Toronto Casa III Condos | 179.52m | 55s | Cresford | a—A

[dt_toronto_geek]

as for Interchange's comment, these are no Miesian masterpieces.

In condo-terms, Casa ranks high on the list as one of the better highrise condo buildings this cycle. To that end, I look forward to a second or third Casa so long as the quality and design is as good as the first. Same as what's better than one X condo? Two X condos.

 

[innsertnamehere]

But not 3 X Condos. 2 is a couple, 3 is a crowd.

 

[interchange42]

I'm not backing down from my comment.

The comparison of three Casa towers to a tract subdivision is reductio ad absurdum.

What we do not know yet is what the proposal will look like exactly in terms of its height, nor its shape nor its orientation nor its position on the lot.

What we do know is that in the case of Casa II and III is that they will be adjacent. It is not beyond Peter Clewes to have placed this third tower in a way that it relates to the second one, just lies Mies did at TD (for the first three towers + banking pavilion, anyway).

We do know that so far we have two towers which have rectangular floorplates, longer north-south than east-west. I believe that that Casa II is more elongated than Casa I (and will try to confirm that—anyone else who can prove or disprove that is welcome to speed up the process!).

Depending on how II is placed on its lot there may not be a way to engage III in a campus-like setting in dialogue with each other, or maybe it was all planned in advance, or maybe II can still be shifted to work with III, or maybe it'll all work out magically, I dunno yet. None of you know yet.

42

 

[SP!RE]

The comparison of three Casa towers to a tract subdivision is reductio ad absurdum.

In fairness, the TD Centre comparison isn't particularly fitting either. I would also argue that regardless of the things we don't know (which you point out above), an aA/Cresford residential development relationship does not spawn the same amount of architectural care and consideration that the TD Centre did. Not in a million years.

 

[interchange42]

I'm not claiming the two are directly analogous, but it's more apt than the comparison to the tract housing.

Anyway, what's the point in declaring something a failure already that you know next to nothing about? The people involved here aren't incapable ignoramuses. I'm betting some have some schoolin' behind them.

42

 

[SP!RE]

What's wrong with discussing things and disagreeing? I for one have not yet said that it's a failure. I'm just engaging people in interesting discussion.

As for the people behind the project, I don't know if that's where I'd go to create a defense argument. aA's a great firm, but I don't put much faith in Toronto's developers. And the developers are the ones with the majority of "design" control in these large-scale residential projects. Have no doubt about that. (This is why design-build is becoming so popular, unfortunately.)

 

[interchange42]

You may not have used the word "failure", but the phrase "does not spawn the same amount of architectural care and consideration" and what follows does not allow much room for hope. I might end up disappointed too when we see it all done, but I think there is room for hope here that it could be good. Yes, aA is a great firm (although I do not expect everyone to agree with that, I know not everyone thinks that way), and I'm not willing to write off Cresford. This could be a handsome grouping, and I'm looking forward to the plans.

42

 

[Traynor]

But not 3 X Condos. 2 is a couple, 3 is a crowd.

I dunno... I think I'd like to live in a Triple X condo...XXX

It seems many members on here are spoiled by the development boom of late, that affords so many companies to come to the table with different designs for each project.

Toronto is rife with whole neighbourhoods of all the exact same design (or at least same theme, materials and look) of buildings. Have any of you been to Davisville? Greenwin built many of those white-bricked towers back in the early 70's. Just go up the CN Tower and you can view groupings of buildings all over the city that are basically the same design, sitting right next to each other.

So what if there may be three of these on the same street? At least it would be three of a high-quality design and materials. Every new building proposed can't be an icon of architecture. I wouldn't want to live in a city that was like that anyway.

 

[Traynor]

Furthermore, similar designs or design sensibility is what makes a neighbourhood. Imagine a street of homes where one is Southwest ranch style; one is Tudor; one is Mid-Century Modern; the next one is Colonial; then comes a Victorian with full gingerbread; followed by an Arts and Craft and so on. It would be a mind-f*#@. Not to mention an eyesore.

Certainly identical design would breed monotony, but similar aesthetics engenders cohesion and harmony.

I say... Bring on a variation on the theme and full steam ahead for Casa III.

 

[SP!RE]

Furthermore, similar designs or design sensibility is what makes a neighbourhood. Imagine a street of homes where one is Southwest ranch style; one is Tudor; one is Mid-Century Modern; the next one is Colonial; then comes a Victorian with full gingerbread; followed by an Arts and Craft and so on. It would be a mind-f*#@. Not to mention an eyesore.

Certainly identical design would breed monotony, but similar aesthetics engenders cohesion and harmony.

That is certainly the first time I've ever heard someone say that "similar designs or design sensibility is what makes a neighbourhood". I can think of 500 things that make a good neighbourhood and that isn't one of them.

The mind-f$%# neighbourhood that you describe, however exaggerated, is exactly what many people feel is the most interesting kind of neighbourhood to live in.

Should we start tearing down St. Charles Court, Sanctuary and all the other older buildings in the area and across downtown that hurt this "cohesion and harmony"? Once you start with that approach, where do you stop? Just asking questions

 

[Ramako]

Furthermore, similar designs or design sensibility is what makes a neighbourhood. Imagine a street of homes where one is Southwest ranch style; one is Tudor; one is Mid-Century Modern; the next one is Colonial; then comes a Victorian with full gingerbread; followed by an Arts and Craft and so on. It would be a mind-f*#@. Not to mention an eyesore.

Certainly identical design would breed monotony, but similar aesthetics engenders cohesion and harmony.

I say... Bring on a variation on the theme and full steam ahead for Casa III.

Nobody is saying that each tower on this stretch should be an icon in its own right, but only that nearly identical towers would create a soulless and visually unengaging neighbourhood. You rightly evoked the image of the many clusters of nearly identical slabs that we have all over in Toronto, such as on Davisville, among other places, but I don't think most people see these as being architecturally or urbanistically successful. Replicating such mistakes is exactly what I'd like to avoid.

Furthermore, 90% of the designs that we've gotten during this boom come from the neo-modern style and accordingly they'd all more or less be able to relate to each other in a relatively complimentary way, so it's disingenuous to claim that if these towers aren't identical, the only other option is a totally haphazard mix of styles from different era. If for example, rather than Casa I, II and II on this small stretch, we got Casa and say, something like Theatre Park and Charlie, I think that would provide a much richer visual experience without significant dissonance of style.

 

[Traynor]

That is certainly the first time I've ever heard someone say that "similar designs or design sensibility is what makes a neighbourhood". I can think of 500 things that make a good neighbourhood and that isn't one of them.

The mind-f$%# neighbourhood that you describe, however exaggerated, is exactly what many people feel is the most interesting kind of neighbourhood to live in.

Really? Walk through Rosedale, Forest Hill, The Annex, Queen Street West, Cabbagetown and tell me there isn't a theme going on. Sure there are different designs but the feel, theme, and even materials are all the same. They are all neighbourhoods. One wouldn't want the mind-F^@# neighbourhood no matter what their inner rebel says. People want to be unique yet fit in at the same time. Subtle variations on a theme allow for this in Rosedale, Forest Hill et al.

Living in a building that looks like another says I am part of this mindset. So, if a building is built (Like CASA) that says to others, "Upscale, trendy Urban-folk with cool tastes and hip lifestyles live here." Then others of like mind (or pretense) will want a piece of that and to do so will demand a similar (though usually improved) version of that building nearby. So they too, by association, can be thought of with those qualities.

It is human nature to want to exude outwardly what we desire to be like internally.

*Apologies... my Psychology Minor had a need to express itself.

 

[SP!RE]

Neighbourhoods like Rosedale and Forest Hill have consistency because of the era they were built in, not because people don't like architectural variation. As for The Annex, that's a very mixed neighbourhood for architectural styles and all the better for it.

Of course, for all the pop psychology or sociology you can quote about what all people desire in a neighbourhood, there are equivalent theories to suggest that a neighbourhood should be varied and organic, and that midrise neighbourhoods consistently offer a better quality of life over high-rise areas.

I'm not saying that I necessarily agree with those statements as rules, but rather I'm pointing out the danger in assigning psychological explanations for something like the variation of architecture in a neighbourhood.

But to get back down to the subjective nitty-gritty: I like consistency from time to time; I think the TD Centre is great, I think the X condos are great and I like how Couture fits in next to X with very similar massing. I like the consistency of Vancouver's towers (at least right now when they are still relatively new and shiny). And perhaps CASA I, II, and III will end up LOOKING great... in terms of clean, modernist lines and glass, I actually have no doubt they will. I'm more concerned about how these towers relate to the street at ground level.

 

[Traynor]

Nobody is saying that each tower on this stretch should be an icon in its own right, but only that nearly identical towers would create a soulless and visually unengaging neighbourhood. You rightly evoked the image of the many clusters of nearly identical slabs that we have all over in Toronto, such as on Davisville, among other places, but I don't think most people see these as being architecturally or urbanistically successful. Replicating such mistakes is exactly what I'd like to avoid.

Furthermore, 90% of the designs that we've gotten during this boom come from the neo-modern style and accordingly they'd all more or less be able to relate to each other in a relatively complimentary way, so it's disingenuous to claim that if these towers aren't identical, the only other option is a totally haphazard mix of styles from different era. If for example, rather than Casa I, II and II on this small stretch, we got Casa and say, something like Theatre Park and Charlie, I think that would provide a much richer visual experience without significant dissonance of style.

They were not mistakes at the time. The public loved those designs and the demand for them is what created areas like Davisville. Just because our tastes have shifted away from slabs and brick, doesn't make them mistakes. In the 1960's our tastes shifted away from Victorian Warehouses and we all know what happened to downtown.

And I completely agree with your second point and it is my point exactly. VARIATIONS ON A THEME was my argument all along. I never said anything about carbon copies. I explicitly said similar design aesthetics and sensibilities such as your Theatre Park/Charlie reference.

 

[Traynor]

Neighbourhoods like Rosedale and Forest Hill have consistency because of the era they were built in, not because people don't like architectural variation. As for The Annex, that's a very mixed neighbourhood for architectural styles and all the better for it.

Of course, for all the pop psychology or sociology you can quote about what all people desire in a neighbourhood, there are equivalent theories to suggest that a neighbourhood should be varied and organic, and that midrise neighbourhoods consistently offer a better quality of life over high-rise areas.

I'm not saying that I necessarily agree with those statements as rules, but rather I'm pointing out the danger in assigning psychological explanations for something like the variation of architecture in a neighbourhood.

Yes... And this is CASA's era. I don't see the difference. The whole neighbourhood is not being steamrolled by Cresford a la 1960's St. James Town. They are adding several needed high-rises to a vibrant neighbourhood... And they are prisoners of the time they live in for designs and people's tastes.

Not POP psychology... ACTUAL psychology. (I will post a copy of my degree upon request.) Please don't throw in trend-worthy buzz terms, in attempts to diminish my point. Just make your own point. That is much more palatable.