News   Jul 12, 2024
 1.5K     0 
News   Jul 12, 2024
 1.2K     1 
News   Jul 12, 2024
 424     0 

TCHC: 501 Adelaide E / 288 King E (14s, aA)

The rendering *does* make the old firehall/Nienkamper look rather midget-like; of course, it's just the rendering--perhaps...
 
-pretty dull and overbearing to my eyes


makes me wonder if Diamond happened to be the architect of record
 
...because Diamond was fired by his own firm and has joined aA?

42
 
^because it seems Clewes can do no wrong and the other guy for can do no right
 
Once again we get, surprise, surprise, a glass box from aA. I'm sorry, but this kind of repetition is just starting to get boring. I love Sp!re, I really do. I like how its slender body makes it seem much taller than it really is. I love its stark simplicity; I can look at it for days and still find things which intrigue me. I even like the off colored panels, though I would have gone with a color that didn't make the results look like plywood. The CCBR is another example of a thoughtful, intelligent building which succeeds in being green in a more natural way, providing a garden with full grown trees and the like.

But this is too much. Theres nothing to attach myself to here. Its not bad but its not engaging either. As a piece of architecture it just seems like another low-rise, loft-style condominium with a slick interior design team and I, for one, am bored.

Clewes and the rest of aA have proven on a number of occasions that they've 'got the goods' to produce outstanding architecture. I might also state that my favored aesthetic 'style' would lie in a more modernist tradition, similar to that which Clewes practices. But theres so much you can do with a box; to, excuse the pun, take the box out of the box.
 
Like any good designer, Clewes produces site-specific buildings that aren't interchangeable. A small infill project like this would make no sense on a large open lot where York's Pond Road Residence sits; a tall point tower like Spire would make no sense in the Brick Works master plan site; a nautical-but-nice Pier 27 condo would make no sense if it was built where Evangel Hall is, and so on. The suitability of aA's buildings for their context is one of the things that this firm is known for.
 
Hmm- judging from the lovely little brick building this hulking box doesn't seem very contextually approriate to me. It's seems very 1950's institutional- hulking, heavy and intrusive.
 
Mister, I know the Brick Works, and it's no Distillery.

42
 
The difference between the DD and the Brick Works in one word is Rosedale. You think the folks up the hill would allow something like this to tower over them? The DD had no such people.
 
Another difference is that the Brick Works is in designated parkland, owned by the conservation authority AFAIK, and not by a private developer.

Anyhoo, we have a Brick Works thread, and it's here. This thread is for worshiping aA's TCHC project at 288 King East.

42
 
The Distillery District is a former industrial site downtown, adjacent to a huge redevelopment project that extends the street grid, stretches up from the harbour, and continues to the east, that will bring thousands of new residents to the area. The Brick Works, by contrast, is in a treed and grassy valley with a river, apart from the street grid, and is therefore a far lower-density development site tied to nature and green issues. Both have quite different backgrounds and the proposed uses are similarly different, yet surely deserve equal attention as design challenges. What happens with the Brick Works needn't be dismissed out of hand as insignificant. The forms used in the one development aren't appropriate for the other, as the architectural proposals demonstrate quite well.
 

Back
Top