Urban Shocker
Doyenne
aA's Waalpanorama in Holland, another tower by a lake, is reminiscent - though it will have a podium.
|
|
|
marcus_a_j
Senior Member
Smoother, graceful curves, lack of exposed concrete, no vertical interuptions anywhere and very simplistic. I like how there are no balconies (personal preference) and how each floor flows around the building. PP is too jagged and unexciting
Pep'rJack
Active Member
I love that building, as well as the Sherry-Netherland hotel across 59th:
Geez, where've you been? Haven't you heard that rich people who claim to care about poor people are just foolish liars who actually only care about their haircuts?
Geez, where've you been? You don't know The Shocker at all.
Clue:
.
Dr. Snoot
Active Member
I just returned to Toronto from a year of living in Japan. I have been undecided as to whether I like or dislike this project. Yesterday, I had the chance to see 1 St. Thomas from the street for the first time and feel compelled to put in my 2-cents.
Though the project has its handsome points, I believe the overall design is flawed. I don't believe the building should have been modern, nor am I against its "faux" aspirations. Rather, I feel several styles have been muddled into an incoherent whole. I am no architectural whiz, so I'll point out a few things I noticed without using accurate terminology, I'm sure.
The windows at the base have a distinctly modern-era, even industrial feel. They are large, black-framed, linear, and unembellished, suiting the large-pattern 'stonework'. Similarly, the building's apex has clean, rectilinear elements and repeats the relatively unadorned theme. However, the core design elements are decidedly more fussy. In particular, the balconies and bay windows have wrought-iron, appliqués that look distinctively 'suburban', as described by another forum member. In addition, this section's poured concrete resembles stucco, with miniature balcony-like outcroppings. Overall, I see at least two architectural styles competing in a way that unfortunately distracts from their admirable, respective strengths.
Feel free to disagree - I was very jet-lagged at viewing time.
Though the project has its handsome points, I believe the overall design is flawed. I don't believe the building should have been modern, nor am I against its "faux" aspirations. Rather, I feel several styles have been muddled into an incoherent whole. I am no architectural whiz, so I'll point out a few things I noticed without using accurate terminology, I'm sure.
The windows at the base have a distinctly modern-era, even industrial feel. They are large, black-framed, linear, and unembellished, suiting the large-pattern 'stonework'. Similarly, the building's apex has clean, rectilinear elements and repeats the relatively unadorned theme. However, the core design elements are decidedly more fussy. In particular, the balconies and bay windows have wrought-iron, appliqués that look distinctively 'suburban', as described by another forum member. In addition, this section's poured concrete resembles stucco, with miniature balcony-like outcroppings. Overall, I see at least two architectural styles competing in a way that unfortunately distracts from their admirable, respective strengths.
Feel free to disagree - I was very jet-lagged at viewing time.
Zephyr
Active Member
Let me be among the first to welcome you to the UT.
(When it's appropriate, I hope you can bring some of your photos and perspectives gathered from living in Japan vis-Ã -vis projects in TO.)
(When it's appropriate, I hope you can bring some of your photos and perspectives gathered from living in Japan vis-Ã -vis projects in TO.)
adma
Superstar
Sir Novelty Fashion
Senior Member
"Geez, where've you been? You don't know The Shocker at all."
I meant "she", as in "significant other"...
There used to be a head-banging smiley. Now that I look for it in my moment of need, it's gone.
Zephyr
Active Member
A Long Day's Journey Into Sunrise (fueled by non-alcoholic beverages)
Fans of Stern have used such words as “exquisite” and “elegant” to describe One St. Thomas. When successful, Classicism achieves these accolades by the proper mix of setbacks, window treatments at each level, reinforced verticality by a proportionally elongated central shaft with strong soaring elements. Some architectural historians have gone so far as to place this style under the category of progressive architecture. Curious to adopt a label like progressive and then set it beside classicism, these words seem to be at odds - like say new and traditionalist.
Classicism in skyscrapers dates from the 1920s, but Stern’s take at One St. Thomas is more akin to a later period, as late as the 1940s or 1950s. True, the building I compared to 1ST, the Louisiana State Capitol, was erected in the early 1930s, but with little effort one can find closer resemblances in the skyscraper detail of the late Classicism period, near mid-twentieth century – not to be confused with the present period's aspirations.
The precursors to the “International Style” - as the so-called collection of styles were called - started at about the same time in Europe. This other “style” experimented with skyscrapers, but it was more often horizontal low risers at first that gained their attention. Then out of the Bauhaus branch, came a young Mies van der Rohe.
Adma has left us with Mies van der Rohe's 1922, unbuilt, Berlin "study model," often cited as the inspiration for Lake Point Tower in 1968:
It may sound odd, but that study model which Mies van der Rohe students – George Schipporeit and John Heinrich – used as motivation to build their Chicago skyscraper, was radical even for Mies who created it as an act of experimentation with form. And words that were broadly the equivalent of progressive at the time, “modern” or “moderne,” were floating around in the architectural lingo not firmly attached to any one style, did not take note of Mies' ideas. In retrospect, we see that modern/moderne is attached more clearly to descendents of Mies, and all the others, who finally threw away ornamentation and delved into the raw shapes, and structural elements, as the only expressions needed for the built form.
Schipporeit and Heinrich eventually transposed the curves of Mies' model into their tripod or three-wing design. As a matter of fact, they started out with four extentions, then dropped down to three. Their actions were tied to a an area of concern: the privacy "issue". With only three pods or wings, each could be spaced 120 degrees "dead center" from the next pod/wing, on either side, making views at the same level of neighbouring extentions, nearly impossible! This touch of genius in the translation of curves and angles kept on giving. As a default, vistas were dramatically increased. Design was elevated into the loftier realm of elegance. And they did this without resorting to any taper, or tricks of their style to emphasize verticality (like raised mullions, using exposed I-beams). The Mies legacy was there, because they still thought it relevant, with exposed I-beams and a recessed podium at the base. But there was nothing that hinted at copy in this inspiration, everything was rethought and judged against the demands of the present.
Two other salient factors that arguably increased the elegance of Lake Point Tower:
That is the way I like to see a legacy evolve, this just happens to be a modernist legacy. I am no Horace Greeley, but I would phrase my view in a facsimile of his voice: "press forward, do not rest, do not become so overly respectful of the past that you do not have the will, nor the capacity, to either update, perhaps redefine, or if necessary and possible, transcend that legacy altogether, and forge your own."
Fans of Stern have used such words as “exquisite” and “elegant” to describe One St. Thomas. When successful, Classicism achieves these accolades by the proper mix of setbacks, window treatments at each level, reinforced verticality by a proportionally elongated central shaft with strong soaring elements. Some architectural historians have gone so far as to place this style under the category of progressive architecture. Curious to adopt a label like progressive and then set it beside classicism, these words seem to be at odds - like say new and traditionalist.
Classicism in skyscrapers dates from the 1920s, but Stern’s take at One St. Thomas is more akin to a later period, as late as the 1940s or 1950s. True, the building I compared to 1ST, the Louisiana State Capitol, was erected in the early 1930s, but with little effort one can find closer resemblances in the skyscraper detail of the late Classicism period, near mid-twentieth century – not to be confused with the present period's aspirations.
The precursors to the “International Style” - as the so-called collection of styles were called - started at about the same time in Europe. This other “style” experimented with skyscrapers, but it was more often horizontal low risers at first that gained their attention. Then out of the Bauhaus branch, came a young Mies van der Rohe.
Adma has left us with Mies van der Rohe's 1922, unbuilt, Berlin "study model," often cited as the inspiration for Lake Point Tower in 1968:
It may sound odd, but that study model which Mies van der Rohe students – George Schipporeit and John Heinrich – used as motivation to build their Chicago skyscraper, was radical even for Mies who created it as an act of experimentation with form. And words that were broadly the equivalent of progressive at the time, “modern” or “moderne,” were floating around in the architectural lingo not firmly attached to any one style, did not take note of Mies' ideas. In retrospect, we see that modern/moderne is attached more clearly to descendents of Mies, and all the others, who finally threw away ornamentation and delved into the raw shapes, and structural elements, as the only expressions needed for the built form.
Schipporeit and Heinrich eventually transposed the curves of Mies' model into their tripod or three-wing design. As a matter of fact, they started out with four extentions, then dropped down to three. Their actions were tied to a an area of concern: the privacy "issue". With only three pods or wings, each could be spaced 120 degrees "dead center" from the next pod/wing, on either side, making views at the same level of neighbouring extentions, nearly impossible! This touch of genius in the translation of curves and angles kept on giving. As a default, vistas were dramatically increased. Design was elevated into the loftier realm of elegance. And they did this without resorting to any taper, or tricks of their style to emphasize verticality (like raised mullions, using exposed I-beams). The Mies legacy was there, because they still thought it relevant, with exposed I-beams and a recessed podium at the base. But there was nothing that hinted at copy in this inspiration, everything was rethought and judged against the demands of the present.
Two other salient factors that arguably increased the elegance of Lake Point Tower:
Proportionally Tall – isolated away from other skyscrapers, out on the waterfront, was a selling point. But also became an "engine starter" to build taller (at the time it was the tallest all-residential building in the world – a title that will be given eventually to Calatrava’s Chicago Spire). Building taller, in turn, made the proportions more elegant in relation to the shape, a lesson well learned in all good architecture. The study model was considerably shorter, and largely irrelevant for this decision.
"Tuxedo-Like" Glass Tinting – Physical isolation on the lake would expose residents to unrelenting sun glare on many days, especially at sunrise. The architects addressed this with darkly tinted glass. (I can tell you from direct experience, that shades are also necessary to deal with the sun when low in the sky.) One writer thought the dark glass gave the building its final “tuxedo-like” look, a bit fanciful, but not too off-centre. Nowhere is glass more forceful, when done correctly, than on a modernist building. Technology made it more possible by the late 1960s for the window wall to appear like continuous glass, and these architects took advantage.
"Tuxedo-Like" Glass Tinting – Physical isolation on the lake would expose residents to unrelenting sun glare on many days, especially at sunrise. The architects addressed this with darkly tinted glass. (I can tell you from direct experience, that shades are also necessary to deal with the sun when low in the sky.) One writer thought the dark glass gave the building its final “tuxedo-like” look, a bit fanciful, but not too off-centre. Nowhere is glass more forceful, when done correctly, than on a modernist building. Technology made it more possible by the late 1960s for the window wall to appear like continuous glass, and these architects took advantage.
That is the way I like to see a legacy evolve, this just happens to be a modernist legacy. I am no Horace Greeley, but I would phrase my view in a facsimile of his voice: "press forward, do not rest, do not become so overly respectful of the past that you do not have the will, nor the capacity, to either update, perhaps redefine, or if necessary and possible, transcend that legacy altogether, and forge your own."
.
Urban Shocker
Doyenne
About as much as your liking for Akhenaten's art, or the fact that you once sublet a building in Chicago, or what you think you're going to tell Joe Canuck when you see him in 2040, I think.
buildup
Senior Member
"What does any of this have to do with this thread?"
If I can establish that critics of Stern are transexuals, then 1 St Thomas will be vindicated. That is classical logic.
But, back to more serious discussions.
I will concede the earlier point by Skocker or Zephyr that the faux fluted column in the inner driveway is questionable.
If I can establish that critics of Stern are transexuals, then 1 St Thomas will be vindicated. That is classical logic.
But, back to more serious discussions.
I will concede the earlier point by Skocker or Zephyr that the faux fluted column in the inner driveway is questionable.
Zephyr
Active Member
I am surprised that you have turned your guns on me, since that comment was not in any way meant as an attack on you or buildup. More of an avoidance of what it could lead to as it has throughout these threads.
But since you have fired, I'll say this, none of my comments that you have cited, were very far off the topic of these threads as you seem to suggest.
- My reponse to wyliepoon, after his good natured prodding about Egyptian art is a humourous reference to another thread in which we dealt with the relationship between culture and architecture. (It also had to do with a comment made by others on this thread that art is not really connected to an architectural discussion.)
- The sublet thing was in response to someone here associating where a person lives with their opinion about architectural style.
- Canuck was about my take on the impact of Stern on Toronto.
scarberiankhatru
Senior Member
Very little posted in this thread in the past 2 months / 200 posts has much to do with 1 St. Thomas, but so what? Threads that go slightly off topic are invariably better, funnier, and more informative, too.
Urban Shocker
Doyenne
Tut Tut.
AndreaPalladio
Senior Member
He coulda won a Grammy,
Buried in his jammies,
Born in Arizona, moved to Babylonia,
He was born in Arizona, got a condo made of stone-a,
King Tut
Buried in his jammies,
Born in Arizona, moved to Babylonia,
He was born in Arizona, got a condo made of stone-a,
King Tut
dt_toronto_geek
Superstar
I was cycling home along College and just before University the very top of 1 St. Thomas can be seen. I'm not a height fanatic but in hindsight I really wish this building was maybe 8 or 10 stories higher so it could have been seen better from a distance and have more of an impact on the skyline. As is, it's still a great success.