Toronto King Charlotte | 114.9m | 32s | Lamb Dev Corp | a—A

That post is, in content and form, an excellent take down.

Evaluating architecture entirely in terms of esoterica misses the crucial point that architecture is the very furniture of public space. It's an exciting art form precisely because it can never be exclusive.

So we should ignore fundamental issues of building quality and execution because a project has a zippy-do-dad shape? What makes European cities so cohesive is precisely that they are comprised primarily of quiet, background buildings, punctuated by more elaborate and attention-grabbing structures at intervals. Just as one would not furnish a room entirely in pieces that vie competitively for ones' attention, one shouldn't furnish cites at large in the same fashion.

Let alone that condominiums (in this city especially) are profit-driven projects with extremely tight timelines. As such, details cannot be drawn for every small move a building makes and when things aren't precisely laid out - Ikea-style - contractors take things into their own hands - often to the aesthetic detriment of the project's underlying idea. Simpler projects have fewer details and as such, area able to work each out beforehand leaving little if anything to ad lib on site and, therefore, less to screw up.

For all bleeting on here that "it doesn't look like the rendering," it's interesting that many expect that some piece of Sketch'd-Up render porn will look exactly like it did when an underpaid intern is expected to turn some phantasmagorical image into a set of usable construction drawings.
 
I agree with junctionist; I, too, don’t understand why everyone heaps praise on this one. I appreciate good materials, but is that enough to make a good building? Architectural merit is about much more than material detail; if the overall form amounts to yet another glistening glass box from afar—which at this point is mind-numbingly boring–then I think no quality of glass can preclude its mediocrity.

aA projects tend to attract a number of "fanboys". While they are a quality firm, there are a group here that go "overboard" on the praise which really makes me wonder.....
 
That said, I think people also forget various factors in the design-to-construction process such as: developers with a preconceived notion of what the design should be; tight budgets; very tight timelines. It's easy to bite off more than you can chew in the design process and the actual amount of time that can realistically be spent on design is incredibly short. A lot of the work has to be completed in a matter of weeks, even for a large building. In that sense, aA are very smart; they have standard details that they have at the ready and which they refine over time and carry forward from one project to the next. They are efficient and able to respond to design issues very effectively by keeping things simple and not creating problems for themselves and the client by overdesigning when there simply is not enough time or resources. Not getting caught up in extras and doodads mean they can get the stuff they do design RIGHT. So yes, this means that the buildings are more "plain" or "boxy" or "boring" or whatever words people here sometimes use to describe them. But I think the real art is in the details and I respect aA for choosing finish and finesse over fancy extras. The criticism people level at aA is maybe more appropriate to apply to developers, who bring the short timelines and relatively unforgiving budgets that firms have to work within. Or going beyond that, maybe capitalism is to blame, or our crazy real estate market. But I have a hard time blaming aA for finding an efficient and effective way to work within the realities of condominium development in Toronto.

I would challenge any UTer to look around at various condominium projects around the city and take a critical eye to the detailing-- where different materials or building components meet. It can be as simple as the edge where the cladding used on a soffit meets the cladding on the facade of the building. aA's detailing is reliable and works well-- even visually, the parts fit together nicely, as they were designed to. A lot of buildings by other firms may look more attention-grabbing or be visually stunning, even, but up-close, you can tell that the details were difficult to execute and ended up being constructed poorly. (Not always, but often.) And, as someone who studies architecture, I would argue that there's an art (and rarity) to buildings where everything can fit together as nicely in the real world as it looked in your drawings.

People have every right to personally take issue with their aesthetic and approach to city-building. That is open to debate, and it should be debated and discussed. But I do think that individuals' critiques should take into account the extremely time-sensitive nature of what architecture firms do and the tight budgets they have to work with a lot of the time. In my opinion, aA has done a great job at taking multi-residential buildings, as a typology, and elevating them to good design. One look at multi-residential buildings pre-aA in this city will show you just how much changed with various projects they used to pioneer new ideas in multi-residential design in Toronto. I don't love every last thing they do, but they deserve respect for their contribution to residential design in the city, and credit for slick designs on condo-developer budgets and timelines.

Sidenote: I am dying for the opportunity to have even just a volunteer internship there. I really want to see what it's like to work in that office and be a part of their process, even if it means working on mundane drawings of fire stairs or bathrooms or parking levels. Just putting my antennas out into the world here...
 
So we should ignore fundamental issues of building quality and execution because a project has a zippy-do-dad shape? What makes European cities so cohesive is precisely that they are comprised primarily of quiet, background buildings, punctuated by more elaborate and attention-grabbing structures at intervals. Just as one would not furnish a room entirely in pieces that vie competitively for ones' attention, one shouldn't furnish cites at large in the same fashion.

Let alone that condominiums (in this city especially) are profit-driven projects with extremely tight timelines. As such, details cannot be drawn for every small move a building makes and when things aren't precisely laid out - Ikea-style - contractors take things into their own hands - often to the aesthetic detriment of the project's underlying idea. Simpler projects have fewer details and as such, area able to work each out beforehand leaving little if anything to ad lib on site and, therefore, less to screw up.

For all bleeting on here that "it doesn't look like the rendering," it's interesting that many expect that some piece of Sketch'd-Up render porn will look exactly like it did when an underpaid intern is expected to turn some phantasmagorical image into a set of usable construction drawings.
I'm not sure what you're taking issue with in my original post, as I was agreeing with you. Architecture can't be entirely 'esoteric' because it's also public--among other reasons (balance, symmetry, taste, etc.).
 
That photo by someMidTowner is pretty hawt.

This "esoteric" conversation is silly. Why do people think the dude on the street should be better at evaluating architecture more than someone who has studied it? Sure, architecture is public, but that doesn't mean its worth should be determined by public opinion.

As well, if people bought into these condos, I would say that public opinion is solidly for glass boxes.

No, what seems to be argued for is that there is some secret, quintessential "human" essence that only certain experts on this board can see and understand. They are valiantly fighting for this human essence (the essence that loves historical detail and red brick), against the tide of misguided experts who seem to be giving plenty of consumers what they want. I think that is "esoteric" - to imagine that you have a better understanding of what people want than the people actually using their money to purchase the thing.

Arguments about the public worth of architecture should be more concerned about the use of architecture, rather than aesthetics, which are, at best, personal, and at worst, a status game. There are plenty of arguments against these glass boxes from that angle: completely energy inefficient, seem to produce falling glass, will age more rapidly than concrete, brick or aluminum. We can pretend that we are in 19th century Paris when it comes to having some collective truth about aesthetics, but if we do, we'll also have to take all of the bad stuff, too - since those aesthetics were an expression of the collective ideals of the time.
 
lXpM8b5.jpg


Dm3gjAq.jpg


nua3cOC.jpg


YQgwpKz.jpg


GATashT.jpg


PSuUWET.jpg


8MzEBcG.jpg


7DHZLxl.jpg
 
From yesterday:

DSC07632.jpg

DSC07631.jpg


42
 

Attachments

  • DSC07631.jpg
    DSC07631.jpg
    651 KB · Views: 1,093
  • DSC07632.jpg
    DSC07632.jpg
    324.2 KB · Views: 1,064

Back
Top