ProjectEnd
Superstar
High marks? Surely. Pinnacle? Likely not.
Urban Shocker
Doyenne
I think that Babak Eslahjou put it very well, after he'd "won" a Pug, in this interview a few years ago:
Q: Do you think the public/people should have this type of forum/opportunity to state whether a building is good or not?
A: I think that the public choice is over-rated and after all, George Bush was a public choice and you can take it from there. I actually live by the idea that 90% people do not have good judgment/sense. I know I am going to get into trouble with this statement but it is one of the ways that it explains to me all the screwed up things that happens to this world. As a collective of people, we have made a lot of bad decisions in the past, whether it is in politics or other areas.
When you look at the project that won for me, this renovation of a warehouse [Argyle Authentic Lofts at 183 Dovercourt Rd], I think that people have a certain sense of old world comfort and charm and I think that “that†is what really drove the award. It was something that they could relate to and were charmed by. But I don’t think the general public has the tools required to evaluate architecture. It’s tough because the same thing goes for paintings and music and other art forms. Only about 2% of the world’s music is played on radio and there is a lot of interesting music out there that nobody ever hears. We do have good radio, don’t get me wrong, I am a fan of Jazz FM and CBC Radio, but I think the proportion of population that listens to good radio is less than 10%. Same goes for art. I think you have to take “people’s choice†with a grain of salt and not put a lot of emphasis on it and take it for what it’s worth. It is the people’s choice and we can leave it at that.
Overall, a trained eye can make a better assessment of what they are looking at.
..............................................................................
Here's the full interview:
http://pugawards.wordpress.com/2008...-co-principle-with-charles-gane-deni-poletti/
LowPolygon
Senior Member
a pretty good puncturing of the idea that the 'average person' has anything of interest to say about aesthetics...
he sounds like a more plain-speaking version of Pierre Bourdieu, who referred to good taste as "an acquired disposition to ‘differentiate’ and ‘appreciate’"...
his book Distinction: A Social Critique of the Judgement of Taste is a very compelling and persuasive argument showing how taste and aesthetic knowledge are often directly correlated with one’s social status--mainly education, income and social connections, and examines "how a person's taste is a product not just of their own innate desires, but is actually something that comes from that person's position in the social field".
RC8
Senior Member
Both very good posts. But that 'old European charm' he speaks of is to a great extent created by the human dimensions that old European towns and cities were built at. Spaces built to human dimensions appeal to our instincts and provide us with a degree of psychological peace that is otherwise unattainable (not that you can't learn to appreciate the feelings that large projects invoke, but they will be learned behaviours and might fail to fully put our minds to rest).
I doubt anyone here has any complaints about the design of these towers - they are fine well crafted buildings. The problem is that by towering over what is essentially one of the few human-scaled places in Toronto where there is actually something to do, these developments are intruding into the peace it used to provide.
These things quite clearly provoke an instinctive negative reaction to the 'untrained eye' because they clash horribly with the environment in which we existed for hundreds of thousands of years. If you look carefully you'll see that children also react similarly to large surface parking lots and highways. Just because you need to learn how to like them and they take a lot of talent to design and build it doesn't make them inherently better.
I doubt anyone here has any complaints about the design of these towers - they are fine well crafted buildings. The problem is that by towering over what is essentially one of the few human-scaled places in Toronto where there is actually something to do, these developments are intruding into the peace it used to provide.
These things quite clearly provoke an instinctive negative reaction to the 'untrained eye' because they clash horribly with the environment in which we existed for hundreds of thousands of years. If you look carefully you'll see that children also react similarly to large surface parking lots and highways. Just because you need to learn how to like them and they take a lot of talent to design and build it doesn't make them inherently better.
Tewder
Senior Member
RC8
Senior Member
I love the Rockefeller Centre (or Center), but I would never describe it as a peaceful place where it's easy to sit down and relax.
People react very positively to most traditional vernacular designs due to their human scale. The artistic intent of specific buildings actually matters very little compared to the enormous impact of functional proportions.
The following spaces couldn't be more different architecturally, but all of them are built or incorporated into functional designs that allow people to instinctively interact with them in a healthy manner:
As you can see, modernist and non-modernist, low rise and mid rise, these are all serious and objectively very functional designs. Architects and architecture aficionados alike tend to take arrogant subjective positions about what constitutes good art that cloud the fact that we are talking about building places for people to live. The layout of all the places I posted accommodates people by designing spaces for people rather than by focusing on some artistic nonsense and failing to acknowledge the functional nature of these spaces (see Le Corbusier).
I don't think that these new developments are the end of the Distillery District, but the way in which they'll enhance it certainly isn't obvious.
The tower contributes to the quality of the space only until the 10th floor or so. Every story after is neither an artistic gesture nor a functional feature - it's greed. There's no other name for it.
P.S. the spaces in this post are in Japan, Chile, Germany, Venezuela, Lybia, Greece, and of course Toronto.
Last edited:
Tewder
Senior Member
The fact that Rockefeller Center isn't 'peaceful' doesn't diminish the fact that it is extremely successful as an urban space and popular with people, which is what I take to be the heart of your argument... and not to harp on NYC specifically but Central Park is also surrounded by high rise and I doubt that anybody would question how successful it is, and peaceful it can be too.
In the end though i don't disagree with your sentiments but only that I wouldn't rule out that tall buildings can achieve what you are describing. There are variables other than height that can make the difference, and the DD is a good example.
Would you suggest that the DD isn't a welcoming environment because of the presence of the tall buildings?
In the end though i don't disagree with your sentiments but only that I wouldn't rule out that tall buildings can achieve what you are describing. There are variables other than height that can make the difference, and the DD is a good example.
Would you suggest that the DD isn't a welcoming environment because of the presence of the tall buildings?
RC8
Senior Member
The heart of my argument is that the Distillery District is unique in Toronto because of its historical significance, pedestrian friendliness, and human scale. The new skyscrapers intrude into the experience and make the area surrounding you feel small and insignificant in contrast to the towers.
While the DD is picturesque enough to survive these developments and maintain its current vibe, I do wonder if visitors in the future will see it and react like they react to this:
whatever
Senior Member
The podiums of the new buildings are actually quite permeable, and create new "alleyways" that vendors will be able to set up shop in. I think they will make it a more interesting place to visit, and the towers will also help to create the critical mass of people necessary to support the emerging midrise developments to the east.
I'm not a particular fan of the buildings themselves, but I also remember what the area was like before Pure Spirit opened and I think the area is much nicer now. I guess I'm hoping that Clear Spirit and Gooderham add a similar injection of life into the neighbourhood
cassius
Active Member
I wouldn't know how to get there without the landmark towers poking out. Ok, that's exaggeration, but not by much.
From what I've seen so far, the tower podiums seem to fit in quite well with the surroundings. Design aside, since it's become a destination, I've found the Distillery District to be overly pretentious and therefor not worth visiting. With the condo residents, that feeling has subsided now that the area is home to "average joes" as well. A much more comfortable setting for all.
From what I've seen so far, the tower podiums seem to fit in quite well with the surroundings. Design aside, since it's become a destination, I've found the Distillery District to be overly pretentious and therefor not worth visiting. With the condo residents, that feeling has subsided now that the area is home to "average joes" as well. A much more comfortable setting for all.
Urban Shocker
Doyenne
I dislike and distrust all claims about the importance of taste, because taste is something that changes with fashion, and is all about received opinions - programming, if you like - about what is good or bad.
As for the height issue, I tend to go with the notion that the Distillery towers signpost the district from afar ( as the Minto towers at Yonge and Eglinton do for that location, for instance ... ) and that when you're up-close to the buildings the wide field of vision of the visitor walking through the site, and the foreshortening effect of the towers when they're in view ( and they're not in view for much of the time you're walking around the place ) actually tends to emphasize the horizontal plane rather than the vertical.
Tewder
Senior Member
The heart of my argument is that the Distillery District is unique in Toronto because of its historical significance, pedestrian friendliness, and human scale. The new skyscrapers intrude into the experience and make the area surrounding you feel small and insignificant in contrast to the towers.
While the DD is picturesque enough to survive these developments and maintain its current vibe, I do wonder if visitors in the future will see it and react like they react to this:
I'm not sure the DD towers intrude to that degree. They rise from podiums that do fit in where scale is concerned... you yourself said that what happens above the 11th floor doesn't really matter. In this case though we have glass rather than concrete which offers density yet defers somewhat to the brick of the heritage buildings around them.
Urban Shocker
Doyenne
Yes, the "new" isn't restricted to the elegant, highrise Three Graces that the Talented Mr. Clewes has designed - it also includes the expanded network of pedestrian lanes between the podium buildings - essentially an appropriation of the historical "old" that's a characteristic of the complex. Assuming that the ribbon building, at the south end of the site, is still a happening thing the network will expand even more.
TroyGuy
New Member
Haven't seen a post about this yet - Here's a webcam capture (from Waterfront Toronto) of Clear Spirit partially lit up last night.
Will be interesting to see how it looks when complete.
Will be interesting to see how it looks when complete.
ptbotrmpfn
Senior Member
that park is really comming along, and those trees are starting to fill out nicely. cant wait to walk through and enjoy it as a tourist.