Toronto Cinema Tower | 142.64m | 43s | Daniels | Kirkor Architects

That's absolutely hideous! If I lived there, I'd be so pissed off that that's the entrance to the building. The spouts! Haha. I've seen better implementations on a trailer.
 
wolfewood said:
This is section 37 funded artwork no? Is there any way the City can demand they redo it? This definitely stretches the definition of art...
Click to expand...

Ya, I don't get it. How does this development pass off a design feature of the building as public art? (and an incredibly horrible one at that!). Same with Trump. The non operational LED lights are a design feature of the building, much like the granite and curtain wall. The city needs to reconsider it's definition of public art.
 
The artist was Peter Powning and his vision for the facade, which is called Strata, is to "evoke a sense of geological time that puts the human era in perspective." You can download more information about the public art component here: http://www.powning.com/peter/download-document/17-strata.html

I should also point out that he did the public art component at Festival Tower: http://www.powning.com/peter/index.php?option=com_g2bridge&view=gallery&Itemid=90&g2_itemId=64 and http://www.powning.com/peter/index.php?option=com_g2bridge&view=gallery&Itemid=90&g2_itemId=90
 
Last edited:
Actually, when you get right up close to it, the texture is quite interesting. The overall execution is hilariously bad, though. And those translucent epoxy-looking sections? They light up at night!

As for the arguments against integrating art into a building, I don't see the issue.
 
The translucent epoxy-looking sections? Those are glass. Lots of translucent things in this city light up at night. That's one of the reasons they were made translucent.

42
 
All we're missing is some glow-in-the-dark faux dinosaur bones - this is even worse than the piece at CrystalBlu.

Gawd, how about putting some real minerals on and bath them with UV light instead.

AoD
 
wolfewood said:
This is section 37 funded artwork no? Is there any way the City can demand they redo it? This definitely stretches the definition of art...
Click to expand...

No. This is Percent for Public Art funded work. Section 37 monies usually goes to community benefits in the surrounding community. IIRC, Cinema Tower S.37 is helping fund the upcoming John Street makeover.

In regard to art that you don't like, well, no, there's no mechanism for its recall.

42
 
cruzin4u said:
Really at a loss for words regarding this entrance. I love the treatment or lackthereof of the concrete pillar - not to mention, look at the down spout they installed on both sides! What an embarrassment.
Click to expand...

for the record, those downspouts on the central concrete pillar are temporary
 
Jasonzed said:
This looks a bit tacky to me...
DSCN2324_zpsa810144c.jpg


DSCN2325_zps507fc484.jpg

[/IMG]
Click to expand...

Tacky doesn't even begin to describe this. To make matters worse is the lack of trees. It's just barren concrete. At least if they planted a row of trees out front they would partly hide this POS in 20 years time.
Lucky for us though we get to take it all in, unobstructed for a very long time.
 
Logan said:
Tacky doesn't even begin to describe this. To make matters worse is the lack of trees. It's just barren concrete. At least if they planted a row of trees out front they would partly hide this POS in 20 years time.
Lucky for us though we get to take it all in, unobstructed for a very long time.
Click to expand...
Maybe ivy?
 
Logan said:
Tacky doesn't even begin to describe this. To make matters worse is the lack of trees. It's just barren concrete.
Click to expand...

Tacky my ass, this looks fantastic:cool:, regarding trees, there has been more than enough Section 37 funds given by developers for the streetscape of the area....ask the city what they are doing with it?
 
You must log in or register to post here.

Back
Top