H
Hydrogen
Guest
Actually, it would appear that some people simply like the look of the building. It's as simple as that. They're enjoying the results.
|
|
|
Zephyr
Active Member
If there is anything that you will ever be dead wrong about it is a token resistance to faux historicism from myself.
It wouldn't matter if it were Stern, Graves, or any of a number of others that generate this type of Architecture. If they would have dropped the Post-Modern and Modern Traditional label and ideas, and done a strict Revivalism of one sort or another, it would have been an improvement, but it still would be non-progressive Architecture.
ShonTron
Moderator
Member Bio
- Joined
- Apr 24, 2007
- Messages
- 12,446
- Reaction score
- 9,199
- Location
- Ward 13 - Toronto Centre
It's refreshing because it looks damn good IMO, and was built well with good materials and good detail. I would not consider a half-assed version of this project, or a poor PoMo tower to be refreshing. I do not consider something like One Park Tower in MCC "refreshing" because it looks cheesy (though it one of the most "urban" buildings there at streetlevel though). It is refreshing because it is good, and is not the typical modern box.
It may not be in your opinion "progressive" but are modernist homages to Mies all that "progressive" either? Progressive implies that architecure is progressing from somewhere and evolving. Some of the early work by Clewes, like Mozo, is what I would call progressive, and I think there is a sub-movement of "progressive" (what I'll call) modernish architecture that I also like. Minto, with its angles of glass giving a twist and some set-backs, is one of these. L Tower takes a modernist glass box and gives it an interesting shape. Even Clear Spirit, with the variation in the balcony does this, I just happen to oppose the spot it's slated for.
But I like to see some variation in our current architecture. Toronto would be dullsville if every condo were a Clewes commission.
Mystery White Boy
Banned
Is it too much to ask for more buildings like this? Easily the nicest building this city has seen in years.
scarberiankhatru
Senior Member
So it tries to be classically attractive rather than drag inspiration from the Truman/Kennedy era into the 21st century or be cutting edge...so what? Going for 'as attractive as possible' rather than 'as well-designed as possible' could be considered by some to be *very* progressive for Toronto, with its bane of a billion boring boxes. It's not my favourite building and it's not a masterpiece, but I can't deny that it's attractive...a pleasant addition to the city.
Zephyr
Active Member
So that is your criteria - it looks good and it is well done. So that thrusts us back into the visceral arena for making any assessment about Architecture.
This style that you think is so refreshing, is a rehash to me, without serious creative merit. But if that is where it stopped then we would be the poorer for it. But that is what you seem to be saying is the only thing worth looking at in any building, especially this one.
And by the way, I am NOT a defender of Clewes or Mies, address that to someone else. I think it is time to look at the differing tones of those that do not think this represents good Architecture. I do support Modernism in general but I take a critical path toward all Architecture regardless of style. I am not a follower - never was, never will be.
Secret Agent
New Member
I think it would be appropriate if a moderator could move this topic under the headline Buildings&Architecture.
Mystery White Boy
Banned
Who cares if it's a rehash. As long as it looks good and it does, that's all that really matters. Is it bad for a musician to play old jazz standards just because it's been done already? No.
Secret Agent
New Member
For your info 3Dementia, this lurker has been around longer than you'd imagine
scarberiankhatru
Senior Member
People on this forum couldn't be inspired to change their minds at gunpoint.
H
Hydrogen
Guest
Considering the nature of this ongoing debate, I'm inclined to agree with Secret Agent.
scarberiankhatru
Senior Member
That would require sifting through it all and separating the debate from the construction updates...which lucky moderator will get the short straw?
H
Hydrogen
Guest
I see your point.
It's a contemporary point, but because it makes reference to past posts, does that make it a faux point? Just had to ask...
It's a contemporary point, but because it makes reference to past posts, does that make it a faux point? Just had to ask...
alklay
Senior Member
"So that is your criteria - it looks good and it is well done. So that thrusts us back into the visceral arena for making any assessment about Architecture. "
We should be so lucky as to have buildings meet a standard in the "visceral arena", as opposed to the intellectual one.
We should be so lucky as to have buildings meet a standard in the "visceral arena", as opposed to the intellectual one.
adma
Superstar
For the jillionth time, so freaking what if it isn't "progressive", neither is the old Bank of Canada at 250 Uni vs Sun Life at 200 Uni, neither is the ghost-of-John-Lyle's Scotia at Bay + King vs Mies, yet that doesn't render them any less cherishable, and if you try arguing otherwise I'll give you SUCH a PINCH...