Ryerson: Business Building (Zeidler)

[alklay]

I do not think this building is that horrible (although it is not an aesthetic success either. The brown aluminum siding is particularly gross and cheap looking). The ground level, with a decent canopy, may not be that bad and with a few trees on the street (oh...wait, this is Toronto. There will not be any trees), it will not be any worse than most of what is on nearby Yonge or Bay.

It is certainly a wasted opportunity though as they could have done something that would not have generated this much hatred (and maybe used less pre-cast ).

 

[scarberiankhatru]

How long before it ends up here?
www.kunstler.com/eyesore.html

 

[Archivistower]

I wouldn't say "equally" important. I love seeing a beautiful building, but the vast majority of buildings in Toronto (and, actually, every city in the world) are merely functional, and not particularly aesthetic. Queen Street is a great example, though it has its gems, many buildings that are quite good for the street are, unfortunately, quite ugly if you focus on them. From this point of view, I would say that Tdot has a point. The more important thing is that the streetwall and commercial presence be interrupted as little as possible. The aesthetic nature of the buildings is secondary, though not unimportant.

I think it all depends on the approach you take to thinking about cities. Experienced as a aesthetic stimulus, then I agree with Diaspar that how a building looks is very important, equally to what it does. From a city planning point of view, I believe other questions become more important. Not that we want buildings to be ugly, but they are not all going to be stunners, ever, and that is actually OK.

 

[AlvinofDiaspar]

Archivis:

I think I should clarify - by "equally important" I meant that no buildings should be purposefully rude to its' surroundings from an urban design perspective (e.g. breaking street-walls, unsavory elements at ground level, etc). They do not have to be architectural gems by any stretch of the definition. There simply has to be regard on the part of architect as to how the structure will impact its' surroundings.

AoD

 

[building babel]

I suspect that what we're seeing with this building is the results of a process where the client or developer has the upper hand, and the architect has had to go along with their wishes.

 

[scarberiankhatru]

 

[Archivistower]

How did Adma get Scarb's login?

I guess we agree, I perhaps misread your post as being about primarily aesthetics and your concern is more broad. The Ryerson building for me truly is an affront aesthetically, but time will tell if it is suited to its location and purpose.

Does anybody know whether or how internal connections to the Eaton Centre are planned?

 

[andreapalladio]

I disagree - both are equally important, considering that these buildings exist in the public realm and thus have "users" that are beyond the mere needs of the organizations in question.

Except those users don't pay for what they use, and in architecture as in the rest of life, he who pays the piper calls the tune.

 

[WhistlerinToronto]

www.kunstler.com/eyesore.html
^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
Actually after checking out that site I’d have to argue that the Ryerson building doesn’t even hold it’s own to those. I actually like some of the designs they were bashing like this one.

Also it seems the guy running the site has a Hate-on for anything Frank Gehry!?!?

 

[building babel]

Whistler: That's the sort of bold gesture we should've had at a prime site such as Bay Adelaide.

We are all "users" of buildings in the aesthetic sense, if only because we inhabit the same space as them, walk past them every day, and are affected by their shape, colour, texture and bulk. But because we live in a city that is toothless with regard to design review, we must sit back helplessly while second rate buildings such as the Ryerson one go up.

 

[Archivistower]

Re: Kunstler. He has much of interest to say, but when it comes to issues of architecture and urban design, he's quite conservative. His approach is quite personal, which is fine.

He does say some interesting things about modest buildings, though, like the February 2006 entry with the explanation from the building's owner. I wonder if this applies to our own French Quarter as well.

I agree 100% with Babel that we are all users of buildings, for the reason he mentioned.

 

[andreapalladio]

Yes, but you're always free to build whatever your heart desires and whatever you can afford.

 

[Archivistower]

Now, AP, that's a silly response. Absolutely, you are not allowed to. Try to build a factory in the middle of Dundas and University out of wet cardboard boxes and you might find there are zoning, land use, transportation, and building code issues that intervene.

 

[andreapalladio]

Quite true. I was referring to design issues. Sorry that wasn't clear to you from the context.

 

[mark simpson]

reason why architectural firms tend to liquidated more often than developers

The architect is also to blame by not taking into account budgetary constraints designing a building meant to be roughly 30 to 40% clad in stone