Toronto Eight Cumberland | 170m | 51s | Great Gulf | a—A

One person's simple and elegant is another person's tacky and cheap.

Seen the Deco comment a few times. I think it's a massive stretch of the imagination to call the glass pattern and corner cutouts of the mechanical penthouse Deco inspired but, multiple people are seeing it.

It's all moot. The more I think about it, the more I'm convinced this one will be redesigned.
 
The top is clearly inspired by Art Deco towers, but it looks like they tried not to make it symmetrical so it would still pass as Modernism. That way, people see the Art Deco-style spire and like the tower, but the designers can claim that it's a modern design. We also saw similar architectural ideas in the 1970s transition from Modernism to Postmodernism. I suspect it's because people like historical references, but architects feel pressure from either clients or their peers to keep producing modern designs.
 
It's abundantly clear people like historical references. Doesn't change that it is a giant leap like so much of the crap PoMo of the 80s. Time to move on.

A more uniform glass pattern with a triangular peak doesn't change squat. Your giving the designers far too much credit.
 
Last edited:
Local architecture is moving away from the glass boxes of the 2000s with the new building code requirements, so it's worth talking about what's happening. That in and of itself isn't praise--the building is attractive but mediocre.
 
Mongo said:
Or maybe, just possibly, people have differing opinions about architecture? I know that it's a hard concept to grasp...
Click to expand...

Differing opinions are not a difficult concept for me to grasp. People considering this rendering to represent good architecture is hard for me to grasp.
 
modernizt said:
People considering this rendering to represent good architecture is hard for me to grasp.
Click to expand...

There's your problem right there. Architectural taste is notoriously subjective. The fact that you personally don't like this design does not mean that people who disagree with you about this particular design are wrong. If we were talking about objectively verifiable facts (such as whether the design results in heating/cooling costs for a given indoor temperature for less than a given cost per year), then there is a "right" opinion, but not regarding something as wooly and subject to personal opinion as architectural design.
 
The top kind of reminds me of a simpler version of the original design for 88 Scott St. Count me in on thinking this is ugly.
 
Last edited:
Mongo said:
There's your problem right there. Architectural taste is notoriously subjective. The fact that you personally don't like this design does not mean that people who disagree with you about this particular design are wrong. If we were talking about objectively verifiable facts (such as whether the design results in heating/cooling costs for a given indoor temperature for less than a given cost per year), then there is a "right" opinion, but not regarding something as wooly and subject to personal opinion as architectural design.
Click to expand...

Agreed! My liking of the ROCP gothic elements over those of Chartres Cathedral is valid and certainly not wrong.

In my subjective opinion the problem with Chartres Cathedral is it's just made of crappy stone, and its so old. Whereas Residence of College Park is new, fresh, and made of shiny materials.
 
Last edited:
Mongo said:
There's your problem right there. Architectural taste is notoriously subjective. The fact that you personally don't like this design does not mean that people who disagree with you about this particular design are wrong. If we were talking about objectively verifiable facts (such as whether the design results in heating/cooling costs for a given indoor temperature for less than a given cost per year), then there is a "right" opinion, but not regarding something as wooly and subject to personal opinion as architectural design.
Click to expand...

If that is the case, then someone's doodles from when they are four should be worth as much as the Mona Lisa. Clearly, artistry it isn't as subjective as you claimed it to be - and if one think otherwise, well, I think all the Fosters, Gehrys and Holls around the world should just give up now.

And for the record, there is nothing remotely Art Deco about this - it's more than just emphasis on the vertical with some haphazardly scattered cladding that happens to line up like Matrix code. And RoCP is supposed to be "informed" by Art Deco, clearly, it didn't quite work out that way either. That said, look at the bright side, at least it is a P+S, not G+C.

AoD
 
Last edited:
modernizt said:
Differing opinions are not a difficult concept for me to grasp. People considering this rendering to represent good architecture is hard for me to grasp.
Click to expand...

It represents the hope for a good looking building (which doesn't necessarily mean good architecture per say...I still love the original Trump Tower on Fifth, but I wouldn't call that good architecture).

Confidence is low of course. It is P+S. It is just another market-driven Toronto condo. And dull local architects specializing in generic, market-driven, modestly priced condos don't magically spit out fabulous architecture....that's what really talented architects do...with like-minded clients with large budgets, targeted to more upscale buyers than the average Toronto buyers.

But once in a while I'm pleasantly surprised. Something is making me think this long shot might have something. I'm probably going to be disappointed.
 
Mongo said:
There's your problem right there. Architectural taste is notoriously subjective. The fact that you personally don't like this design does not mean that people who disagree with you about this particular design are wrong. If we were talking about objectively verifiable facts (such as whether the design results in heating/cooling costs for a given indoor temperature for less than a given cost per year), then there is a "right" opinion, but not regarding something as wooly and subject to personal opinion as architectural design.
Click to expand...

I hate to break it to ya...but art & design is actually fairly empirical when it comes to determining quality. Like I've mentioned previously...it is not a result of a democratic process, but a natural aristocracy.
 
This is just a glass box employing different coloured glad to give the impression of an architectural element - in short a total rip off.

We all know this is going to be a big mullion disaster and that in reality the different coloured glass won't actually appear as dramatic as it does in the rendering. I hope the city planners send them either back to the drawing board or out the back door.
 
junctionist said:
Local architecture is moving away from the glass boxes of the 2000s with the new building code requirements, so it's worth talking about what's happening. That in and of itself isn't praise--the building is attractive but mediocre.
Click to expand...

However, this is a decorated glass box and, IMHO, a poorly decorated one at that. Too early to gauge on the simple rendering the effects of new building requirements but, it does suggest that the glass era is far from over. Judging by past movements, It will take many buildings that people find unanimously cheap and unattractive for the glass tower trend to be replaced. Prepare for towers with more spandrel glass.
 
You must log in or register to post here.

Back
Top