Toronto 88 Scott Street | 203.9m | 58s | Concert | P + S / IBI

vegeta_skyline said:
Please, don't patronize us.
I know its you and your mate's favorite mantra, but it has absolutely nothing to do with 'not seeing it'.
Nobody is wrong here or conversely, 'not seeing the picture'. Our tastes in architecture are just divergent.
Its as simple as that.
Click to expand...

The idea that tastes differ and therefore all opinions are equal is a starting point for developing discriminating faculties, not an arrival point. Some architects are more talented than others, and some observers are more able to tell the difference between what's good and what's less good and what's downright awful, that's all.
 
Urban Shocker said:
The idea that tastes differ and therefore all opinions are equal is a starting point for developing discriminating faculties, not an arrival point. Some architects are more talented than others, and some observers are more able to tell the difference between what's good and what's less good and what's downright awful, that's all.
Click to expand...

Evidently somebody glossed over the discussion on trolling in another thread?

Look, nobody here is stating that 88 Scott is a masterpiece of 'Architecture'. It offers an interesting form with some playful asymmetry which clearly is too shocking for members of the dowdy box club, aka the 'flat roofers' (submitting this term for consideration in the UT lexicon).
 
Urban Shocker said:
The idea that tastes differ and therefore all opinions are equal is a starting point for developing discriminating faculties, not an arrival point. Some architects are more talented than others, and some observers are more able to tell the difference between what's good and what's less good and what's downright awful, that's all.
Click to expand...

Just like art is subjective, architecture is too.

The materials used can be used to determine how good one building is compared to another.. but you can't say that those who like aA boxes are "able to tell the difference between what's good, what's less good and what's downright awful", and say that those who like some variation in their designs just "don't get it".

I like some aA buildings, but I don't like any of the designs they've coughed up recently. I also like 88 Scott (though I've already stated what could make it better). Doesn't mean I'm wrong on either. Buildings such as CrystalGrey and Uptown can be called terrible because of the execution, if that were done right they could have been a lot better. Same goes for almost any other building.
 
interchange42 said:
A lot of us don't like RoCP because it's the laziest aping of Art Deco imaginable."
Click to expand...

Why can't a lazy-aping of Art Deco still be a valuable style in itself? It doesn't have to accurately copy art-deco, or any other style. It doesn't have to be of the highest quality materials. It doesn't have to conform with any of your or my pre-conceptions. I can just be a building, that many outside this forum actually think is a nice addition to the skyline and area. I get that people here want the best of the best, but be realistic.

I think some debates here mix up the science of architecture with the ART of architecture, and when discussing art... well pretentiousness reigns supreme. I've learned a lot of good SCIENCE from some very clever people on this forum over the years, but increasingly get put off reading due to those who think they "get" the ART more than others.
 
Tewder said:
Evidently somebody glossed over the discussion on trolling in another thread?
Click to expand...

It's a simple statement of fact - some people have higher standards than others, and expect more. TKTKTK made that very point a couple of years ago in a discussion with Archivist over the merits of 60 Bathurst, and we're seeing the same issue working itself out in this thread. The idea that all opinions are equal because we all have eyes in our heads, and that all judgements exist, at best, at an I like it / I don't like it level it is also fallacious; it is a starting point for visual literacy, not a destination one arrives at.

Enjoy the trip!
 
Urban Shocker said:
It's a simple statement of fact - some people have higher standards than others, and expect more. TKTKTK made that very point a couple of years ago in a discussion with Archivist over the merits of 60 Bathurst, and we're seeing the same issue working itself out in this thread. The idea that all opinions are equal because we all have eyes in our heads, and that all judgements exist, at best, at an I like it / I don't like it level it is also fallacious; it is a starting point for visual literacy, not a destination one arrives at.

Enjoy the trip!
Click to expand...

Thanks, I'll be there to welcome you with open arms darling. In the meantime keep shovelling!
 
Tewder said:
Look, nobody here is stating that 88 Scott is a masterpiece of 'Architecture'.
Click to expand...

True, you haven't gone that far. But your idea that: "It offers an interesting form with some playful asymmetry" suggests that you're definitely starved for amusements.
 
I don't agree with Urban Shocker that all tastes have to converge. But I do think you have to have *some* taste. And what I mean by that, is that you have to have some reason to like a building *beyond* the fact that it is "not a box" or it is "different." If you are defining your preference for something based on negative qualities - how it is not like something else - than you are not actually expressing a preference for something. You are simply expressing your distaste for this thing you don't like - in this case, what you think aA's designs consist of.

If I look at an aA building, say Murano, I can talk about how the asymmetry of the window frames creates tension in its facade. Or how the curves in Market Wharf subtly interplay with one another without being too flashy. Or how the rippling Clear Spirit balconies create changing silhouettes for the building as your eye moves up it. The buildings create new emotions in me - emotions that are not created by other buildings.

88 Scott street gives me the vague feeling of "being like an art deco/post modern mash-up" and "tallness" - feelings that I feel are weak and undefined, or in the case of "tallness," something plenty of buildings give me. There is no idea behind it - no statement which I can wrestle with, or feel energized by. But if someone can give me a reason to like 88 Scott that does not involve it being "different" or "not a box," - something positive - I could be convinced to change my mind on it.
 
I have to weigh in, in support of this project as well. For whatever reason, I like the looks of this one.
 
You must log in or register to post here.

Back
Top