The Toronto skyline has crossed a big threshold

[Acajack]

Originally Posted by Doady

Toronto is an American city, same way Native Americans are all American, no matter which country in North or South America they are from.

In the context of the question, what was meant by "American" was "U.S.".

But you already knew that, of course...

[mrnyc]

not to be taken too serious here, but bored at work, so just for a bit of the 'ol elbow

Originally Posted by Maldive

The notion that Toronto needs some iconic skyscrapers is a bit ridiculous unless old news doesn't count.

1. 1975 - First Canadian Place had the gall to not see the future "supertall" club. Only 298m.

But it was the tallest building in the world outside of NYC and Chicago.

there is a reason for that, it's not iconic.

Originally Posted by Maldive

2. Royal Bank Plaza-acres of (real) gold -2,500 oz-imbued serrated glazing in 2 towers. Still haven't seen anything like it.

that's because you get all your news from cbc

Originally Posted by Maldive

3. 1967 - Toronto Dominion Centre. Sorry NYC and other cities, still the greatest collection of Mies' work in the world (especially the banking pavilion)

nice of course, but more dark mies and not really iconic, unless say, sixth avenue in midtown is iconic.

Originally Posted by Maldive

4. 1985 -Scotia Plaza. 902 feet (too short again) of beautiful Red Napoleon Granite that looks as good today as when built.

not iconic when that 80s post modern style was a bit of a rage -- ie., hok in 1985

Originally Posted by Maldive

5. 1972 -Commerce Court. One of Pei's early masterpieces though a measly 57 storeys. Visited by architects and engineers from around the world trying figure how a tower with its height/width ratio could stay standing.

that is the epitome of not iconic ... if only you had said the old one, although historic and lovely that isn't really iconic either ... but ... the new bigger one could be!




^ unless this blander revised version is a go?
https://urbantoronto.ca/news/2019/03...egant-makeover

Originally Posted by Maldive

Etc etc etc.

yes, way too much etc etc in toronto ... so far

[Maldive]

Originally Posted by Acajack

I quite like the TD Canada Trust Tower in Toronto as well. Though the green TD logo on the spire looks tacky - as if someone stuck a post-it there.

The 2 Canada Trust towers have a nice "throwback" skyscraper massing appeal but I really dislike the exterior materials used.

Mind you they are connected by Calatrava's extraordinary galleria... that space is "iconic" if you see it... but apparently it's not famous enough to be iconic.

Worth a look if you visit.

[MonkeyRonin]

Originally Posted by Acajack

No, Toronto doesn't think it's American. Even if it sometimes acts that way!

[Nouvellecosse]

Originally Posted by mrnyc

that's because you get all your news from cbc

Well that's a bit of a stretch. One other building that uses a particular material and it's not even another office building? Good thing it's not meant to be taken seriously!

[Maldive]

[QUOTE=mrnyc;8609987]not to be taken too serious here, but bored at work, so just for a bit of the 'ol elbow

We had a Trump Tower here just like most of his (not really his) Trumps built or cancelled with money-laundering schemes, around world. Ivanka didn't know what was going on.

His name is off the Toronto tower now. It's still ugly but less so.

Get back to work now.

[Acajack]

Originally Posted by Maldive

Mind you they are connected by Calatrava's extraordinary galleria... that space is "iconic" if you see it... but apparently it's not famous enough to be iconic.

Worth a look if you visit.

Oh I know it. Have visited many times and always try to go when I'm in Toronto.

But "iconic" as you hint at, is not just about the place itself. It's about the hype surrounding it.

The reason that galleria isn't iconic is related to the dearth of homegrown pop culture (TV, movies, etc.).

If Ryan Gosling and Rachel McAdams had played star-crossed Doug Ford and Kathleen Wynne staffers from Queen's Park in a production that everyone and their uncle had seen, and a pivotal romantic scene had taken place in the galleria... then it would be iconic.

[Nouvellecosse]

It seems that this always comes down to a rehash of the concepts of "iconic" and "famous." My position is as it's always been that something iconic sufficiently displays some combination of originality and uniqueness that would warrant significant recognition whether or not such recognition is ever given. Likewise something that is famous due to circumstance or publicity but which lacks sufficient levels of those traits has fame only and is not also iconic.

[Acajack]

Originally Posted by Nouvellecosse

It seems that this always comes down to a rehash of the concepts of "iconic" and "famous." My position is as it's always been that something iconic sufficiently displays some combination of originality and uniqueness that would warrant significant recognition whether or not such recognition is ever given. Likewise something that is famous due to circumstance or publicity but which lacks sufficient levels of those traits has fame only and is not also iconic.

The nuance between iconic and famous is an interesting one, but it can also be said that there is stuff that perhaps might be iconic (moreso than certain other famous things) but is not due to a lack of visibility or publicity. This is true of quite a bit of stuff in Canada especially.

In the case of Toronto, the CN Tower is definitely iconic and benefits from renown due to its height and prominence, its presence and photo in the Guinness Book of World Records for many generations of kids around the world, and its appearance in skyline shots for various sporting events broadcast from Toronto on U.S. TV networks.

[Steely Dan]

Originally Posted by Nouvellecosse

My position is as it's always been that something iconic sufficiently displays some combination of originality and uniqueness that would warrant significant recognition whether or not such recognition is ever given..

i would argue that without the recognition, then an object can't be iconic, by definition.

from Merriam-Webster:

iconic
adjective

icon·​ic | \ ī-ˈkä-nik \

Definition of iconic:

1: of, relating to, or having the characteristics of an icon

2a: widely recognized and well-established

2b: widely known and acknowledged especially for distinctive excellence

source: https://www.merriam-webster.com/dict..._source=jsonld

[The North One]

I feel like every city thinks their Mies collection is the greatest in the world.

I've heard this several times from several different cities now.

[Steely Dan]

Originally Posted by The North One

I feel like every city thinks their Mies collection is the greatest in the world.

that one is no contest. anyone with any degree of knowledge of mies' career would have to conclude that chicago has the greatest collection of his works.

not only did he practice in chicago for the second half of his career after leaving nazi germany, master-planning and designing an entire university campus where he was the head of the school of architecture for decades (IIT), chicago is also home to the greatest number of his most notable works - crown hall (widely regarded as his greatest masterpiece), 860-880 N LSD, farnsworth house, federal center, mccormick house, and IBM plaza, along with a long list of other projects around town that don't even make it into the textbooks because chicago already has so many examples of his best work that do.

this doesn't mean that other cities don't have other very notable mies buildings too (like seagram in NYC, lafayette park in detroit, TD center in toronto, new national gallery in berlin, etc.), just that chicago easily has the best and largest collection of his work.

[Nouvellecosse]

Originally Posted by Steely Dan

i would argue that without the recognition, then an object can't be iconic, by definition.

from Merriam-Webster:


source: https://www.merriam-webster.com/dict..._source=jsonld

Hmm.. not sure why you would give precedence to the second definition when the first definition is basically the same as mine (having the characteristics of an icon without mentioning fame or recognition). Isn't the first definition that a dictionary lists usually the most common or prominent? You'd think that the first would, by definition, take the precedence.

[badrunner]

I consider a building iconic when it's recognizable by its silhouette. Same for a skyline.

[mrnyc]

Originally Posted by badrunner

I consider a building iconic when it's recognizable by its silhouette. Same for a skyline.

that's not a bad way to think of it.

ok so maybe toronto's skyline could be considered iconic because of the cn spire thingy, but even then, there are others of those on skyline silhouettes. i dk, i am trying here folks. i would say we have to give toronto a few more decades of booming along for something clearly iconic to turn up. if anything, the booming changes over the past couple decades would point toward something that will arise. if not, it will be sao paulo north.

[badrunner]

The CN tower is a little tricky because it certainly does make Toronto's skyline recognizable, but it's not really a "building" (i.e. a skyscraper) the way we normally talk about buildings here. It's more of a landmark or monument, and by itself, isn't really that special. It makes Toronto recognizable in the same way that Seattle or St. Louis are recognizable, and no one would consider those cities to be iconic. I would say that recognizability is a necessary but not a sufficient condition for iconic status.

[edale]

Originally Posted by badrunner

The CN tower is a little tricky because it certainly does make Toronto's skyline recognizable, but it's not really a "building" (i.e. a skyscraper) the way we normally talk about buildings here. It's more of a landmark or monument, and by itself, isn't really that special. It makes Toronto recognizable in the same way that Seattle or St. Louis are recognizable, and no one would consider those cities to be iconic. I would say that recognizability is a necessary but not a sufficient condition for iconic status.

Not sure how an entire city can or can't be iconic...that seems to be quite a reach.

I'd definitely say the CN Tower is an iconic landmark in Toronto. It's the image that immediately comes to mind when I think of the city. I largely agree with MrNYC that Toronto needs a couple more decades to settle into its relatively new status as a global city of importance. They have lots of tall buildings, but almost nothing that the average Joe (or even above average) would recognize, save for the CN Tower. I think the modernist city hall comes close, maybe the TD complex...both moreso for architecture nerds, though.

When you think of iconic structures or places, there really aren't many that are known internationally. For my city (LA) I would say the only truly iconic/instantly recognizable landmarks are the Hollywood sign, maybe Disney Concert Hall, Capital Records building, mayyybe the US Bank Building?

[MonkeyRonin]

Originally Posted by badrunner

It's more of a landmark or monument, and by itself, isn't really that special. It makes Toronto recognizable in the same way that Seattle or St. Louis are recognizable, and no one would consider those cities to be iconic. I would say that recognizability is a necessary but not a sufficient condition for iconic status.

You wouldn't call Seattle or St. Louis's skylines iconic or instantly recognizable?


Quick! Which cities are these?

[mrnyc]

^ yeah if anything the arch make that an instantly iconic silhouette, even if the people may not tie it to the city of st. louis quite as immediately.

seattle's is much less so tho.

[badrunner]

Originally Posted by MonkeyRonin

You wouldn't call Seattle or St. Louis's skylines iconic or instantly recognizable?


Quick! Which cities are these?

That was my point. They are recognizable because of a particular landmark or monument, not because of their skyscrapers, just like Toronto.