Archivist
Senior Member
Odd
One of my beefs about 1 St. Thomas, I guess, I just that every time I read something about Robert Stern I end up disliking him more, and then I end up hating this building as a kind of reminder of his presence on the globe. (To be fair, I tend to avoid reading about architects at all, because they almost all strike me as pompous, self-important, egotistical morons - which I suppose is exactly what I would be like if something I actually designed that was, like, so big, actually got built). But quoting from the article that Adma posted, how in God's green earth could you apply this to 1ST?
There is an important place, he argues, for structures that put function before form and attend to a client’s needs rather than draw attention to themselves. “Many modernist works of our time tend to be self-important objects, and that’s a real quarrel that I have,†Mr. Stern said. “Buildings can be icons or objects, but they still have to engage with the larger whole.â€
I don't really even strongly dislike 1ST - it's certainly not to my taste - but in what way does this building not draw attention to itself, and how could you possibly say that it puts function before form? The entire building is an exercise in making the people who live there feel like they are arriving at a chateau instead of an early 21st Century condominium tower.
Later, Stern says “You can’t have a world that is built of only original things, where every shape is different from every other,†he said. “You can, but then it becomes a World Fair. You can’t have caviar five nights in a row.â€
But what else could 1St be except the appearance of caviar five nights in a row? In a city of modernist buildings with very few pre-WW2 highrises like Toronto, what is 1ST except an instance of "an original thing"? His words and his actions just don't match up. It seems to me, frankly, that many many buildings in Toronto riff off the city's dominant modernist paradigm, either ably or less ably, and buildings like 1ST are those that really try to stand out.
I'll be the first to admit that most architects public offerings are horrendous dribble, but Stern's seem somehow more obnoxious to me. So, although I'm not above jabbing at 1 St. Thomas, in fact, I feel almost forgiving of the building itself, if only it didn't remind me of Stern.
One of my beefs about 1 St. Thomas, I guess, I just that every time I read something about Robert Stern I end up disliking him more, and then I end up hating this building as a kind of reminder of his presence on the globe. (To be fair, I tend to avoid reading about architects at all, because they almost all strike me as pompous, self-important, egotistical morons - which I suppose is exactly what I would be like if something I actually designed that was, like, so big, actually got built). But quoting from the article that Adma posted, how in God's green earth could you apply this to 1ST?
There is an important place, he argues, for structures that put function before form and attend to a client’s needs rather than draw attention to themselves. “Many modernist works of our time tend to be self-important objects, and that’s a real quarrel that I have,†Mr. Stern said. “Buildings can be icons or objects, but they still have to engage with the larger whole.â€
I don't really even strongly dislike 1ST - it's certainly not to my taste - but in what way does this building not draw attention to itself, and how could you possibly say that it puts function before form? The entire building is an exercise in making the people who live there feel like they are arriving at a chateau instead of an early 21st Century condominium tower.
Later, Stern says “You can’t have a world that is built of only original things, where every shape is different from every other,†he said. “You can, but then it becomes a World Fair. You can’t have caviar five nights in a row.â€
But what else could 1St be except the appearance of caviar five nights in a row? In a city of modernist buildings with very few pre-WW2 highrises like Toronto, what is 1ST except an instance of "an original thing"? His words and his actions just don't match up. It seems to me, frankly, that many many buildings in Toronto riff off the city's dominant modernist paradigm, either ably or less ably, and buildings like 1ST are those that really try to stand out.
I'll be the first to admit that most architects public offerings are horrendous dribble, but Stern's seem somehow more obnoxious to me. So, although I'm not above jabbing at 1 St. Thomas, in fact, I feel almost forgiving of the building itself, if only it didn't remind me of Stern.
