Daily Poll 30 for May 27, 2010: Pug Awards St. Gabriel Terraces

Our fourteenth round of Pug Award polls showed that UrbanToronto can manage a bit of a smile for both the Russell Hill Retirement Residence and the Shops at Don Mills, and a bigger smile for Sixty Loft. Meanwhile, earlier poll entries continue to pull in new votes. If you haven't voted yet for the first twenty-nine Pug Award nominees, those polls are still open. Today we present two more for your consideration.

Here's the thirtieth building up for this year's Pug Awards, for which we hope you will take the time to vote both here and at the Pug Awards' official site. Our take on the Pugs is an experiment to see how our results will compare to the official results. The difference is that the official Pug Awards give you three choices: Love It, Like It, or Hate It. Based on suggestions from our members, we will give you five points along the continuum to register your feelings: Love It, Like It, Neutral, Dislike It, Hate It. Will that be too many options, or will that make voting easier? Please come back on a daily basis to register your thoughts!

Please click on the linked name of the building below to view more images and to read a description of the building and those who had a hand in building it. Please vote at the Pugs, and then come back here and register your UrbanToronto Pug vote too!

St. Gabriel Terraces

Love it. Let the neo-modernist onslaught begin. I'll hold the post-modernist fort on my own!

wmedia said:

Love it. Let the neo-modernist onslaught begin. I'll hold the post-modernist fort on my own!

Click to expand...

I wasn't going to start anything here, but now I almost feel obliged. This is actually worse than Chateau Royal; that's a statement that is painful to make.

This building doesn't qualify as post-modern, in fact the word modern doesn't belong anywhere near it. Some suggested alternatives: faux, (bad) historicist, shlock, and so on. I hate being negative, but this sort of architecture should not exist in the 21st century. What has happened?

Yeah, if this is PoMo, I'm a dog. It's the other way 'round though, I'm Post Modern, and this building's a dog.

Wow I see there are now two "love it" votes! I'm not alone anymore! hehe.

No response to egotrippin's post, wmedia?

Ok, I've had some coffee now... Why should this exist in the 21st century? Because we will always look back as well as forward. It is human nature. I know there is little point in regurgitating the modern/post-modern debate, but the "cheap materials" argument is misguided...

A clothing designer can make a suit look good using cheaper materials. It's not an Armani, but as long as it doesn't fall apart, are most people really gonna care? The concept of material "cheapness" can be pretentious. Architecture is about working with what you have, and being cost-effective. No, this building is not made of the materials of a historic building. Does the average guy in the street care? No, and it's the average guy in the street who is the true judge of a building, not other architects.

I personally believe that avoiding detail because of perceived "cheapness" is a mistake. Of course there is a line, and of course there will always be some examples that go too far, but I'd rather see some quirks and odd-balls than 1000 grey aA boxes.

Is that grotesquely parodic Mini-Me squatting on the roof a part of the building - a dovecote for the residents' carrier pigeons so they can communicate with their friends in the 18th century, maybe - or is it the top of some equally ludicrous high rise version of the building looming in the distance?

wmedia said:

as long as it doesn't fall apart, are most people really gonna care?

Does the average guy in the street care? No, and it's the average guy in the street who is the true judge of a building, not other architects.

Click to expand...

Congratulations, you have completely missed the point of the Pug Awards.

Sorry, I wasn't making myself very clear. I meant does the average guy in the street care about the actual materials used. The general public will go more by how a building makes them "feel" from appearance alone.

wmedia said:

Ok, I've had some coffee now... Why should this exist in the 21st century? Because we will always look back as well as forward. It is human nature. I know there is little point in regurgitating the modern/post-modern debate, but the "cheap materials" argument is misguided...

A clothing designer can make a suit look good using cheaper materials. It's not an Armani, but as long as it doesn't fall apart, are most people really gonna care? The concept of material "cheapness" can be pretentious. Architecture is about working with what you have, and being cost-effective. No, this building is not made of the materials of a historic building. Does the average guy in the street care? No, and it's the average guy in the street who is the true judge of a building, not other architects.

I personally believe that avoiding detail because of perceived "cheapness" is a mistake. Of course there is a line, and of course there will always be some examples that go too far, but I'd rather see some quirks and odd-balls than 1000 grey aA boxes.

Click to expand...

For one, I can see this building falling apart or aging poorly. Secondly, part of the worth of the buildings that St. Gabriel rips off is the quality of materials and building techniques employed. And lastly (for now), I am complaining about the overall cheapness, but that is not exclusive to the materials used. The design itself screams "I'm a cheap rip-off of a past age, and lack any forward or creative thinking". It lessens the worth of the architecture being rehashed, while adding nothing new; there's a line between simple creating a facsimile of something else or drawing inspiration from the past to create something truly new and unique.

Also, you keep assuming that the only alternative to producing this safe, generic banality is to throw down "grey aA boxes" everywhere. There are plenty of forward thinking styles, just look at 60 Richmond.

Exactly. It's a low-quality effort overall. I'm pretty sure I saw a Best Western in Burlington with the exact same design. The developer is clearly trying to appeal to the widest possible audience by commissioning a "safe" design that will impart a sense of luxury to people with unsophisticated taste. It's a Toyota Camry made of gold.

grey said:

The developer is clearly trying to appeal to the widest possible audience by commissioning a "safe" design that will impart a sense of luxury.

Click to expand...

Exactly, and my point is that should not be viewed as a bad thing or a failing of architecture. It is simply a need being met, for an audience that is present, with cost-effective materials.
Please don't think I'm saying everything should be like this though. It just has a place. As I've said before, variety is key. Believe it or not, I love the X-Condo just as much as I love this... apart from the mechanical box on the X roof... but that's another discussion!

wmedia said:

Exactly, and my point is that should not be viewed as a bad thing or a failing of architecture. It is simply a need being met, for an audience that is present, with cost-effective materials.

Click to expand...

Fine, but how on earth, then, does this deserve any praise above "neutral"? The Pug Awards were created to raise awareness about architecture and design in an effort to promote excellence, and this satisfaction with status quo schlock like this is counter to that.

We need Pug awards for not just in T.O. but for several municipalities in 905 - in separate categories. Pug Awards for Peel; Pug Awards for York; and ones for Hamilton, Halton, Durham, etc...

As for this building...
North York is getting some of the unexplainably horrible buildings these days. Look at Grand Triomphe. A fat "b----", I call it. This one, "La Grande Obesi-tisque" (no pun intended).