![]()
It’s hardly conflict on the scale of editorial cartoons in the Muslim world, but the next time any old-school media type shrugs off online conversation as trivial, they can hold up outraged reactions to a gaudy rendering of the long-delayed Metropolis complex at Yonge and Dundas, recently posted on several Toronto-centric sites – a decade after planning started on the project. Commentary like “Words almost fail me” [Spacing Wire], “I don’t even have words to express my thoughts” [BlogTO], and “aaaaaaaaaaaargh!” [Torontoist] oughta reassure developers that the outlandish extravagance originally intended for the location hasn’t diminished one bit. This blogburst does prove why it’s important for a prominent municipally-sanctioned building to provide transparent information on what’s behind the hoarding, rather than having its image buried on a design firm website – then arbitrarily circulated in a pointless effort to stir up protest, as if this were just another underhanded product placement scheme. After a few rounds of response to those postings, though, it’d appear just as many locals are eager to see Metropolis sprout, proving that any firm seeking to test market an idea shouldn’t fear the initial storm of negative attention – because good publicity can prevail. The complex looks perfectly consistent with Downtown Yonge’s overhaul ambitions – a vast improvement over the porn emporium, dollar stores and flea market previously inhabiting the block – and the folks most likely to interact with the location will find it thrilling. The movement to keep most public space from being plastered with a sales pitch has already proven valid, like when pointing out insidious ad creep concepts such as the MegaBin, but knee-jerk NIMBYism directed at every last instance of commercialism risks becoming absurd. Demand for sponsorship space where it never before existed is increasing as the cultural clout of prime-time television, print newspapers and terrestrial radio shrinks each day, all casualties of shifting markets. Toronto should embrace the sort of wretched excess represented by Metropolis – the defining monument for these transformative times.
18 responses so far ↓
KP // February 8, 2006 at 1:22 pm
I tend to agree. Although it is an eyesore, it is in context with the aesthetics and purpose of that interesection. Realistically, every major city needs an outlet for corporate whoredom. At least this example is contained in an appropriate area and not colonizing our “real”, non-touristed, non-mainstream-commercialized neighbourhoods.
rick mcginnis // February 8, 2006 at 3:00 pm
I have vivid memories of that intersection, in its porn-and-dollar-store heyday, and I can say that this is an improvement. Hell, the current hoarding over a construction site is an improvement.
I especially loved the spacing wire post - “Gotta love the NASCAR cars sitting on display at ground level.” You can just smell the smell of offended sensibilities coming off that one, like burning rubber. NASCAR, of course, being shorthand for “American”, which is to say awful and vulgar.
Well, we had our own, unique, Canadian shot at the space for many years, and it was a depressing - and depressed - blight. Time for something new. Frankly, I love the whole unrestrained Blade Runner vibe to the new building. It might look dated as hell in a few years - so early 21st century, darling - but the great thing about this sort of architecture is that it’s cheap (and no, that’s not always a bad thing) and modular, ready to be torn down and replaced with something new.
Whatever was unique or worth preserving about the site is either preserved (the former bank at the northwest corner, now a Gap) or long, long gone (the original Eatons store). What, I have to ask, would the “legions” of offended urban aesthetes prefer to see - another effing “green space”? The usual banal, unworkable mix of “artists’ studios, cafes and small shops” invoked whenever renewal of some godforsaken stretch of street is being mooted?
Adam Sobolak // February 8, 2006 at 8:53 pm
I, too, feel there’s a kneejerk/overblown/overpossessiveness-t/w-(supposedly)-uncommodified-Toronto side to the Metropolis critique.
However, I’m also willing to empathize coming from the *other* end. That is, it isn’t about Metropolis being horrible and commercial and vulgar; it’s about its being, like so much of the last generation of commercialized urban controlled-chaos (think 42nd St in NYC), strained. Underwhelming overkill. A reverse version of the commodified “ye olde” sterility of Williamsburg/Unionville/Niagara-On-The-Lake. An anachronistic relic of last-score-years-of-the-c20 mass-popcult thinking. The debased end-run of the Robert Venturi “Learning From Las Vegas” effect.
Put it this way; it’s just as well if Planet Hollywood reopened here…
vhigge // February 9, 2006 at 12:55 pm
Dundas>Latin for DunceCap.
Actually part of the really sad thing is that, now that Yonge street had been shut down in essense, the inevitable has happened.
The drug culture has moved away, nearby, into the almost-residential areas, for one, to the east.
Although one would hope eventually, we would get the characters dumped into the Don River or Don Jail.
What has happened is that the Yonge Street Loiterers find themselves outside Ryerson, and along Chaste Church Streets and Historic Parliment Streets, and up and along Broadview and Queen.
“You keep missing the cut-off man!”
The tiny Police District that used to worry about parked cars and business permits, is now a full fledged border-crossing.
I think its the owness of these communities to keep the line moving up the would be tinsel town Yonge Street Strip, and keep the areas still home-like for the kids and regular customers, if I may use that term interchangeably.
The area has not had a good reputation for some time, but surrounding areas, are nothing to sneeze at either.
It is easy to see how the Danforth has undergone changes, given these new perameters.
If I were Scarborough, out there I would push back, but - Hard!
Matt Blackett // February 9, 2006 at 1:18 pm
I completely disagree with your comment “Toronto should embrace the sort of wretched excess represented by Metropolis.” It is not about NIMBYism. The city is about to produce a Design Review Panel that will look at the planning and architectural attributes of big-time development in this city. I would assume that Metropolis would fail any kind of serious review process, and probably not solely based on the advertisements. There is little or no architectural value to this place. I cannot even picture the shape on the building in my mind and I’ve looked at the rendering 10 or 15 times in the last week — I just see the ads and not the form. We shold be demanding a better building there, not just an oversized CP24 screen.
Secondly, Councillor Kyle Rae told one of Spacing Wire’s readers that the sign variances were approved for this site in 1998. That’s almost 8 years ago. So even if the public had any concerns with the unslightliness of building, the decision has been made for them and their feedback in not valid. What is even worse, once something like a video billboard goes up in the city, there is no mechanism to make a complaint or feedback. We know we can say something about potholes or damaged sidewalks or litter removal, but no process to deal with unslighly signage.
And a response to the above post about the Spacing Wire’s comment on the NASCAR cars — it is vulgar, not becuz it is American. I just dislike seeing any kind of car parked on a sidewalk or a place that involves a lot of pedestrian traffic. Just like drivers wouldn’t like it if I left my bike in the middle of the street.
As for the old porn and head shops that used to scatter Yonge + Dundas — almost the same amount of people are coming to the intersection as in 1995, just different people. And that is absolutely the crux of the “revitalization” of the area. The area was a wonderful functioning space before Dundas Square, just a little more seedy.
Lastly, I would be happy to write-off this area of the city as an advertisers playground like the first commenter said, but the effects of this intersection are spreading up and down Yonge. I unfortunately don’t think it will just stay in this ‘hood. Once you open Pandora’s box… Why not do this in the club district? Or up at Yonge and Bloor? Why not Nathan Phillips Sqaure, too?
There is a good debate to be on this subject: when do we say enough is enough? Have we reached the high water mark or will this kind of ad creep keep going and going?
Henry // February 9, 2006 at 5:06 pm
It’s Time Square wannabe and Shibuya gone amok! Good grief, what’s with that monstrosity?
How about something truly classy like Ginza, Tokyo?
rick mcginnis // February 9, 2006 at 7:53 pm
Matt -
Once again, complaining about cars parked on sidewalks is typical of the sort of attitude that should come with a fainting couch - if you look at the illustration, it’s pretty obvious that it’s a fanciful artist’s touch. Those cars would have to be parked in Dundas Square, not on the thin sliver of sidewalk that’s going to be fronting the new complext on the Dundas side. Should anyone want to park valuable NASCAR vehicles in a busy public space - and pay a fortune for security to watch over them to prevent vandalism or even theft - they wouldn’t be parked on a sidewalk, in any case.
Given the pedestrian traffic in the square, you’d might as well complain about the markets or events held there as well - they block “pedestrian traffic” just as neatly. What, exactly, is objectionable about people being able to ogle big old racecars in a public space - is it simply a matter of taste? Words like “vulgar” aren’t exactly the first that come to mind when addressing issues of public safety, are they?
Adam Sobolak // February 9, 2006 at 8:10 pm
Y’know, I think this is more of a design issue than it may appear. After all, the bulk of the criticism you find on boards like urbantoronto has nothing to do with “ad creep” or anything of the sort; it’s to do with PenEquity making a slipshod hash of it, first with the Torch, and now with the long drawn-out Metropolis mess.
Re “little or no architectural value to this place”: well, here’s how I see it. Going back to when Dundas Square was first mooted almost a decade ago, we, the public, were presented with these schematic city-planner’s diagrams of the surrounding scenery: a banal municipal bureaucrat’s version of Times Square. It had the signs, but not the style. It was all too painfully a *planning* gesture, more than a design gesture (cf. the renewal of Times Square and 42nd St, where in a cake-and-eat-it-too fashion, “design review panels” have been integral to the process all along–and whatever you may think of pre-packaged tourist fare, the *genuine* design flair shows; if touristic ad-creep overkill is a necessary evil, let it be done the NYC way).
The real problem with Metropolis is that it’s got no style. It took the schematic guidelines all too literally. It’s like the “banal municipal bureaucrat’s version of Times Square” come to life–which is like submitting an essay written entirely through Coles Notes. It’s crude and mediocre–and mediocrity is guaranteed to fuel critiques. (For all its barrenness and sometimes overregulated usage, at least the Square proper *does* have style.)
OTOH–and it’s an odd (and presumably unwitting) oversight on r. mcginnis’s part re “whatever was unique or worth preserving about the site”–it’s worth noting how the south side, the Hard Rock Cafe/Hermant Building side, “defines” Dundas Square and whatever may pass for its “soul” best of all; and it’s the most traditional, the least trammelled (even those dreaded signboards make a certain background-visual-noise sense here), the most reflective of preexisting urban patterns and, indeed, what has made the “Yonge Street” mythos tick for decade after decade. (And it certainly helps that it’s probably the most “indigenous” Hard Rock Cafe around anywhere.) Now, if Hermant gets overgentrified or (egad!) redeveloped, *there’s* cause for an outcry…
matt // February 10, 2006 at 5:43 am
As seen from the illustration, the main tenant will be junk food emporium :))
Probably this one will replace defunct (?) world’s largest junk food yard at SkyDome.
Well at least American tourist will flock back to Toronto, to show up their patriotism :))
But leaving aside mean talk - what do you expect from such defined ‘city square’ - Ginza or Times Sq. - it’s all the same. An altar to commerce and glittering neons. If you do not like it (and some just love it) - you can still choose many other ‘climates’ in Toronto…
Peter C. Crawford // February 10, 2006 at 8:45 am
Dundas Square is UGLY beyond description; it’s a vast wasteland, that shows a total lack of imagination!
I have tried to ” enjoy ” Dundas Square only to discover that I was probably the lone person sitting in a vast empty ugly spot while the rest of the more ” sane ” fellow Torontonians passing by, looked at me as if I had lost my mind.
Please ” Planners-Architects ” don’t duplicate Times Square, but create a unique Toronto Dundas Square that is warm, inviting, and pleasant. All of which is sorely lacking in the current obsolete, ugly, very very ugly contraption.
stiv russell // February 10, 2006 at 4:37 pm
the signage for which the neighbourhood was famed for several generations since electricity — diana sweets, the edison, sam’s, a&a’s, brown derby, the pinball spot, the picadilly tube, sam’s chinese food, and even small tableux like le strip — has been rationalized by cheapskate corporate sign makers. the learning annex from las vegas approach. it has to be about more than size. without corresponding detail it sux. look at the cacaphony of ads from toronto’s early years. they were hand painted. they were some paint jockey’s BABY. it’s not ad creep that’s the worst. it’s a blight of standardization of signage signaling standardized clients seeking standarized (pedestrian) consumers. it’s the inverse of vegas, which actually did deliver danger as a product (even if it was a hotdog of unknown legitimacy from some greasy stand). and find me anyone who’s been who doesn’t think times square actually really sucks the harder it tries. snake eyes tee oh.
Adam Sobolak // February 10, 2006 at 8:23 pm
Which ultimately proves the inherent fallacy of “Williamsburg in reverse” (as delineated in my first post in this thread). Still, as w/Times Square, better to suck w/style than w/o style, especially if you’re going to “force the issue” through official planning fiat. And furthermore, make sure there’s the preexisting “climate” to make it all feasible–which, perhaps, should have vetoed Dundas Square’s overwrought Times-Piccadilly-Ginza wannabe pretensions from the outset; so, we’re full circle–I guess.
Anyway, it’s worth noting that the best recent piece of advertising-flash in the vicinity is a genuine throwback to the pre-standardization (not to mention danger-as-a-product) era: the gold-lame makeover of the Zanzibar facade…
Lena // February 11, 2006 at 10:31 am
Here’s the thread on this at I Love Everything. It digresses into pizza talk, as I assume half Toronto discussions do.
stiv // February 12, 2006 at 6:08 pm
and another thing. this is the site of downtown’s (metro’s?) last fish and chips franchise, h salt. what happened to fish and chips as franchise material? (i fear the answer is environmental catastrophe, though that hasn’t seemed to slow the burger joints much, yet). at least they never had the time to go high design or healthy menu. also mourned, windows on yonge. that lady was very nice. and now: terminal franchise zone with erectile dysfunction. where do i line up? we all have our memory of yonge. mine is after the hey day certainly. what killed it off for me? phantom and nicholby’s. and turning 16.
Adam Sobolak // February 12, 2006 at 7:29 pm
Anyone remember the (late 90s) Lola feature on those sign-whiz Markle Brothers? Nothing would be more Times Square T-Dot Style than to Markle-ize it all (which also means: resurrecting the Brown Derby as part of Metropolis…
Jason Paris // February 13, 2006 at 12:27 am
The recent Metropolis rendering looks quite like any other Metropolis rendering I’ve seen over the last 10 years. This current design can’t be taken as a “surprise” as an ad-covered hulk of a building has always been what planned to be here.
The merits of this should certainly be discussed, but I’m with PAVED on this one. Every city has their shrines to crass capitalism and this is ours. It’s only one square and there’s plenty of other fights to better fight on this issue (ie. megabins, etc.) Moreover, as long as Pen-Equity doesn’t cheap-out (like they did on Torch) I think the building will frame the square nicely and make this tourist-esque area even more successful.
Roger Bacardi // February 14, 2006 at 9:08 am
“Toronto should embrace the sort of wretched excess represented by Metropolis – the defining monument for these transformative times.”
“Every city has their shrines to crass capitalism and this is ours.”
I didn’t realise we had an ugliness quota in Toronto.
Jason Paris // February 14, 2006 at 6:54 pm
“I didn’t realise we had an ugliness quota in Toronto.”
We don’t, but if we did, most of the banal pre-cast condos being built could easily fill it. For the record, I don’t really find the Metropolis rendering ugly or beautiful. It is what it is and it is going to happen…at least it looks pretty sure this time.
People should really be taking their issues about the project to Pen-Equity and making sure they don’t cheap-out on this prominent corner. It won’t be pretty regardless (as that is the nature of these beasts), but it doesn’t have to be embarassing either.
You must log in to post a comment.