Market Wharf (1-3 Market St., Context, 33s, aA)

[unimaginative2]

I'm sorry, I didn't realize this was a skyscraper fanboy forum where we're supposed to bow and scrape before any developer who deigns to grant us a new tower. As a resident of this city, I have every right to an opinion on what gets built here, even if my preference doesn't happen to be the most lucrative for the property owner.

[AndreaPalladio]

No one's saying you're not entitled to have an opinion. But having one doesn't mean it matters.

[AndreaPalladio]

What is your problem with people freely expressing their own opinions on this board?

If we all thought the same, it would be a lot duller around here.

None - there's nothing wrong with opinions. But the idea that the backing, or lack thereof, of someone posting on an internet chatroom is worth a tinker's damn is ridiculous.

[unimaginative2]

Well, you at least try to cultivate the image of being the most elitist person I've ever encountered, but I happen to believe that as a citizen and a voter, I have input into how my city is built. Why is it that I'm paying for a planning department otherwise? You seem to spout a lot of opinions. Do you think that your opinions are also irrelevant?

[Hipster Duck]

Who cares? They don't need your backing. They have the backing of the people that count - the developers who pay their bills and the purchasers who pay the developers.

I've watched this pattern of yours for some time. You latch onto one word in a person's post like a sea lamprey and then play badminton with it. You did it in my last two postings with the word "back" and "spires". One is a metonym for tall objects, and whoever said anything about bankrolling a 40 storey condo?

[Urban Shocker]

But Hipster, two of the three buildings you talked about as having spires don't have them.

You get misty-eyed about the seventeenth century when London's redevelopment was dominated by one local architect, then you get upset about the twenty first century when Toronto's redevelopment is ... dominated by one local architect!

Toronto has a wealth of Modernist apartment buildings and single family homes from the 1950's to the 1970's. aA's buildings, along with those of other leading contemporary architects working in a style that is an evolution of that Modernism, contribute to exactly the sort of "unified language of style" you appear to want yet decry when you see it.

[Hipster Duck]

But Hipster, two of the three buildings you talked about as having spires don't have them.

Again with the metonymy. Both St. Lawrence hall and spire have tall pointy bits to them that were allowed to freely soar above the surrounding buildings.

You get misty-eyed about the seventeenth century when London's redevelopment was dominated by one local architect, then you get upset about the twenty first century when Toronto's redevelopment is ... dominated by one local architect!

I never said that I approved of Sir Christopher Wren stamping his mark across the city, but if I must defend his work right here right now, I will say that at least a variety of Wren buildings took hold on the city in all shapes and sizes from the sprawling campus at Greenwich to the towering dome of St. Paul's to smaller churches in the City. aA designs box after box after box and now they all seem to be 40-50 stories regardless of the site!

Toronto has a wealth of Modernist apartment buildings and single family homes from the 1950's to the 1970's. aA's buildings, along with those of other leading contemporary architects working in a style that is an evolution of that Modernism, contribute to exactly the sort of "unified language of style" you appear to want yet decry when you see it.

As I said, the modernist apartment buildings - although thoughtful in design - ruined a large part of the urban fabric by being so auto-centric. For example, the gaybourhood has a plethora of very finely appointed modernist buildings but they are all set well back from the street by oversize front lawns and car laneways. This wrecks the urban appeal of so many of them. For this reason, Kensington market is a joy even though it is a bunch of wooden shanties stapled together in a haphazard afterthought, while the proud parade of modernist apartment towers along Avenue road north of St. Clair is an urban dead zone.

In the late 1990s, there was a "back to urbanism" movement in Toronto's modernist condo boom that I greatly welcomed. Like I said, I really welcomed Clewes' first buildings like MoZo that met the street and felt comfortable among its turn-of-the-century neighbours, but were unabashedly modern. The latest bumper crop of aA buildings don't do that. In some cases they are arrogant to their surroundings, such as the unforgiving granite base of the Four Seasons condotel, or the completely out-of-scale dilemma at Pure Spirit. The failure to reconcile with its surrounding neighbours is what makes the latest generation of many aA buildings a failure in contributing to that unified language of style I talk about.

--

I am basically echoing everything I said in my second post. I don't want this to spiral into the son of the Pure Spirit condo debate, so this is the last from me on this project.

[ganjavih]

What is your problem with people freely expressing their own opinions on this board?

It's quite clear that to some forumers here, Modernism is a religion. We all know what happens when people take the "my religion is the right one" approach... dialogue becomes impossible. Being a religion means that Modernism is exempt from criticism and analysis... and when you do manage to voice a critical opinion, you are met with irrational, emotional responses.

I don't dislike Modernism... there are plenty of modern buildings that I like. Modernism does, however, get dull very fast. It can be somewhat sterile and is often anti-urban. But that's all the blaspheming I'm going to do for now.

[urbandreamer]

People often forget it is the client, not the architect in the driver's seat. The conservative modernism of Toronto's Clewe's designs are a reflection of the conservative Toronto developers not the ambitions and design integrity of the architectural firm. Clewe's has stated in the media that he wishes Toronto would embrace more ambitious daring designs: there's a reason most of his work is in Holland. Toronto is slowly changing--for the better. Compared to the stunners I'm seeing on SSP's montreal forum though (for example 350 De Maisonneuve)--Aa's Toronto effort is cold and timid in comparison--a reflection of Toronto the Old (most developers are "old" men so naturally have old fashioned Toronto values.) Real expressive architecture may never have a home in Toronto; but within 100 years surely the effects of all the various immigrants will result in some more colourful buildings?

Context has a certain idea of what they want from Clewe's--something sophisticated but understated. It would be nice if some more younger architects were given a few commissions to design condos (Clewes must be over 50 by now--certainly looks rather old in his photo on Aa website; Stephen Teeple too is rather old.) Where are Toronto's under 35 architects?

[smuncky]

Where are Toronto's under 35 architects?

They are professional CAD monkeys.

[Hydrogen]

It is a bit sad when one must accept that one of the reasons as to why a building is designed in a specific way is the fact that the developer (the one paying the bills) accepts the design (or its limitations) according to how well it pays the bills.

I see nothing incorrect about what AndreaPalladio has stated, I just find it a little unfortunate.

[purespirits]

Dont know if this has been posted yet...

[AndreaPalladio]

I've watched this pattern of yours for some time. You latch onto one word in a person's post like a sea lamprey and then play badminton with it. You did it in my last two postings with the word "back" and "spires". One is a metonym for tall objects, and whoever said anything about bankrolling a 40 storey condo?

Actually, it was you who said you couldn't back it.

[AndreaPalladio]

Well, you at least try to cultivate the image of being the most elitist person I've ever encountered, but I happen to believe that as a citizen and a voter, I have input into how my city is built. Why is it that I'm paying for a planning department otherwise? You seem to spout a lot of opinions. Do you think that your opinions are also irrelevant?

Well, first off, you don't pay the planning department, the city does. Secondly, you have no input on what people build on private property, nor should you, unless you are an owner of it. Nor does the planning department, so long as it complies with the rules. The last thing we need is a bunch of unionized civil service hacks designing buildings.

[AndreaPalladio]

It is a bit sad when one must accept that one of the reasons as to why a building is designed in a specific way is the fact that the developer (the one paying the bills) accepts the design (or its limitations) according to how well it pays the bills.

Welcome to capitalism, comrade. She who pays the piper calls the tune.