someMidTowner
¯\_(ツ)_/¯
Today:
Toronto Couture The Condominium | ?m | 42s | Philmor | Graziani + Corazza
4grand
Active Member
I don't know how many times I need to say this, but I never explicitly said that symmetry alone determines a building's worth. I was just saying that symmetry holds tried and tested value when it is used in conjunction with aesthetically pleasing, and logical design.
4grand
Active Member
The Futuristic Factory look that has become so popular in Toronto.
This building ("Couture", it is not) will be another Sheraton Centre/Robarts in a few years. Just like the futuristic feel that even those two monsters espoused back in the day, this too will eventually be reviled by everyone. We'll have a skyline of cheesy and hideous relics, kind of like we have already.
If we stop designing buildings to look futuristic and flashy in only their time of construction, we won't be left with so many hideous duds in the future.
This building ("Couture", it is not) will be another Sheraton Centre/Robarts in a few years. Just like the futuristic feel that even those two monsters espoused back in the day, this too will eventually be reviled by everyone. We'll have a skyline of cheesy and hideous relics, kind of like we have already.
If we stop designing buildings to look futuristic and flashy in only their time of construction, we won't be left with so many hideous duds in the future.
Last edited by a moderator:
adHominem
Senior Member
I agree wholeheartedly with you that this building is a banal dud. However, the Sheraton and Robarts are by no means universally reviled. Even if you're no fan of Brutalism surely you can agree that those examples have architectural & design integrity that this flop could only dream of, so it's not exactly an apples-to-apples comparison.
DtTO
Active Member
4grand, the Sheraton and (especially) Robarts are not reviled by everyone, nor will this building likely become a "cheesy and hideous" relic. Your comment started off strangely, since you attempted to assert that two of my favourite buildings in the city are hated by everyone, which would theoretically include me. It became even stranger when you attempted to predict what people will think of this building in the future. Anyways, it looks more like a rehash of another modernism-genre building that was recently constructed in the area, to me, than it does "futuristic and flashy." Having different opinions is fine, but you shouldn't assume that everyone views things in the same light that you do.
*Also, please note that it is against forum etiquette/rules to quote a photo so soon after it had been posted.
*Also, please note that it is against forum etiquette/rules to quote a photo so soon after it had been posted.
Last edited:
LowPolygon
Senior Member
i hate this building passionately, but you're not doing yourself any favours with your made-up definitions and sophistic terminology.
in what ways is this or any other bland condo tower 'futuristic'? it's a meaningless word in this context. also, how does it resemble a 'factory'? again: a head scratcher.
finally, what in god's name does Couture have to do with Robarts Library or the Sheraton Centre? they are completely unrelated and have absolutely nothing to do with each other.
knowing a little bit about architectural styles, eras, terminology and definitions might help you, if you are trying to defend a point of view on this forum....
dt_toronto_geek
Superstar
Hey DtTO, we agree on something! Good post.
I don't recall seeing a recent photo of the east side ground level posted here, I'll try to grab one in a day or two. There's wasted space but I think it looks great, and I like the building too though it's no Casa or X (great nearby examples) but it's certainly no BSN either. I'm looking forward to seeing how they handle the landscaping on the west side of the building this spring. A good friend of mine lives at 100 Hayden (Bloor Walk, the sister building to Couture) and he overlooks the west side of Couture and I always admire it when I'm hanging out there.
4grand
Active Member
Hey, you're right, there are philistines like you out there. People who admire depressing, drab, concrete slabs. Thankfully, there aren't many like you anymore, and we don't have more "Brutalist" disasters being built today.
By the way, I'm sure you know this, but "brutalism" is a retrospective term, because we looked back and realized how brutal these designs were.
It's not called "Beautifulism".
Less aggression please. Calling someone names means it's time for a holiday.
42
42
ProjectEnd
Superstar
Sorry Interchange, I don't mean to belabour the point or dance on a grave but...
It's a bit comical to call others philistines, then get the definition of something pretty simple so completely wrong. 'Brutalism' refers to 'béton brut' or 'raw concrete' and was coined in the early 50's by pioneering social housing duo Peter and Alison Smithson. It's not a retrospective term.
DtTO
Active Member
1) I didn't personally insult you, so the fact that you resorted to insulting me demonstrates that you are not confident enough in your own opinion to get it across like an adult.
2) "The English architects Alison and Peter Smithson coined the term in 1953, from the French béton brut, or "raw concrete", a phrase used by Le Corbusier to describe the poured board-marked concrete with which he constructed many of his post-World War II buildings." [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Brutalist_architecture]
Edit: ProjectEnd beat me to it.
Last edited:
Ramako
Moderator
This post warms my heart.
4grand
Active Member
There's a reason the style has been called "Brutalism" and not "Beautifulism". There will always be people who like Soviet-esque architecture, but they, and you, I believe, are in quite a small minority.
As I drove up St. George yesterday, the discordance of Robarts among everything else was almost nauseating.
4grand
Active Member
Is it just me, or is it still NOT a flattering term.
Brut (en francais): (of wine, esp. champagne) very dry. [1890–95; < French: (more generally) raw, unprocessed, brutish;
And just like many other nomenclatures, words and names don't become universal until a good amount of time after they were first uttered. Reyner Banham was the one who made the term popular. He based it off a term he had heard 15 years earlier:
"The term gained wide currency when the British architectural critic Reyner Banham used it in the title of his 1966 book, The New Brutalism: Ethic or Aesthetic?, to characterise a somewhat recently established cluster of architectural approaches, particularly in Europe." (wiki)
Last edited:
4grand
Active Member
Good for you.