Toronto George Brown College Waterfront Campus | ?m | 8s | George Brown | KPMB

k10ery said:
It's not the siding IMO. It's the awkward way they cut in the windows around what I assume are the two flights of stairs. And what's with the parallel lines that aren't exactly parallel? That seems like a real rookie mistake.
Click to expand...

ProjectEnd said:
The cuts lie just below the seating in the two lecture theatres they've perched up there. Not sure what you mean by "parallel lines that aren't exactly parallel" though?
Click to expand...

I can't see the awkwardness of the windows around the raked auditoriums either - it seems perfectly reasonable to me to express that on the exterior of the building as it helps the viewer understand better what's under the skin. Sure it's not typical, but I choose to see those gestures as more interesting, not more awkward.

…and it strikes me as funny to see it referred to as a rookie mistake. From KPMB? They're amongst the most accomplished, most celebrated architects in the country. Nothing they do isn't thought out to the nth degree. Too bad there wasn't the money to clad the building in something other than 1980s garden shed mind you…
 
ProjectEnd said:
The cuts lie just below the seating in the two lecture theatres they've perched up there. Not sure what you mean by "parallel lines that aren't exactly parallel" though?
Click to expand...

The diagonal lines of those theatres (my mistake) do not appear parallel to the pitched roof line above.

But maybe it's just a trick of the camera lens. I was there earlier today and didn't notice it myself.

WiddleBittyKitty said:
…and it strikes me as funny to see it referred to as a rookie mistake. From KPMB? They're amongst the most accomplished, most celebrated architects in the country. Nothing they do isn't thought out to the nth degree. Too bad there wasn't the money to clad the building in something other than 1980s garden shed mind you…
Click to expand...

I don't think "it's not a mistake because they are a firm who don't make mistakes" is going to cut it around here.
 
The rake of a theatre is not typically the same as that of its ceiling; the ceiling is nearly always at a shallower angle, as it is in this case. It's not a mistake, rookie or otherwise. It is deliberate; theatres work best this way. You are only labelling it as a mistake because you have arbitrarily decided that the lines should be parallel. Why should they? I'm not dogmatic about form following function as it does here, so maybe they could have pitched the roof line more steeply to please your aesthetic sensibilities here, but I don't share those sensibilities and I imagine there are others here who don't either. Our two sides will never agree on whether the result is pleasing or not:

Your reaction to the choice of angles is to assume that the architects have overlooked something - made a mistake - and have inadvertently created something visually discordant. I say there is no mistake, that everything was calculated. For me, the result is fine.

So I am fine with you not agreeing on the aesthetic merits of the outcome, but I think it takes some nerve to declare that a firm which has a long track record of producing award-winning buildings, and one which invariably creates very precisely detailed work, should be blithely accused of missing something like that. Check out their website, visit some buildings: KPMB's oeuvre is a record of carefully considered work, for which they should have earned some respect.

Does that cut it now?
 
With all respects due to the architects, and understanding that of course every detail we see had some though put into it, that corrugated protrusion is just a mess in my opinion. And I'm not referring to the materials. No symmetry, no relation, and no cohesion in and of itself or when looking at the project as a whole. I know KPMB could have done better on that. The rest of the building - I don't have any complaints worth mentioning.
 
WiddleBittyKitty said:
The rake of a theatre is not typically the same as that of its ceiling; the ceiling is nearly always at a shallower angle, as it is in this case. It's not a mistake, rookie or otherwise. It is deliberate; theatres work best this way. You are only labelling it as a mistake because you have arbitrarily decided that the lines should be parallel. Why should they? I'm not dogmatic about form following function as it does here, so maybe they could have pitched the roof line more steeply to please your aesthetic sensibilities here, but I don't share those sensibilities and I imagine there are others here who don't either. Our two sides will never agree on whether the result is pleasing or not:

Your reaction to the choice of angles is to assume that the architects have overlooked something - made a mistake - and have inadvertently created something visually discordant. I say there is no mistake, that everything was calculated. For me, the result is fine.

So I am fine with you not agreeing on the aesthetic merits of the outcome, but I think it takes some nerve to declare that a firm which has a long track record of producing award-winning buildings, and one which invariably creates very precisely detailed work, should be blithely accused of missing something like that. Check out their website, visit some buildings: KPMB's oeuvre is a record of carefully considered work, for which they should have earned some respect.

Does that cut it now?
Click to expand...

Me-ow! I work in a building designed by a local mini-starchitect. I can tell you: There are lots of mistakes inside, ranging from placement of rooms/corridors/HVAC systems down to shape of the doorknobs. Every job has compromises, and every firm has nth-year associates, no?

In the case of GBC, if Frank Gehry put up that corrugated siding most of us would be calling it a masterpiece of deconstructivism :). But Gehry would have got the underlying sculptural forms right. I love several of KPMB's recent projects (RCM especially). But I do think that, with this firm, "you can have any shape you want, as long as it's square".
 
thedeepend said:
abec3513.gif
.
Click to expand...

This fine, journalistic photograph sums up everything I enjoy about this building - and the Pier 27/Redpath/Sugar Beach/Corus Quay/George Brown/ Sherbourne Pavilion sequence that it belongs to.

By setting off the various parts of the complex at slight angles, and setting the cladding at the north east corner at 90 degrees to how it's applied on the rest of the building, and through various other means already discussed, KPMB have introduced the sort of contradictions and complexity that one would expect from a Modernist firm that's dabbling in the Mannerist. No need to go all Gehry on us to achive engaging results.
 
"Mannerism" is a useful term for the idea that architects are looking to add complexity to the modernist look. But I find it highly inspecific. Paul Rudolph describe his work as mannerism back in the 1950s. Venturi and Stern both used the term in the late 60s and 70s to sell people on postmodernism - and really what they produced was mostly kitsch. Then Goldberger used the term in 1985 to describe the DEATH of postmodernism. (I googled it.)

I think you're right to talk about how the work of our top 3 firms is evolving lately. But what's the philosophy and where is it going? And is it enough to just decorate their glass boxes in slightly more elaborate ways?

By the way, Gehry before "he went all Gehry". (I see KPMB put chain link on the Rotman building too.)

cid_1139260689_DSCN0855.jpg
 
I've photographed this building many times before from this angle, but until now I failed to notice the green roof. Taken July 25, 2012:

IMG_4518.jpg


IMG_4520.jpg
 
Automation Gallery said:
Thanks for the pics MafaldaBoy, i just cant believe this eyesore from the lake....makes Corus look like a masterpiece
Click to expand...

Really????? I think that the GBC building is waaay nicer than Corus. Plus when you factor in their respective public spaces/infrastructure.....Sherbourne Common > Sugar Beach....But this is all just subjective I guess
 
You must log in or register to post here.

Back
Top