Toronto Clear Spirit | 131.36m | 40s | Cityscape | a—A

"From Bauhaus to Our House" is a must-read about the adoption of modern architecture at harvard after WWII (if you haven't already read it), btw... Tom Wolfe is to the modern architecture movement what the Christopher Hitchens and of other pop culture writers are to the religious fundamentalist political movements in the past several decades.
 
UrbanFervour said:
"From Bauhaus to Our House" is a must-read about the adoption of modern architecture at harvard after WWII (if you haven't already read it), btw... Tom Wolfe is to the modern architecture movement what the Christopher Hitchens and of other pop culture writers are to the religious fundamentalist political movements in the past several decades.
Click to expand...

And yet, oddly enough, it's the Tom Wolfeans who very often tend to be tagged as the aesthetic equivalent of Red State reactionaries...
 
Urban Shocker said:
Other than saying you don't like them, you've provided no evidence that the form of the residences and podium buildings does not work with the historical heritage buildings or that it "overwhelms" them.
Click to expand...

I would say the onus is on you to prove they belong. Up to this point, all you've done is state that you like it and others agree. I don't buy the perspective argument since these towers will have a siginfiicant presence in the district unless you're standing right beside them. I don't buy the signpost argument either as I'm not convinced that the area needs a signpost, nor am I convinced that these towers are what's necessary.

Urban Shocker said:
The onus remains with you to do so, since there are many here who do "get it".
Click to expand...

There are many people who 'got' putting hideous concrete block buildings for skate rentals in NPS. There are many people who 'got' putting an obvious knockoff tower in the TD Centre. There are many people who 'got' cladding FCP in marble. I guess as long as there are a sufficient number of people who 'get' something it can't be wrong, right?

Urban Shocker said:
The form of the Victorian structures, and their historical value, remains - and rather than being a group of disused former industrial buildings they have a new lease on life as part of a cultural, residential and retail development that takes them as a starting point. Their demise as a functioning distillery provided a blank slate for their creative reinvention and augmentation with contemporary builds, and that in no way detracts from their historic value. That the new Distillery condos will signpost the district on the skyline should come as no surprise when you look around the city at the form that contemporary design now takes in Toronto.
Click to expand...

Contemporary design is not limited to point towers on podiums.
 
adma said:
And yet, oddly enough, it's the Tom Wolfeans who very often tend to be tagged as the aesthetic equivalent of Red State reactionaries...
Click to expand...

That's a fair point- and I'm sure when it was published, architects saw it that way... Of course, architects always like to think they know what's best for the world. How dare he challenge them?? I think it was a seminal moment in debunking the religion of the modern style and I think it's valuable to architects (and those interested in architectural history) to read it.

My point is that within the discipline itself, those who cling to modernism have since become the reactionaries. Architecture has kind of moved beyond mere aesthetic debate and is really becoming just as, if not MORE concerned with new experiential, technological and energy-efficient performative aspects of buildings. Style debates are sort of on the back-burner. Pressing ecological issues , so long ignored by mainstream architecture are now at the forefront of those architects are grappling with. Those who fixate on rectilinear modernism as a fix-all architectural stylistic solution are more and more seen as being out-of touch with what is important in the built environment in the 21st century.

For the record, I'm all for contemporary buildings and architectural innovation in the distillery. I would prefer a mid-rise scale to the towers that are being built because I like cities to provide multiple experiences, and I think the distillery and the buildings of King and Front st. E. set a nice scale precedent for the East side.
 
UrbanFervour said:
"From Bauhaus to Our House" is a must-read about the adoption of modern architecture at harvard after WWII (if you haven't already read it), btw... Tom Wolfe is to the modern architecture movement what the Christopher Hitchens and of other pop culture writers are to the religious fundamentalist political movements in the past several decades.
Click to expand...

What, far-right scaremongers, pusillanimously pedalling a doctrine of so-called "Islamo-Fascism" or late-to-the-game philistines, unaware that the criticisms they level are rarely pertiant to the idea(s) in question?

Goldberger probably said it best: "Mr. Wolfe's agility continues to dazzle, more than fourteen years after his essays first began to appear in print. But dazzle is not history, or architectural criticism, or even social criticism, and it is certainly not an inquiry into the nature of the relationship between architecture and society."
 
syn said:
I would say the onus is on you to prove they belong. Up to this point, all you've done is state that you like it and others agree. I don't buy the perspective argument since these towers will have a siginfiicant presence in the district unless you're standing right beside them. I don't buy the signpost argument either as I'm not convinced that the area needs a signpost, nor am I convinced that these towers are what's necessary.
Click to expand...

The success of the Distillery is self-evident, regardless of whether or not you see it. It isn't everyone's birthright to "get" everything that is qualitatively excellent - the examples you give indicate that - and your denial that something exists just because you don't see it doesn't negate its presence or satisfy the onus that is on you to disprove that presence.
 
It seems to me there were probably several legitimate approaches to take with the Distillery:

1. Preserve it as a museum.

2. Integrate it to the city with sensitive low rise (scale, materials, design)

3. Integrate the city to it with sensitive high rise (materials and design)

They all have their attributes, as has been argued here, but not one seems overwhelmingly right or wrong, just different... and I haven't read here a compelling argument in favour of one over the other, resoundingly or undeniably...

I sympathize that some feel strongly in favour of the approaches that weren't taken but that's the way it goes. At the end of the day lets look at the net result and judge it within the context of the approach that was taken. The Distillery has been preserved, in some form at least, to become a vital heritage and urban asset to the city. On this alone it is successful. We can enjoy the Yonge Centre; We can enjoy the restored and revitalized heritage buildings; and we can enjoy the modern architecture that brings the Distillery into the city and that brings density and life to the Distiller at all hours. Whether you were swinging for approach 1. or 2. you still have to agree that the net result is a jewell in the crown of Toronto urban planning, and this is a win regardless of approach taken.
 
I agree with Tewder that evaluating the Distillery development in context has been a major problem for some here. Rather than critiquing what exists they've mostly been restating personal preferences for a development that doesn't exist. What I've found in critiquing creative work - from the distant days when I looked at the portfolios of students applying for admission to OCA(D), to the work of illustrators and graphic designers seeking freelance work now - is that you deal with what's actually presented, and judge the success of the design on how well it achieves the goals that the designer or artist sets. It's the sort of approach that underpins the design review process that the city is using in a limited way now - not to trash the building proposal and remake it in their own image but to work with the architect or designer to improve the work that's presented.
 
UrbanFervour said:
Style debates are sort of on the back-burner. Pressing ecological issues , so long ignored by mainstream architecture are now at the forefront of those architects are grappling with. Those who fixate on rectilinear modernism as a fix-all architectural stylistic solution are more and more seen as being out-of touch with what is important in the built environment in the 21st century.
Click to expand...

Though ironically enough, the placement of style debates on the backburner on behalf of "pressing ecological issues" can work in favour of modernist *preservation*...

s0056_fl0131_it0001.jpg


...as the whole struggle (however futile) over this has proven. With the out-of touch modernist dogma approach embodied by its proposed demolition and replacement...
 
Urban Shocker said:
The success of the Distillery is self-evident, regardless of whether or not you see it. It isn't everyone's birthright to "get" everything that is qualitatively excellent - the examples you give indicate that - and your denial that something exists just because you don't see it doesn't negate its presence or satisfy the onus that is on you to disprove that presence.
Click to expand...

In other words this ends up where many debates end with you - "I like it therefore it's good". The burden of proof should be on the ones making the claim, not on others to prove a negative.
 
Syn, pay it no mind. Its just pretentious and sef-serving, without presenting any content.
 
You must log in or register to post here.

Back
Top