Toronto Brant Park | 35.36m | 11s | Lamb Dev Corp | a—A

I don't buy this "you can only be so contextual regardless of design" reasoning at all. It totally lowers the standards for architectural innovation and creativity and encourages mediocrity such as what's proposed for this site. Clewes and his buddy Lamb should read this article by Lisa Rochon to get some ideas about context:
http://bit.ly/SESwh8
 
busybeaver:

If you read carefully what Lisa Rochon has said, she didn't say that it is the fault of the architect - but what's being proposed by the proponent vs. the regulatory environment. The competence of the architect is important, no doubt - but that doesn't change the main issue at hand, which is the relative impotence of the city in dictating plans.

AoD
 
The Architect:

Aura is a transition site, with 2s buildings south of Gerrard, and no buildings in the area remotely as tall as what's being proposed (certainly none on Yonge itself). Just because it is a different case from 501 (which I don't support either) doesn't mean this example is "contextual" either.

Oh speaking of which, let's not forget the real "contextual" 460 Yonge - smack against a heritage building, no less.

AoD
 
Last edited:
AlvinofDiaspar said:
busybeaver:

If you read carefully what Lisa Rochon has said, she didn't say that it is the fault of the architect - but what's being proposed by the proponent vs. the regulatory environment. The competence of the architect is important, no doubt - but that doesn't change the main issue at hand, which is the relative impotence of the city in dictating plans.

AoD
Click to expand...

I agree architects face challenges with planners, regulations, building codes, etc. but I don't accept this as an excuse for Lamb ‘n Clewe’s lack of contextual vision and originality with this development. Even with strict regulations there's much that can be accomplished with a bit of imagination.. materials, variation of form at street level, setbacks, scale, colour, texture, taking cues from neighbouring buildings, etc. Many designers and creative types face similar challenges - public artists must also work within a strict set of guidelines and regulations but that doesn’t stop them from designing something unique and original - rarely do you see contemporary public art that looks like its been copied and transported from another era with no sense of context, time and place. The bar is set so low for contemporary architecture in this city - we seriously need a new generation of architects with some fresh ideas – enough already with rehashing modernist boxes. I agree with Lisa’s statement that “downtown Toronto is becoming a monotone composition of lookalike glass towers and deadening streetscapes from which there is no escape.â€
 
Looks like demolition activities for the existing buildings are starting - fencing is going up around the Brant Park site today, and the sales suite has moved out.
 
Pic taken July 12, 2013


asEXSnP.jpg
 
I'm surprised that they are starting demolition already. A few months ago they were at 60% sold...so maybe they had a surge of new sales recently. I kind of like the '70's office building look about it. It's grown on me lol :p
 
ducati0000 said:
I dont like the design,reminds me a of a 1970 office building...way too mundane lacks character.
Click to expand...

This building isn't about character, it's about the beauty of very simple geometry. Real precision in execution will be required to give it the repetitive perfection it will need to work.

42
 
First building is down..they are starting on the east side and moving west..last chance to see the Blue Bird building!
 
Pics taken July 17, 2013


u2PeRS0.jpg



3fbujPN.jpg



iHaaIjt.jpg
 
You must log in or register to post here.

Back
Top