Glass Box Condo Typology

I'm trying to remember the watershed project...was it perhaps 18 Yorkville. But since then we see more and more glass boxes rising. And granted, not all glass boxes are the same...But certainly we are venturing into an era of sameness.

And what about the long term maintenance cost issues. We will have to wait for a few cycles of the weather to come and go before we gauge that issue.

Will the glass boxes become this millennium's slab building from the 50s and 60s? Do you think they will all of a sudden "date", while buildings like West Habour city and even Mosaic on Spadina, with it mix of precast and glass retain some timelessness?

What's happening down at cityplace, and Front street is pretty grim. Poor detailing, little creativity. But there are a few promising offerings...m5v, U, murano..and of course the gorgeous X at Charles and Jarvis.

Thought, comments, opinions?

I'm no expert on the building science perspective of glass buildings, but in terms of style it's really hard to see glass boxes go out of style.

Take Mies' TD Centre, for example. It never seems to look outdated (like his older works such as the Seagram Building or the Lake Shore Drive Apartments). The fact that the Miesian style was emulated up to 1991 at the TD Centre (with the Ernst & Young Tower) attests to the longevity of the style.

Will the glass boxes become this millennium's slab building from the 50s and 60s? Do you think they will all of a sudden "date", while buildings like West Habour city and even Mosaic on Spadina, with it mix of precast and glass retain some timelessness?

Click to expand...

I'd actually argue against this and say that more precast (or even real stone) and less glass on a building would actually make the building "age" more, even though I like buildings like WHC. Precast simulates stone, which is a more traditional material. Grime sticks to precast and make them look more "aged", while glass can easily be cleaned and looks relatively new even with a light coating of grime or dust.

It's interesting that the Art Deco towers that WHC's design is based on was at one time considered outdated compared to glass box towers, with many of them going through times of neglect. More recently, the concern over FCP's grime-coated marble has raised issues about whether it should be reclad, and if so, how so. Maybe if FCP was all glass we wouldn't have this discussion.

Nowadays, it's even arguable whether 50s/60s slabs are so obviously negatively "dated"--and where they've aged poorly, it often owes more to tenancy and/or neighbourhood demos than to the buildings themselves. But zones of such slabs such as High Park or Davisville seem to "work" the same as they always have, little the worse for wear...

Buildings generally do quite out of style. And modernism looks alot like it did in the 60s. Meanwhile, people call all those apartment blocks along the DVP "ugly" and outdated. But our condos will take the same place some day in our eyes. Which I'm okay with-- each era produces statements about itself and I think we need to appreciate buildings for where architecture was "at" when they were constructed.

That said, I love Toronto's modernism at the moment, just like I appreciate the creepy old apartment buildings too. I do think that we are now embracing urbanism in a way that makes the buildings a bit more attractive in the long run. We'll see!

I agree with Spire, I have spent a lot of time looking at high-rise residential buildings in the city, estimating their dates, and then researching the date. Rarely have I been very surprised by the actual date vs. an estimate - the fact is, all buildings begin dating from the moment they are conceived.

I think the glass boxes will in fact date, as Observer states, but so will those that combine precast. It's inevitable.

In fact, I find it amusing when, because of forums like this where there is a lot of excitement on what will get built, that the years-long lag between the first appearance of renderings and the completion of a building means that there is some subtle dating going on before the thing exists.

I often wonder more about the impact of condominium ownership on our building stock vs. rental buildings. It seems possible to me that condos will age better, simply because you have many owners with an investment in a single building all making decisions about it's upkeep and future. With rental buildings, a single owner might reasonably decide to defer maintenance knowing that eventually he will also likely have to charge less in rent - but there might be an economic argument nonetheless for that kind of decision. This seems less likely with condos.

Given that we are almost 40 years on from the first condo highrises in the city - does anybody know of a case where a condo building went seriously downhill in its maintenance and upkeep? Can a condo building end up somehow as a rental? What would happen to a condo building in serious decline?

Glass box condo towers number in the dozens, or maybe hundreds. Traditional slab apartment buildings number in the thousands. There's a long long way to go before the glass boxes become this millennium's slab.

Besides, the design of the newer buildings is a lot more urban-friendly than older slabs. They make an effort to meet the street properly while the slabs tend to turn away from the street.

MisterF said:

Besides, the design of the newer buildings is a lot more urban-friendly than older slabs. They make an effort to meet the street properly while the slabs tend to turn away from the street.

Click to expand...

i think that has more to do with urban planning than if it's a glass or concrete condo.

The Condo Observer said:

I'm trying to remember the watershed project...was it perhaps 18 Yorkville. But since then we see more and more glass boxes rising. And granted, not all glass boxes are the same...But certainly we are venturing into an era of sameness.

Click to expand...

It happens with any popular style. Our streets are lined with hundreds of two or three storey Victorian blocks which are quite architecturally unremarkable and yet are still appreciated.

Will the glass boxes become this millennium's slab building from the 50s and 60s? Do you think they will all of a sudden "date", while buildings like West Habour city and even Mosaic on Spadina, with it mix of precast and glass retain some timelessness?

Click to expand...

No, is there any timeless style? Building techniques and cultures change leaving buildings to be indicators of specific eras, cultural attitudes and philosophies. Even classical architecture went out of style by the 1950s, and it's not exactly mainstream right now, either. Just because it's not timeless doesn't make it inferior, and today even the modernist aesthetic is gaining in popularity.

What's happening down at cityplace, and Front street is pretty grim. Poor detailing, little creativity. But there are a few promising offerings...m5v, U, murano..and of course the gorgeous X at Charles and Jarvis.

Click to expand...

Despite being far from stellar, CityPlace can still turn out to be an interesting part of our city. Some of the towers do have some memorable creative details, like West One's concrete element towards the centre of the tower. I think the bridged Parade towers will make an impression, and the Signature tower should be good.

No, is there any timeless style? Building techniques and cultures change leaving buildings to be indicators of specific eras, cultural attitudes and philosophies. Even classical architecture went out of style by the 1950s, and it's not exactly mainstream right now, either. Just because it's not timeless doesn't make it inferior, and today even the modernist aesthetic is gaining in popularity.

Click to expand...

Geography, politics and economics also play roles in determining what style is in and what's out. While North America abandoned neo-classical architecture in the 1950s, Eastern Europe, the Soviet Union and even China were embracing Stalinist neo-classical architecture. Stalin liked the style, and he and other communist leaders had the cheap (often forced) labour to design and build in the neo-classical style.

Looking at so many projects in Toronto that have Art Deco/neo-classical features (like West Harbour City, again), I'd say that there are some people today who really want to build authentic Art Deco or neo-classical skyscrapers. Unfortunately, given today's economics in North America (lack of cheap labour, the domination of prefabrication and modular architecture and construction, and lack of cheap and skilled artisans), building an authentic Art Deco or neo-classical skyscraper is impossible for the average condo developer. It seems like the only people who have that capability now are in Russia, Dubai or China.

The truth is that I am actually quite happy to see parking lots filled in with glass boxes. Infill projects are interesting, and add to the story of the street. A building that is dated is not necessarily a building that is outdated.

As I implied, in twenty years we will point to a glass box condo and date it as having been built in the first decade of the millennium. I guarantee that by then the typology would have shifted yet again, perhaps in keeping with new standards in energy efficiency etc.

What I have a problem with are the new city blocks, a la Cityplace, that are all condo, and all at a certain scale, and not part of an organic city fabric. Its about place-making, making memorable streets with a variety of uses, building types, scales.

wyliepoon said:

Geography, politics and economics also play roles in determining what style is in and what's out. While North America abandoned neo-classical architecture in the 1950s, Eastern Europe, the Soviet Union and even China were embracing Stalinist neo-classical architecture. Stalin liked the style, and he and other communist leaders had the cheap (often forced) labour to design and build in the neo-classical style.

Click to expand...

True, but after Stalin's death in 1953, the style declined in Eastern Europe and a lot of modernist buildings went up. Note that Stalinist architecture was also meant as a propaganda tool.

Even if there's demand for older styles of architecture, it doesn't mean it's timeless. Timelessness is a romantic notion, quite likely impossible to substantiate. To add to my position, most of the great architects of this time like Frank Gehry or Norman Foster are not embracing classical aesthetics. I also bet that a lot of the people who like projects like WHC aren't particularly knowledgeable on art deco or neoclassical architecture, but simply respond more favourably to anything which contains ornamentation.

junctionist said:

is there any timeless style?

Click to expand...

It's not exactly a style, but anything done in brick tends to look good and timeless.

Anybody know when the Hudson on King was completed?

hudson was 2006.

greenleaf said:

It's not exactly a style, but anything done in brick tends to look good and timeless.

Click to expand...

I agree, brick tends to age well. Floor to ceiling glass condos, well, we'll see.