Toronto Casa II Condos | 184.09m | 56s | Cresford | a—A

Travis said:
Casa 2


6911256679_f192eab637_b.jpg
Click to expand...


Just another apartment building.

I sure hope the developer makes a crap-load of money here - He's doing everything he can to do just that. Absolutly minimal design, straight-forward floor plates, no extenuating and expensive architectural treatments or details. Yes sir, this looks like one big payday......and really, isn't that what it's all about?
 
If so-called 'minimal design' cost less, why would someone like Taniguchi claim that "if [he] had enough money, he would make the architecture disappear entirely?"
 
ProjectEnd said:
If so-called 'minimal design' cost less, why would someone like Taniguchi claim that "if [he] had enough money, he would make the architecture disappear entirely?"
Click to expand...

Do you mean to tell me it costs more to make abuilding look this plain and uninteresting?
 
As a big fan of Casa I have no criticisms here but I do miss the distinctive hat on top. If the outdoor pool is indeed on the north side of the building, that's a mistake in the making.
 
someMidTowner said:
beyond loose application, more like downright incorrect application.

Its a sketch, a freakin massing study. got my hopes so high when i saw the word "rendering"
Click to expand...


yup....irresponsible "reporting" i guess. though it looks as though we actually do have something now.
 
drewp said:
Sorry to disappoint. My wording was out of context.

Yes it looks just like Casa, hence the name Casa 2.

There is a silver lining though, BSN won't be noticeable from the East side after this is built.
Click to expand...


thank goodness!
 
ProjectEnd said:
If so-called 'minimal design' cost less, why would someone like Taniguchi claim that "if [he] had enough money, he would make the architecture disappear entirely?"
Click to expand...

If he could do it just once, it would be absolutely incredible. But by the second one in similar proportions, people would roll their eyes and want design, not just empty space. There needs to be more variation, even in minimalism. With repetition, all that may be achieved is the appearance of cheapness and banality.
 
junctionist said:
There needs to be more variation, even in minimalism. With repetition, all that may be achieved is the appearance of cheapness and banality.
Click to expand...

Absolutely. It's not the design per se, but the endless repetition. Any interest I had in aA has been diluted due their total lack of imagination. I cringe every time I now see their name associated with a project, as I know exactly what we'll be getting without even seeing a render.
 
With repetition, all that may be achieved is the appearance of cheapness and banality.
Click to expand...

Surely this is wrong. If you don't like the design, fine. But the repetition of good materials and/or design is the foundation of the best cities and projects. Is TD Centre banal because it has 5 towers of essentially the same design? On a larger scale, look to Paris or New York. Block after block of the same style of building, with no more variation than you would find between Casa and Karma. I always chuckle when people respond to the post of an aerial picture of Toronto with a complaint that everything is brown and grey. Some of the greatest cities in the world are composed mostly of beige stone.
 
wmedia said:
Absolutely. It's not the design per se, but the endless repetition. Any interest I had in aA has been diluted due their total lack of imagination. I cringe every time I now see their name associated with a project, as I know exactly what we'll be getting without even seeing a render.
Click to expand...
There is usually a fair bit of variation between aA projects. They've designed many buildings with a range of design elements such as balcony arrangements, mullion placements, fins, "hats", dabs of colour, podiums, and point towers. The buildings tend to be well proportioned and meet the street well. Typically, the results are above average. There are some exceptions such as this repetition of Casa, but even this project has the better balcony glass relative to that of Casa, and a more engaging podium (at least during the day). It seems to address Casa's weaknesses. But the repetition of the wraparound balcony with glass railings doesn't strike me as satisfactory in that it's very basic. It's tastefully contemporary if done once, but harder to justify on multiple towers.
 
Last edited:
Grimace said:
Surely this is wrong. If you don't like the design, fine. But the repetition of good materials and/or design is the foundation of the best cities and projects. Is TD Centre banal because it has 5 towers of essentially the same design? On a larger scale, look to Paris or New York. Block after block of the same style of building, with no more variation than you would find between Casa and Karma. I always chuckle when people respond to the post of an aerial picture of Toronto with a complaint that everything is brown and grey. Some of the greatest cities in the world are composed mostly of beige stone.
Click to expand...

Paris would get criticism for the repetition of its 19th century blocks; however, the beauty is in the vistas which showcase individual landmarks, and the comfortable proportions of its streets with superlative refinement and design of the public realm. The repetitive blocks become a harmonious background to the city's grand achievements in architecture and planning. If the repetitive blocks were all there was to Paris, it would be rather unremarkable architecturally. You're right that repetition can be very effective in terms of architecture, but there has to be some evident purpose to it. Advancing a 'vision' of basic wraparound balcony and curtainwall isn't going to cut it.
 
Last edited:
junctionist said:
There is usually a fair bit of variation between aA projects. They've designed many buildings with a range of design elements such as balcony arrangements, mullion placements, fins, "hats", dabs of colour, podiums, and point towers. The buildings tend to be well proportioned and meet the street well. Typically, the results are above average. There are some exceptions such as this repetition of Casa, but even this project has the better balcony glass relative to that of Casa, and a more engaging podium (at least during the day). It seems to address Casa's weaknesses. But the repetition of the wraparound balcony with glass railings doesn't strike me as satisfactory in that it's very basic. It's tastefully contemporary if done once, but harder to justify on multiple towers.
Click to expand...

Why would an architect or firm have to 'justify' the decision to give residents more outdoor space? It seems to me that what should really be justified are the easy-sell curves and unnecessary flourishes which certain projects assume in an attempt to give spectacle-cravers something to salivate over. The idea that Aura for example, a cylindrical volume extruded from a square base, was somehow 'harder' to think up and therefore represents the talent of a more 'creative' architect is preposterous. What might have set that building apart, considering it's bigger-is-better claim to fame, would be the way that it's detailed. When one sees that G+C simply applied the same rushed, grey-spandrel-meets-mullion-heavy-window-wall they seem to stick on every project, it becomes harder to celebrate the resulting structure. What I appreciate about aA is their commitment to creating a great building. Not one which does backflips while preforming fellatio, but one which is handsomely proportioned and exquisitely detailed. I'd take a thousand Toronto-style, 'boring boxes' constructed with the care that we are assured to get from aA than one supertall, 'world-class,' spectacle-laden structure with the detailing of a Kirkor or G+C product.
 
junctionist said:
Paris would get criticism for the repetition of its 19th century blocks; however, the beauty is in the vistas which showcase individual landmarks, and the comfortable proportions of its streets with superlative refinement and design of the public realm. The repetitive blocks become a harmonious background to the city's grand achievements in architecture and planning. If the repetitive blocks were all there was to Paris, it would be rather unremarkable architecturally. You're right that repetition can be very effective in terms of architecture, but there has to be some evident purpose to it. Advancing a 'vision' of basic wraparound balcony and curtainwall isn't going to cut it.
Click to expand...

Giving residents a functional layout with more outdoor space isn't a vision? These things aren't just pinups on the skyline, they're people's homes. If the result of 'a basic wraparound balcony and curtainwall' is giving someone a more livable space, who really cares if the resulting building is a little 'boring?'
 
You must log in or register to post here.

Back
Top