

So you've visited TLS SINCE IT WAS COMPLETED (less than a year ago)? I got the impression you hadn't. I'm not asking if you've visited the neighbourhood (Yonge-Dundas Square), but if you've visited this building.

[alex1]

So you've visited TLS SINCE IT WAS COMPLETED (less than a year ago)? I got the impression you hadn't. I'm not asking if you've visited the neighbourhood (Yonge-Dundas Square), but if you've visited this building.

i was there in July. of '08. Didn't go inside it, as yours is a fine city. Many other places to enjoy oneself.

[SSLL]

I like the building. Being in front of it gives you a sense of its scale. It also serves a purpose: retail. The food court relieves the overcrowded Eaton Centre food courts. There are restaurants with great patios in TLS that wouldn't have otherwise found space. There's a cinema that was lacking in the area, and a much improved Future Shop.