Toronto Concord Canada House | 231.97m | 74s | Concord Adex | Arcadis

[Ramako]

my Opinion of aA is that they will always turn out good designs, and the odd really good one, but they are not capable of true masterpieces. plus the sheer amount of buildings being built in Toronto by aA mean that it gets a bit monotonous. (there are currently 4 buildings proposed by aA over 200m, 2 more at 196m, and this one) I worry that by the end of this boom that the skyline will be too dominated by aA. aA is a good thing, but you can have too much of a good thing, and I worry that we are getting to that point.

I'd say that we're getting too much glass in general. aA catches a lot of anti-glass flack because they are probably the most prevalent of the many firms that use glass excessively as an external building material. The irony is that of all the firms out there doing glass, they do glass the best. So, they're an easy target.

If, for example, aA were the only game in town going all-glass, their buildings would probably shine more brilliantly than they do now, because their designs seem to thrive where they can emphasize contrast to other materials. Note that Pure/Clear Spirit, Market Wharf and the Four Seasons are all in neighbourhoods dominated by brick, concrete and stone... earth tones.

Now, Ice, I think would look amazing... if it were built anywhere else in the city, but given its location in Southcore, I expect that from most angles it will visually meld into the rest of the glass blob down there, hardly distinguishable from the rest to the casual observer. If Ice were, say, going up in the Yorkville vicinity, surrounded by brick, stone and concrete, it'd be dazzling in its modernity. By that same token, many would agree that most of the CityPlace towers west of Spadina are actually quite beautiful designs, but when taken together, their lack of variation creates a monotonous and oppressive mass. From a distance, you can't tell where one tower ends and another begins. Rather than looking unified, the neighbourhood looks undefined and shapeless.

That's exactly why, as you say, you can indeed have "too much of a good thing." As beautiful as aA designs are, when they're surrounded by nothing but more glass (and typically lower quality P+S or G+C glass at that) the purity of their expression is sapped. How can you identify the true prophets when they're surrounded by charlatans and pretenders? Sit and listen to each of them for hours until you understand the fine differences or just say "f*ck it" and walk away from the whole rabble? There's a reason that they used to give villains black hats and heroes white hats. All our film has is gray hats.

 

[AHK]

I visit this thread hoping to see some new information on Signature Tower. Instead I get pages and pages of the same old tired arguments about Aa etc. Can we not find a better place to quibble until someome has something to say about the topic listed in the thread title? Please?

Thanks Bruvyman - agree completely.

Mods - just as discussions on pricing are moved to the Real Estate section, would it be possible to direct these endless architectural opinions with no actual information on the Concord Adex project to the Architecture Discussions thread?

 

[Ramako]

I visit this thread hoping to see some new information on Signature Tower. Instead I get pages and pages of the same old tired arguments about Aa etc. Can we not find a better place to quibble until someome has something to say about the topic listed in the thread title? Please?

Thanks Bruvyman - agree completely.

Mods - just as discussions on pricing are moved to the Real Estate section, would it be possible to direct these endless architectural opinions with no actual information on the Concord Adex project to the Architecture Discussions thread?

How is this discussion at all off-topic? We're discussing the very firm that is rumoured to be designing this tower. Furthermore, this isn't just a place to get news and photo updates. Discussion of architectural merit is one of the fundamental purposes of this forum.

 

[Mike in TO]

I can offer a different view not strictly about the architecture itself from a developers perspective in terms of the construction process - aA is generally well known for the quality of their working drawings to be among the best if not the most precise among the firms that are hired for many of the projects in the recent boom. This gives them a strong competitive advantage even though they are generally more expensive then most of their competitors. Many other firms working drawings often require revisions, lack precise detailing or require revisions on the fly, whereas aA has a strong reputation for getting the minute details right with a cohesive vision throughout all aspects of the project. This is one of several reasons why they have been successful obtaining so many contracts recently.

 

[someMidTowner]

How is this discussion at all off-topic? We're discussing the very firm that is rumoured to be designing this tower. Furthermore, this isn't just a place to get news and photo updates. Discussion of architectural merit is one of the fundamental purposes of this forum.

I wont even acknowledge it as a rumour until I hear from another source. There was 1 post saying it's Peter Clewes/aA, then like 80 posts of pure speculation. Im not accusing Flux of making it up, what I'm asking is can any forumer name any architect and cause a similar flurry of...well..guessing? We haven't seen confirmation from any mods or any inside sources yet there is page after page of the same old aArgument. And unfortunately, it looks like I am going to have to keep sifting through this debate hoping to find info about the actual project.

 

[Urban Shocker]

So, what is it about this firm, and this firm alone, that drives thoughtful, expressive, otherwise-welcoming posters on this forum to become such hipster dicks? An understandable reaction to an unreasonable and rude cadre of box haters? A defensiveness about the paragon of a homegrown design aesthetic? I'd love to hear a serious explanations about the weird tribal politics of online architecture forums if anyone's got one. Or does Peter Clewes just have a really big family?

Well, there's a history. Part of the ruckus about aA, I think, is that they were the first firm to go tall with their residential towers, that the Prolific Mr.Clewes lead the charge to reclaim multi-unit residential buildings for design culture, that he came along just as a massive residential building boom was beginning and he had the energy and talent to catch that particular wave ... and that there was a sort of generational change in design, too, as we put the rather apologetic, lowrise 1990's form behind us and ventured into a brash new highrise world. The Distillery District ( specifically the Pure/Clear Spirit thread ) was a battleground of sorts for these skirmishes. Here's one such meeting of minds from that thread in April 2007:

When one roams the narrow lanes of the Distillery District you are hemmed in by old buildings on either side. The occasional glimpse of a sleek condo tower nearbye will be a reminder that the district is connected to the city, and I think of that as appropriate. Gooderham & Worts distillery was always a brash commercial enterprise itself, not a rarified environment for academic contemplation set apart from the hustle and bustle of the world of Mammon.

and the reply:

Are condo towers the only thing that define Toronto now? Do we need a reminder of where we are? I think the District can feel connected without adding massive glass condo towers.

There was talk of the "Clewes Brigade" ... and the "Cleweless Brigade" ... etc. All so long ago now, but quite fun. And it continues today with a different cast of posters.

 

[syn]

Well, there's a history. Part of the ruckus about aA, I think, is that they were the first firm to go tall with their residential towers, that the Prolific Mr.Clewes lead the charge to reclaim multi-unit residential buildings for design culture, that he came along just as a massive residential building boom was beginning and he had the energy and talent to catch that particular wave ... and that there was a sort of generational change in design, too, as we put the rather apologetic, lowrise 1990's form behind us and ventured into a brash new highrise world. The Distillery District ( specifically the Pure/Clear Spirit thread ) was a battleground of sorts for these skirmishes. Here's one such meeting of minds from that thread in April 2007:



and the reply:



There was talk of the "Clewes Brigade" ... and the "Cleweless Brigade" ... etc. All so long ago now, but quite fun. And it continues today with a different cast of posters.

Kind of odd that you'd use one of my quotes as I don't have a problem with aA or Clewes.

 

[Bruvyman]

How is this discussion at all off-topic? We're discussing the very firm that is rumoured to be designing this tower. Furthermore, this isn't just a place to get news and photo updates. Discussion of architectural merit is one of the fundamental purposes of this forum.

And there are specific threads within the forum dedicated to exactly that discussion. My understanding is that this one is for discussions specific to Signature Tower and yes, for news and photo updates.

 

[Ramako]

And there are specific threads within the forum dedicated to exactly that discussion. My understanding is that this one is for discussions specific to Signature Tower and yes, for news and photo updates.

There are no threads dedicated to architectural discussion. There are only two dedicated threads per project: (1) real estate, and (2) news/updates/photos/architectural discussion. Separating any architectural discussion from the latter would make this a dull and stilted place.

 

[AlvinofDiaspar]

The continued discussion of aA's merit is a valid - but it's increasingly off topic in the context of this thread considering we have what, 2-3 pages worth of that now. I might move all the postings to a different thread in Architectural Discussion later.

AoD

 

[CityPlaceN1]

I'm glad to see planning for Signature has begun.

 

[AHK]

The continued discussion of aA's merit is a valid - but it's increasingly off topic in the context of this thread considering we have what, 2-3 pages worth of that now. I might move all the postings to a different thread in Architectural Discussion later.

AoD

Four and a half pages since Flux Capacitor identified Peter Clewes as the architect for the Concord Adex Signature Tower project (Post 379). Lots of postings on I like aA because...., or I don't like aA because... And how much information about the Signature Building project itself in four and a half pages? Nada. Recognize that different opinions are valid, but there is an Architecture thread, which to me should be the place for general discussions on architecture. Or maybe I am being naive in thinking this thread should actually be about a specific project.....

 

[AlvinofDiaspar]

AHK:

Sorry for being a bit testy, but clearly the not-so-subtle hint that we should get back to the topic at hand will have to wait for one additional posting on the rationale for getting back into topic.

AoD

 

[Urban Shocker]

... and here it is:

Kind of odd that you'd use one of my quotes as I don't have a problem with aA or Clewes.

Not odd - you were chosen at random to illustrate the early response to some of The Great Man's tall point towers - specifically the opposition to height. A few more of SD2/syn's comments about the work of aA and Clewes from that thread:

...these towers shouldn't be at the Distillery District (or on the edges).

I can really see this being one of the those projects that future generations look at and ask "What were they thinking?!?!"

I agree. The two new towers are going to be absolutely monstrous in comparison.

The site could work without dropping these ridiculously out of scale towers in the middle. There are a lot of possible options.

This is exactly why they shouldn't have towers in the Distillery. You'll never get a 'tower' short enough to really work design wise and the taller ones are just ridiculous.

( ... the last one espousing the unacceptable at any height philosophy )

 

[67Cup]

Are there height restrictions in the proposed area? Presumably anybody buying in the area has no objection to the presence of towers as such ( or at least it would be very hard to make a case against another tower that did not sound idiotic) but is there now an organized and active residents' group that might oppose a tower of this height?

Thanks in advance.