Toronto 100 Yorkville at Bellair | 61.57m | 16s | Invar Building | Hariri Pontarini

You really have to see this in person, I guess. It doesn't look cheap at all in person. It's quite the opposite.

It's all a matter of opinion, but I think it looks brilliant. I would rather see this sort of thing than another glass rectangle.
 
I don't mind it either, although they could've toned it down a bit on the columns, etc. I really hope they use slate for the roof line. Scollard is a real mess for the most part, at least this little section adds some uniformity.
 
tylergreenleaf said:
You really have to see this in person, I guess. It doesn't look cheap at all in person. It's quite the opposite.

It's all a matter of opinion, but I think it looks brilliant. I would rather see this sort of thing than another glass rectangle.
Click to expand...

+1 ... see them in person, it's definitely nicer then the photo portrays. Not a masterpiece but pretty decent given the typically garbage we get for townhomes.

Townhomes in the end though really come down to personal preference. What do most people think about the one's in MET.
 
Generally speaking, I like most of the townhomes that have been put up in the core and they're a nice way of adding density downtown. They're also good at attracting suburbanites who want to live downtown but don't like highrises. There's tons of new townhomes around Jarvis & Wellesley and they're a nice addition to the neighbourhood.
 
I don't think anyone is dumping on townhouses for being townhouses - those of us dumping on these are doing it because they're being built in a style that's been dragged out of some scrapbook, one that has little to do with Toronto's history, and nothing to do with today.

42
 
Exactly. I don't think many of us would take issue with these townhouses if they used modern design principles, which seems to be too much to ask.

You're right, android. These are designed to draw the GTA's wealthy, who, unfortunately for us, live in Oakville and haven't developed a taste for modernism.
 
The Clewes-designed town houses that are part of the Radio City development are a nice example of what can be achieved with the form when you don't resort to pretentious "good taste" historicism.

He also took the idea of the Regency row house by the scruff of the neck and did something contemporary with it with the Corktown Brownstones at King and Sumach. You can capture the essence of an earlier style and do something new with it in that way - Hariri Pontarini also did it with their McKinsey building - without resorting to faux copyism.

I don't think you can dismiss the wealthy as people who are impervious to contemporary design, grey. But there is a heavily-marketed, bloated and pretentious "rich peoples' style" - and the Scollard town houses are a good example of it - that some of them have been trained to think they want in order to reflect their status.
 
grey said:
Exactly. I don't think many of us would take issue with these townhouses if they used modern design principles, which seems to be too much to ask.
Click to expand...

Let's use your argument against another form of art - music.

Not everyone wants to listen to new, cutting edge experimental music. Yes, some do and artists should be making it.

Others like to hear updated version of the classics, or hear a sound redefined (i.e. the re-emergence of soul music with many current British artists).

I see these townhouses as a redefinition of an old style using a mix of old and new materials to make something new for the modern age.

In contrast, I think something that has modern design principles, such as the townhouses on Gilead Place across from the Jamie Kennedy cafe, would look terrible here.
 
Urban Shocker said:
I don't think you can dismiss the wealthy as people who are impervious to contemporary design, grey. But there is a heavily-marketed, bloated and pretentious "rich peoples' style" - and the Scollard town houses are a good example of it - that some of them have been trained to think they want in order to reflect their status.
Click to expand...
I agree. I was over-generalizing, but that's what I meant :)

tylergreenleaf said:
I see these townhouses as a redefinition of an old style using a mix of old and new materials to make something new for the modern age.
Click to expand...
I understand what you're saying, but I disagree that this is a resurgence or reinterpretation of anything. They are trying to mimic a school of design where homes were paintakingly detailed and meticulous, and they're doing it with cheap materials, contemporary building techniques, and shortcuts. It's just enough to pass for an unscrutinous buyer. Hackneyed historicism should be condemned, not celebrated.
 
Last edited:
Urban Shocker said:
What are they doing on Scollard that's so "new"?
Click to expand...

That's fair. It's not pushing any architectural boundaries.

I guess my point was that it respects its context.

I simply love old brick buildings and am pleased to see them continue to be built.

Grey, you really have to see these in person. These townhouses are not being built on the cheap.
 
Last edited:
tylergreenleaf said:
Grey, you really have to see these in person. These townhouses are not being built on the cheap.
Click to expand...
I don't know... The precast decorations with seams between sections like excess plastic really aren't doing it for me. The completely flat, lazy brickwork pales in comparison to structures built with proper masonry. I guess I'll go take a look in person. The construction looks sturdy, and at least they're using real brick and not fake slabs (although it sure looks like slabs of brick layered like a cake based on the side view).
 
Last edited:
Thirded. It's even worse when you consider that you can see so many examples of the real deal along the neighbouring streets. The massing/scale is great but the aesthetic is very uninteresting.
 
You must log in or register to post here.

Back
Top