Toronto 400 Front Street | 195.75m | 60s | State Building Group | Kirkor

To be clear though, in addition to my conditions of what makes something good...I will now also add what I presume is Mr. AlvinofDiaspar's as well. That is, in the end it still has to look good.

So I am only giving this project less than 5% probability that it will turn out alright. Even less so for turning out spectacularly great. So outside of my hoping it will, "...look really good when completed," I'm not expecting much with this at all. /le sigh
 
DSC said:
You have been around here long enough to know that getting 'the right materials and attention' is FAR from guaranteed!
Click to expand...
Well there's 2 problems with that statement...

1) I don't think I've been here long enough to claim I really know really anything about this field. As part of the exercise of me posting here is educating myself said field I have a degree of interest in - oddly enough, for artistic purposes. Therefore and regardless, it's still 50/50 whether I get anything right or wrong about it.

2) I have observed many times here how projects falter because they used the wrong/poor materials (ie. the liberal use of grey spamdrel). So my statement is a reasonable position to take, for right or wrong.

...that all said, what I don't understand and has not been made really clear in my time of being here is what criteria does make something actually good. The right materials are a given. But beyond that, I'm unsure. I know what I like...which brings me to the next question that begs: How does one separate defining criteria's on something is good from personal opinion and subjectivity in this field? I haven't yet seen anything here that has really demonstrated that degree of objectivity. Or I wouldn't be asking this. And thus, I am still fumbling around in the dark over this...

And Merry Christmas everyone! <3
 
UtakataNoAnnex said:
Well there's 2 problems with that statement...

1) I don't think I've been here long enough to claim I really know really anything about this field. As part of the exercise of me posting here is educating myself said field I have a degree of interest in - oddly enough, for artistic purposes. Therefore and regardless, it's still 50/50 whether I get anything right or wrong about it.

2) I have observed many times here how projects falter because they used the wrong/poor materials (ie. the liberal use of grey spamdrel). So my statement is a reasonable position to take, for right or wrong.

...that all said, what I don't understand and has not been made really clear in my time of being here is what criteria does make something actually good. The right materials are a given. But beyond that, I'm unsure. I know what I like...which brings me to the next question that begs: How does one separate defining criteria's on something is good from personal opinion and subjectivity in this field? I haven't yet seen anything here that has really demonstrated that degree of objectivity. Or I wouldn't be asking this. And thus, I am still fumbling around in the dark over this...

And Merry Christmas everyone! <3
Click to expand...
There is nothing wrong with your opinion and you probably know as much about 'architecture" and planning as most of us. I was simply pointing out that in the years I have been hanging around here (I am horrified to see it's coming up to 13) we have seen many promising projects ruined by 'value engineering' (aka 'the cheapenig'), a poor choice of material and/or poor workmanship. In my opinion, for what it's worth, it is unwise to assume the best or that a rendering will bear much resemblance to the details on the finished product. Caveat emptor and all that! Happy Christmas to you (and others) too!
 
Last edited:
DSC said:
There is nothing wrong with your opinion and you probably know as much about 'architecture" and planning as most of us. I was simply pointing out that in the years I have been hanging around here (I am horrified to see it's coming up to 13) we have seen many promising projects ruined by 'value engineering' (aka 'the cheapenig'), a poor choice of material and/or poor workmanship. In my opinion, for what it's worth, it is unwise to assume the best or that a rendering will bear much resemblance to the details on the finished produce. Caveat emptor and all that! Happy Christmas to you (and others) too!
Click to expand...
...I think we're arguing the same thing then. :)
 
I'll be happy here to get rid of one of the most unsightly parking lots in the city. Once this project is complete it will go a long way in maturing the area.
 
The Preservationist said:
I'll be happy here to get rid of one of the most unsightly parking lots in the city. Once this project is complete it will go a long way in maturing the area.
Click to expand...
Ah yes, the old "it's better than a parking lot' argument. Often the (unspoken, naturally) point made by developers.
 
DSC said:
Ah yes, the old "it's better than a parking lot' argument. Often the (unspoken, naturally) point made by developers.
Click to expand...
That's a good one to use against Nimby's though. But I agree, it should never be used as excuse for poor design and/or execution. That's being disingenuous at best otherwise.
 
Amare said:
It's funny because in a lot of cases, it's a better to have a parking lot again compared to the hideous trash that some developers put up.
Click to expand...
Agreed. Daniels Condos is a shining example.

Can't say I have anything against this particular proposal though. That parking lot didn't stand a chance in this area. Clearance Square would look neat with taller buildings surrounding it.
 
Amare said:
It's funny because in a lot of cases, it's a better to have a parking lot again compared to the hideous trash that some developers put up.
Click to expand...
Sorry i dont buy that
I just can not see. how a parking lot could be better than a building no matter how it looks (cause most people dont give a shit about the looks) can be better than bringing some street life into an area with a bunch of much needed residential, retail?
 
Automation Gallery said:
Sorry i dont buy that
I just can not see. how a parking lot could be better than a building no matter how it looks (cause most people dont give a shit about the looks) can be better than bringing some street life into an area with a bunch of much needed residential, retail?
Click to expand...
I think of asking myself that anytime I see buildings such as YC Condos, or 300 Front St.W, or 18 Yonge St, or the 2 Daniels towers on the waterfront, etc. But then I snap back from my daydream and see the reality that's in front of me: horridly designed buildings.

I'm not saying this project will be along those lines, but the design of the 2 towers arent inspiring much hope.
 
Amare said:
I think of asking myself that anytime I see buildings such as YC Condos, or 300 Front St.W, or 18 Yonge St, or the 2 Daniels towers on the waterfront, etc. But then I snap back from my daydream and see the reality that's in front of me: horridly designed buildings.

I'm not saying this project will be along those lines, but the design of the 2 towers arent inspiring much hope.
Click to expand...
Yup, those towers cant get more boring if they tried, the saving grace is that wavy building at the corner with the setbacks and the wavy shape to get some interest
They could have done something cool at the podium for the 2 towers but its all bland and glass
 
I think the corner building will honestly be worse, if not about the sane in terms of how it's executed...it looks like it's waiting to cheapened to spandrel and lower quality materiality. It's good to get this parking lot finally filled in...although I'm going to be more keen on focusing on how this relates to the area around it. Street level looks like itll be...not good.
 
You must log in or register to post here.

Back
Top