Toronto Couture The Condominium | ?m | 42s | Philmor | Graziani + Corazza

thedeepend said:
your made-up definitions and sophistic terminology.

in what ways is this or any other bland condo tower 'futuristic'? it's a meaningless word in this context. also, how does it resemble a 'factory'? again: a head scratcher.

finally, what in god's name does Couture have to do with Robarts Library or the Sheraton Centre? they are completely unrelated and have absolutely nothing to do with each other.

knowing a little bit about architectural styles, eras, terminology and definitions might help you, if you are trying to defend a point of view on this forum....
Click to expand...

First of all Deepend, thanks for attempting to say that I don't know anything about architecture. In fact, you just didn't see a quite obvious connection I was making. I'll try and clear it up. And with your "sophistry" comment, please, give me a break.


You're right, I did make up the term "Futuristic Factory". When you invent a new phrase, then yes, you make-up a term. I'm not sure what your point is exactly. I look at this sterile and clinical building which has no warmth, no charm and certainly no worth of housing humans, and think to myself, "this looks like a factory of the future".


Secondly, if you can't understand that Robarts was considered "ultra modern" and "futuristic" looking in 1973 when it was built, then I don't know what else to say. It certainly wasn't paying homage to any previous, established looks, nor did it start any ongoing trend in terms of building materials. It's more than obvious to me, that at one point, in 1973, this building was considered modern and futuristic, since nothing like it had ever been built before, and since it was such punch in the face when compared to anything else.


Have you ever been to "Tomorrow Land" at Epcot? What was once considered futuristic, now looks drab and tacky.


Also, if you can't see that this new glass/steel/concrete look which has become ubiquitous in Toronto, somehow resembles factories, then again, I don't know what to say. Factories are constructed with metal siding, cheap concrete and utilitarian glass, with absolutely no attempt at aesthetics, warmth or charm. Couture looks exactly the same. It looks like it would fit in well among the flaming chimneys and networks of airborne pipes that so 'classically' dot the Hamilton skyline.


Couture is clinical and sterile, just a like a factory. However, factories in the future will be vertical, not sprawled out over a large area.


That's where I get the term "futuristic factory" from.

I compare it to Robarts and The Sheraton Centre because they were all going for the same "futuristic" look which invariably becomes tasteless, tacky and terrible over time.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
Of all the bruhaha about this tower, I must ask all those haters to actually walk down to see this tower in person as I did yesterday. This tower is very beutiful, and way nicer than anything around it right now including the so much beloved X. Standing at the intersection of Charles St. and Yonge really makes you appreciate this tower !!! The glass is wonderful with the white trim along the edges makes this my favourite tower in the Yorville neighbourhood and probably the best one between Dundas and St Clair since the Met towers....
 
4grand said:
........
Click to expand...

Oh man, give it up. reading your posts is an agonizing experience. There are so many things wrong with your thinking, it’s not worth responding. Flattering yourself that you ‘invented’ a phrase? ‘futuristic factory’? Yikes.

One thing though: please stop opining on brutalism, since you clearly know less than nothing about it. but congratulations on posting one of the most ridiculous things ever on UT:

“Secondly, if you can't understand that Robarts was considered "ultra modern" and "futuristic" looking in 1973 when it was built, then I don't know what else to say. It certainly wasn't paying homage to any previous, established looks, nor did it start any ongoing trend in terms of building materials. It's more than obvious to me, that at one point, in 1973, this building was considered modern and futuristic, since nothing like it had ever been built before, and since it was such punch in the face when compared to anything else”.

Staggeringly wrong! every last bit of it.

Anyway, you might want to check out a thread I started. but please don’t post on it.

http://urbantoronto.ca/forum/showthread.php/19066-Toronto-Architecture-From-The-1960-s-and-70-s

But mainly what you need to do is stop posting your ridiculous ‘opinions’, and start reading about modern architecture.
 
Last edited:
The front of Couture today, landscaping & detailing still not complete



 
Definitely has to be one of the cheapest, most generic, sterile and least engaging podiums on any major street in the city. This really is exhibit A of why new condos are so widely despised by the general public in the city these days. Giant red card for G&C and the developer for dropping this soulless turd into our midst.
 
It's not ugly but its mute and uninspiring something a 10 year old would sketch up.
 
It looks like they built the tower but forgot to take the sales centre down first. Why did they even bother with a podium here? The H-shaped floorplate would have made an interesting forecourt for this tower.
 
hey, lets not "rush to judgement!", because "it's not finished yet!", and it might be "too early to judge!". I for one am "going to wait to see the finished product before i make my final decision!!"

signed,

Mr. TrumpROCPAuraCrystalBlu
 
thedeepend said:
hey, lets not "rush to judgement!", because "it's not finished yet!", and it might be "too early to judge!". I for one am "going to wait to see the finished product before i make my final decision!!"

signed,

Mr. TrumpROCPAuraCrystalBlu
Click to expand...

Despite the terrible podium, there were in actuality a lot of forumers in this thread who initially proclaimed the tower itself to be a design failure only to later recant once it was complete. For a lot of people, this tower was a legitimate example of something that did indeed look better once it was finished.
 
You must log in or register to post here.

Back
Top