Rocket Talk: Can Sunday Subway Service Start Sooner?
Newsstand: November 19, 2009
Gender Studies Coming to a High School Near You
Please Insert Station and Try Again
The Art of Not Knowing
The Pug Awards are back! Now in their fourth year, the awards name the best and worst new buildings in Toronto, as determined by visitors who choose whether they love or hate the 21 nominees on the Pug Awards' website. In the previous three years, Toronto Police Service 51 Division's building, the National Ballet School, and Gardiner Museum have all been winners, based on percentage of positive votes; Wellington Square, Glen Lake, and—most spectacularly—Be Bloor have all come out as losers.
This year, the most exciting entry (and the one sure to be the most divisive, thus preventing it from winning) is the ROM Crystal, that magnificent downtown behemoth we all either love or love to hate. The Argyle Authentic Lofts on Dovercourt (pictured above) look lovely too, and the building is a shoo-in to take top honours: it does exactly what the ROM did—fit old and new together—but hides the former inside the latter rather than shoving them together. It's not nearly as spectacular or fun as the Crystal, but it's far more universally attractive.
Sadly, there's little else to get really psyched about in this year's Pugs: the rest of the entrants are mostly dull, cookie-cutter condos, many of them green—not environmentally-friendly, but just plain green. (Why do condo developers think that light green windows look nice on buildings? They really, really don't.)
Our only beef with the otherwise spectacular Pug Awards last year was their website, but, thankfully, it's a little friendlier, more fun, and less of a hassle than the "time-wasting, browser-resizing, frustratingly Flashtastic affair" that Marc Lostracco said it was last year (though it is still Flashtastic). Also new this year: the Pug Cup, a 52-pound, three-foot-tall trophy to be displayed at Pug-worthy City Hall and serve "as a reminder to developers, architects, and building officials that the people of Toronto care about the architectural landscape of their city."
You can show you care by voting before May 31. The winners and losers will all be announced on June 4.
Photo by Joy von Tiedemann, courtesy of the Pug Awards.
add to stumble upon
add to reddit
tweet this
post to facebook
Aww yeah, I love that building! The rest of them all look like glass brutalism.
Well three I voted I liked and I can assure that the Ugly ROM was not one of them. Most looked like variations of the other ugly ones. One of them was a maybe so I gave it the benefit and vote positive. The other two I just liked.
The building in the picture is NEW? If so it's fantastically old looking.
"New" is used, obviously, broadly; it applies to any completed projects. The ROM Crystal is, for instance, a new addition to an old building. Last year, Tip Top Lofts was one of the top-placing nominees, and it's somewhere between the pictured lofts and the ROM addition.
Whatever david you're a fucking idiot.
That building is not new in any sense of the word.
I mean how do you write a post about design awards for new buildings and say that the word "new" has a non literal meaning? Since when is the term "new" ever used loosely?
Further ROM is a complete overhaul of the aesthetic of the structure, what you posted above is not.
Put DOWN the whatever deconstructionist philosophy book you are reading and just admit, for once, that you made a mistake.
I think it's clear what 'new' means in this case.
Spacejack- What exactly does "glass brutalism" even mean? The greatest complaint against the brutalist style was that exposed concrete has an alienating effect, and that the buildings lack natural light. Glass has the opposite effect.
Too bad there are almost no conversions on the list this year (matty- that's not a new building), one of which is the Argyle Authentic Lofts. Like the ROM's aluminum cladding, the patched brick sections of the facade disappoint. Still, it's a fantastic subtle conversion which deserves a heart.
Some of the Hearts:
-The Met is nice, especially the way it adds variety to that streetwall with its curvy elements.
-It's hard to distinguish N2, but I think the roof is lit up at night, I'll have to check that out. Otherwise, I wouldn't give that one the heart.
-533 Richmond is an attractive midrise addition to the neighbourhood.
-Broadview Lofts wisely went with the black frames windows which respect the building's industrial past. I've seen loft conversions with regular condo windows which detract from the industrial character. The watertower is interesting, but like the Tip Top Tailors sign on that conversion on Lake Shore, it's a pure gimmick.
Some of the Skull and Crossbones:
-I don't like Wellington on the park. It's neither sleek with subtle details nor intricately detailed.
-Windemere by the lake has those weird railings on the roof which don't work for me. And the bizarre mix of faux-historic townhouses with a contemporary glass tower just doesn't work for me either.
-76 Shuter has that massive box on the roof. I wish really wish developers would stop that kind of ugliness.
-One City Hall's architecture is way too busy. Some symmetry would have gone a long way.
-If you see the Residences of College Park in person, there are many noticeable places where they cut costs, and the whole PoMo look with gargoyles belongs more in New York than Toronto. It also belongs more in the 1980s than now.
-The base of Battery Park isn't offensive, but it tries to look gpresentable through the easiest and most predictable way: with generic faux-historic elements like the moldings. The tower itself is looming and it neither has the balcony design nor the glass to mitigate its boxiness
No one is talking about Spire? It's a wonderful design. It fits contextually, has those interesting yellow stripes, the utilitarian elements on the roof are hidden in glass, and it's very sleek. It's tall, but fairly thin. It's neomodernism done so well.
I should probably get a blog :-)
Boy, that picture of the Argyle makes me think of Hamilton's Lister Block--at least the scale and stance of the place...
For me, Windermere by the Lake is the worst candidate of all of the ones that I've seen in person. It's simply way, way too tall for the area—it looms over High Park, you can see it overtop the tree line from spots in the Bloor West Village, when nothing else is visible over that tree line—and it's also amazingly out of place, as it's in an area with lots of government housing, and it isn't providing anything to the neighbourhood whatsoever. Ten stories less, with something cool at the base (seriously, anything), and better-looking, then maybe. (Every time I find myself talking about condos now, I sound more and more like Brad Lamb.) But hey, I'm sure it's got a lovely view of the Gardiner, and the lake beyond it. There will be a lot more like it in the area very, very soon.
And, matty, here are a few of the senses of the adjective "new," according to the Oxford English Dictionary—that "deconstructionist philosophy book" I'm always checking—that the building pictured fits into:
I. That has not previously existed, differs from what existed in the past, etc.
3. b. Restored after demolition, decay, disappearance, etc. Freq. in to make new.
3. c. Additional to that which was present before; further, renewed.
4. a. Other than or replacing the former or old; different from that previously existing, known, or used; changed.
4. d. Of a place: different from another place previously inhabited or frequented.
Go back to hassling me for occasionally liking and defending graffiti. You're way more fun when you argue about subjective stuff, rather than things you can just be easily proven wrong on.
Well I look forward to your next exegesis defending the vandalizing the buildings involved in this.