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.

"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.

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.

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 :-)

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.