Skip to content

Canadian Urbanism Uncovered



  1. This is a visual distraction to motorists. It is also an eyesore!

  2. Ray — Then no table-top OCAD, no crystal at the ROM, no CN Tower, no AGO, no soldiers statues at corner of Bathurst and Front, no Adam Beck memorial on University, no Prince’s Gate at the CNE. You know, because they distract drivers too.

    Kidding aside, I’m not a big fan of the piece but love where it’s been built and how it challenges viewers. Art doesn’t have to be easy.

  3. If this is a “visual distraction” you shouldn’t be a “motorist” Raymond.

  4. I believe in public spaces and art too – however if anyone to this public work of art (space) actually walks the perimeter… you will literally be “hit in the head” on the Bathurst side of the street! (oops)…

    Also seems to be a huge missed opportunity for a couple of benches, not everyone in the city moves by car or public transit… Where is common sense these days?

    As a result I think this work has missed a huge opportunity to improve our public spaces and entice the public outside 🙁

    Also perhaps journalists should actually visit these works in the public space first before regurgitating what seems to be glorious self serving press releases by the “for profit developers” and their best buddies/patrons in the political system…

    Again disappointed, at what could be, versus what is.

    DR Smith

  5. DR Smith — If you’re insinuating our contributor didn’t visit the site, you’re sadly mistaken. Not sure why you even mentioned it as it’s clear the writer has seen the piece in person. She is even listed as the photographer of the images used in the piece.

  6. A correction to the comment above: You will NOT be hit in the head. You can clearly see in the images that you’d have to be 9-feet tall to hit your head on it. The City takes extreme care to make things safe that are on city property (Spacing should do a piece o the number of lawsuits brought against the city for things like falling on a cracked sidewalk, etc).

  7. Yes, contextual public art is both needed and welcomed. Unfortunately, you lost me when you wrongly criticised a piece of art that is both contextual and beautifully challenging (Rising) and defended a piece which is just challenging. A good piece of art can challenge but most importantly, it must edify the soul in some way. “Three Lines” doesn’t do this. Being “contextual” is not enough.

  8. Announced in May 2014, supposed to be installed by fall 2015 & this is what the city gets? It looks like a knex set built by a 5 year old who’s never seen the outside world.

  9. A correction to Mimi’s comment above: you actually CAN hit your head if you walk too close to it, so pedestrians are pushed towards Bathurst St., which feels (and is!) quite dangerous. The City has heard residents’ complaints about this, they checked it out, and they will be making some adjustments to it. So while they City does take extreme care to make things safe, they don’t always get it right the first time.

  10. Simon — I see on that side there is a *little* area where the piece gets tight to the sidewalk. But that’s the crap people use to fight against things they don’t like — the line of thinking goes, “I know we can’t get this thing removed, but let’s find small problems with it so that we can keep chipping away at it’s legitimacy.” Textbook NIMBYism, or more precisely neighbourly whinery.

  11. I saw it. It’s ugly. Such a busy area there. Would have been perfect as a public space instead of art display for something unattractive. Imagine a fountain and some benches. There’s enough metal in this city .

  12. Baron: So, a fountain in the middle of a thin traffic island? That kind of thinking is part of the problem. You can’t create a public space out of a tiny scrap that is hostile to sit and loiter. You’re of the kind that would say, ‘What a waste of a bench/fountain’ if it that was installed instead.

  13. “deciding to make a triangular structure that would itself be made out of triangles.”

    in art school we used to call this a “one to one” concept. it’s like the apple building on the 401. “This building is for apples, so why don’t we, uh, make the buillding an APPLE!!”

    In case you’re wondering, no, that’s not something you should be aiming for and it was a straight route to a C/B- grade.

  14. Accusing people who note genuine problems with a project as “whiny” and “NIMBYs” is lazy and a sure-fire way to ending up with a crappy public sphere. Of course if projects have problems, those problems should be fixed.