180 Sudbury St + 48 Abell St (Queen West Triangle, Gov't Cda+Prov ON+City TO, 2x 19s)

[Urban Shocker]

Nobody has said it should be a "glass box", the criticism that these people have made has been for what the building is, not for what it isn't. So you get a red card, and this ...

ZURDOBANG'S LAW

Zurdobang's Law states that: "As an Urban Toronto critique of a second-rate piece of architecture grows more effective, the probability that an expression such as 'well at least it's not another derivative modernist box ...' will be introduced to derail the discussion approaches one."

 

[Ramako]

Nobody has said it should be a "glass box", the criticism that these people have made has been for what the building is, not for what it isn't. So you get a red card, and this ...

ZURDOBANG'S LAW

Zurdobang's Law states that: "As an Urban Toronto critique of a second-rate piece of architecture grows more effective, the probability that an expression such as 'well at least it's not another derivative modernist box ...' will be introduced to derail the discussion approaches one."

Isn't that Tewder's Law? You need new material.

 

[Urban Shocker]

No, it gets constantly updated.

 

[Zurdobang]

180 Sudbury Brick

Zurdobang is not striking any laws since he is not a pontificating pseudo- intellectual. Tautological fallacies aside, Zurdobang's remarks relate to the practicality of the use of brick as cladding and made reference to Miesian -curtain wall - typology as an inadequate alternative for such project.
The esthetic merit or architectural import of a building such as 180 Sudbury can be debated ad nauseum, and some of you will. Others will accept it for what it is and move on. After all it does reflect failures, aspirations and cultural dissonance of this city.

 

[adHominem]

Zurdobang is not striking any laws since he is not a pontificating pseudo- intellectual.

But why is he referring to himself in the third person?

 

[gristle]

It's a pseudo-intellectual thing.

 

[adma]

In fact the design for 88-90 Carlton Street resembles 180 Sudbury and everyone raved about that building. Thnkfully no one will have to worry about panes of glass falling onto the street.

Did "everybody" so rave? I don't remember that. In fact, I recall some opinionating about it being an overly neutral backdrop for one of the least "necessary" (on grounds of the relative unimportance of what was retained) facadectomies in town.

That you're choosing that as a reference point makes me wonder whether you're blowing your own horn here, somehow...

 

[grey]

Brick is an excellent material for residential towers, its thermal mass regulates night time and daytime temperatures and it has less embodied energy than glass.

No kidding. We love brick here. If there's one thing we love at UT, it's heritage brick, but no building gets a free pass just for using brick. This is bad design and bad use of brick.

Also you are grossly exaggerating the case for 88-90 Carlton.

 

[AlbertC]

More fugliness coming soon.

http://app.toronto.ca/DevelopmentAp...icationsList.do?action=init&folderRsn=3125528

Sita Plan apporval for Phase 2 lands including additonal 3905m2 floor area secured for a new 21 storey building containing 485 dwelling units complete with grade related live work dwelling units and 438 parking spaces located in a below grade parking facility to serve the development.

 

[ProjectEnd]

The real question is how TCHC's move towards more progressive design statements never rubbed off the provincial MPPs living in the city. Their frugality is somewhat understandable given that they have to answer to forces more distant than our own municipal councillors, but they could at least pick up on the fact that demanding architectural excellence doesn't have to cost more.