Toronto Peter Street Condominiums | 129.84m | 40s | CentreCourt | a—A

[Miscreant]

Now that's a (developing) corridor I can stand behind.

 

[skyrise]

Is it just me, or does anyone else think that Peter Street condos looks like a cross between Pinnacle on Adelaide and Tableau?

 

[vegeta_skyline]

Nahh, looks more like a copy & paste job of Murano(with a few minor changes to the base);

http://urbantoronto.ca/database/projects/murano

http://urbantoronto.ca/database/projects/peter-street-condominiums#

aA seems to think we love repetition in this city judging by their just about twin everything condos; Murano(& Peter st), U, ICE, Distillery District, Harbor Plaza, 4 Seasons, Pier 27, Radio City, etc etc, yada yada and so on.

 

[junctionist]

Those mechanical boxes don't look good. That's why the renderings show the building from angles where they're not that noticeable.

 

[AlbertC]

aA seems to think we love repetition in this city judging by their just about twin everything condos; Murano(& Peter st), U, ICE, Distillery District, Harbor Plaza, 4 Seasons, Pier 27, Radio City, etc etc, yada yada and so on.

Yeah to Murano and Peter St being similar but the rest is pointless rambling. So it's aA fault for twin tower projects clearly directed by developers? And how does it differ from any other architect in the city in dealing with intended twin projects?

 

[androiduk]

Application: Building Additions/Alterations Status: Not Started

Location: 330 ADELAIDE ST W
TORONTO ON M5V 1R4

Ward 20: Trinity-Spadina

Application#: 13 266430 BLD 00 BA Accepted Date: Nov 18, 2013

Project: Multiple Unit Building Interior Alterations

Description: Proposal for interior alterations to a "Starbucks" at ground floor at 338 Adelaide St W with 8 seats. (129m2). Proposal to include for HVAC and PLB.

 

[vegeta_skyline]

Yeah to Murano and Peter St being similar but the rest is pointless rambling. So it's aA fault for twin tower projects clearly directed by developers? And how does it differ from any other architect in the city in dealing with intended twin projects?

I suppose my frustration was misguided in that respect. I've never been a fan of twin/triple tower complexes and aA seems to have their name attached to an inordinate amount of them. Its something that's generally much more common amongst the lesser regarded companies but rarely seems to be the case when the cities elite firms(imo) are involved i.e. Teeple, RAW, Saucier Perrotte, Diamond Schmitt and Hariri Pontarini(when it comes to their higher profile projects).

However, the other issue I have still stands. That is their habit of rehashing previous designs. Its one thing to take an design element or two, but the lack of any real distinction amongst many of their highrise projects is what I find irritating. That type of thing should be left to the mediocre companies. And once again, its something that is rarely seen from the likes of Teeple/RAW/Saucier Perrotte/Diamond Schmitt/Hariri Pontarini.

 

[Red October]

+1

 

[AlbertC]

I suppose my frustration was misguided in that respect. I've never been a fan of twin/triple tower complexes and aA seems to have their name attached to an inordinate amount of them. Its something that's generally much more common amongst the lesser regarded companies but rarely seems to be the case when the cities elite firms(imo) are involved i.e. Teeple, RAW, Saucier Perrotte, Diamond Schmitt and Hariri Pontarini(when it comes to their higher profile projects).

However, the other issue I have still stands. That is their habit of rehashing previous designs. Its one thing to take an design element or two, but the lack of any real distinction amongst many of their highrise projects is what I find irritating. That type of thing should be left to the mediocre companies. And once again, its something that is rarely seen from the likes of Teeple/RAW/Saucier Perrotte/Diamond Schmitt/Hariri Pontarini.

Two separate issues here.

1) Quality of an architectural firm is not necessarily related to whether an intended twin project is issued. When a developer directs a twin/triplet condo development to be designed, the architect simply fulfills the order of the client whether its Yansong Ma or G+C, etc. Even HP's Garrison Point features a trio/quad of related towers. I actually enjoy that project but design aesthetics not exactly the point here, merely developer's intention.

2) Reoccurring design elements are evident in most firms' work in the city for residential projects. DSAI, whose tame but respectful aesthetics for institutional buildings, also translates into repetitive residential designs (ie. Charlie, Pace, 57 Spadina). Until recently Teeple & RAW's portfolio have mainly comprised of boutique mid-rise projects. Though playful and enjoyable, those designs match up relative to aA's work in that realm and not exactly comparable to the extensiveness of large scale twin/trio condo developments.

Also, you mentioned "higher profile projects". For the most part, Murano & Peter St, etc. are not high profile projects so why bother pointing that out. They are just regular condo developments, relatable to the mass production of modernism and/or simply current condo market supply/demand. One can reason that to be restricting of a firm's creativity but should also be balanced between the business side of the condo game. Many of their earlier designs have also served to be inspirations of emulations by other firms. Although when given the opportunity to explore more inventive designs, aA has shown great creativity (Theatre Park, 2131 Yonge, 89 Avenue, etc). Perhaps the main reason for aA to be often singled out is their wide portfolio and increasing number of developers who have switched over to their services in recent years.

 

[Conrad Black]

Perhaps the main reason for aA to be often singled out is their wide portfolio and increasing number of developers who have switched over to their services in recent years.

You got it. We would be substituting Teeple into that sentence if they had to produce so many point towers for Toronto developers.

 

[junctionist]

I think Teeple chose not to be a firm that designs a high volume of repetitive glass towers for Toronto developers. Teeple seems to be more about advancing a unique creative and artistic vision than just designing a slew of decent towers for the mainstream development industry. As a result, Teeple's buildings have more variations and creative flourishes, though they have a consistent design language that emphasizes geometric forms.

 

[ProjectEnd]

Stephen didn't 'choose' anything. Architecture is a cutthroat business and he'd take the commissions if they were offered (as evidenced by new projects with Monarch, Tridel and others).

 

[junctionist]

I don't know him, but I think that if he wanted his firm to design glass boxes by the dozens, he would have built his firm around that. There are many firms dedicated to that kind of business. I imagine that's where there's excellent money to be made, but there isn't as much creativity to it. The choice of creative expression versus volume production arises in many creative industries, though there are always people who manage to do both as well.

 

[interchange42]

So, the intimation is that Teeple is doing what he wants and Clewes isn't? Ot that Clewes just does what he does for the money? Sorry, but I think that's preposterous, construed out of ignorance, and insulting. You may not value aA modernism to the degree that you do Teeple, but to merely put the difference down to creative expression versus volume production is obnoxious for its blind arrogance.

42

 

[interchange42]

I suppose my frustration was misguided in that respect. I've never been a fan of twin/triple tower complexes and aA seems to have their name attached to an inordinate amount of them. Its something that's generally much more common amongst the lesser regarded companies but rarely seems to be the case when the cities elite firms(imo) are involved i.e. Teeple, RAW, Saucier Perrotte, Diamond Schmitt and Hariri Pontarini(when it comes to their higher profile projects).

However, the other issue I have still stands. That is their habit of rehashing previous designs. Its one thing to take an design element or two, but the lack of any real distinction amongst many of their highrise projects is what I find irritating. That type of thing should be left to the mediocre companies. And once again, its something that is rarely seen from the likes of Teeple/RAW/Saucier Perrotte/Diamond Schmitt/Hariri Pontarini.

AlbertC has taken up your main point pretty successfully, I agree entirely with him and don't need to rehash it. Not addressed by AlbertC is that you would find few people who would consider your list of 'elite' firms complete, and in fact many would consider aA an elite firm, and that it would not be the only Toronto-based firm to add to the list. Others would drop one or more of the firms you've listed, including Saucier and Perrotte for not being Toronto based despite the general acceptance of their excellence. I dunno… it strikes me as a weird list that has no bearing whatsoever on whether or not the firm might produce a pair of twins.

42