Toronto Market Wharf | 110.33m | 33s | Context Development | a—A

Derivative? I think every design they do is fresh and uniquely aA. I guess we all have different opinions though.
 
If the building looks like wyliepoon's rendering I think it will be fantastic and fresh. I don't see too much of a resemblance between this and other Aa projects.
 
IMG_4410.jpg
 
aA's website mentions that Pia Heine is currently "the Associate responsible for two large-scale condominiums in downtown Toronto, and two more condominium buildings near Toronto's waterfront", but they're designing so much these days it doesn't really help us much. It would be interesting to know the degree to which the Great Man delegates to his Associates.
 
URBAN!TY said:
Derivative? I think every design they do is fresh and uniquely aA. I guess we all have different opinions though.
Click to expand...

I dunno, I'm looking at PDFs here, but I still think that this is a thoughtless mishmash of the base of the Pure Spirit tower coupled with the point tower of Casa without its trademark hat.

The best aA buildings to date have been Twenty Niagara, the Pond Road residence at York University, District Lofts and the villas at 18 Yorkville. Midrise buildings that were designed to integrate, rather than dominate their surroundings. These were mostly built when the firm had some humility to their name, which I will get into below.

Recently, though, they have come out with a bunch of snoozers like 22 Wellesley, and also have retreated to recycling designs. For example, upon closer inspection, the proposed condo for the foot of Peter and Front street looks similar to Burano which is itself just a taller version of Spire. Pier 27 looks very uninspired to me. It takes cues from two better Toronto landmarks: Thom Mayne's Grad house and Alsop's OCAD. It basically props a tabletop slab (a la OCAD) on top of two run of the mill modernist boxes and then twists it at a funny angle and lets it hang over to one side (a la Grad House). On that note, is it just me, or is aA in the business of making epigones of better-known Toronto buildings? I'm thinking about X condos here.

I will also admit that part of my sour outlook toward aA has to do with the fact that they always get saddled to do the most controversial condo projects. There's PureSpirit and the St. Michael's condo redevelopment. This one is pretty intrusive, too. There used to be a fantastic staggering of Victorian spires in the St. Lawrence market area with St. Lawrence hall, St. James cathedral and the low-slung bulk of the market building dominating the vista. Passing by on the Gardiner, the neighbourhood looked like a Merian drawing, or a bustling mercantile metropolis seen in old bird's eye view maps. Now this glassy thing will block the view looking north and dominate the view looking south. It is kind of annoying that aA's buildings will dominate the city's skyline from so many vantage points, as if that architectural firm alone can command a presence not felt since Sir Christopher Wren began dotting London with his creations. And Peter Clewes, good as he is, ain't no Christopher Wren.
 
If a project is paying too much reference to other buildings, isn't that a kind of faux? :)

I'm starting to share some of the same sentiments as Hipster Duck, though I don't mind this project so much. I wonder sometimes if we're getting a little too much aA all at once.

I am slightly uneasy about such a tall structure at this site. However, there are mitigating attributes: I look forward to the park extension, and the tower is almost right up against the rail berm, and away from the market itself. I think it's quite attractive, even if a bit derivative.

It could be far, far worse, so I'll take it.
 
Pier 27's OCAD-style "tabletop" is actually inspired by those big shipping containers, Hipster, with the north-south alignment of the two buildings beneath it derived from waterfront piers ( hence the name ). I was recently told by a heritage architect who has worked with aA that Clewes's Spire took inspiration from Peter Dickinson's CIBC tower in Montreal.

Neither William Thomas - who designed St.Lawrence Hall - nor the combination of Frederick Cumberland ( base ) and Henry Langley ( spire, tower ) - who designed the cathedral - were Christopher Wren either, but they also made their mark on our ever-evolving skyline in their day, as others will do in future.
 
Hipster Duck said:
There used to be a fantastic staggering of Victorian spires in the St. Lawrence market area with St. Lawrence hall, St. James cathedral and the low-slung bulk of the market building dominating the vista.
Click to expand...

Of course, there are no spires, Victorian or otherwise, on the market buildings or St. Lawrence Hall.
 
Hipster Duck said:
Passing by on the Gardiner, the neighbourhood looked like a Merian drawing, or a bustling mercantile metropolis seen in old bird's eye view maps. Now this glassy thing will block the view looking north and dominate the view looking south. It is kind of annoying that aA's buildings will dominate the city's skyline from so many vantage points, as if that architectural firm alone can command a presence not felt since Sir Christopher Wren began dotting London with his creations. And Peter Clewes, good as he is, ain't no Christopher Wren.
Click to expand...

Goodness me, you must be quite agitated by what's happening to London in this century.
 
^Well no, because the redevelopment of London isn't being dominated by one local architect. In Toronto it's worse because that one local architect that seems to be stealing all the projects these days builds things with little regard to context or any attempt to cultivate a cohesive urban vernacular.

In London, the most brazen developments are relegated to the City, which has always been a dumping ground of wonderfully clashing architectural styles from all centuries. It's not like they are planting skyscrapers in Kensington or Westminster.

---

Back to Toronto, I have always thought that the overall "outcome" of the condo boom would be that we could look back on our city in fifty years and say that the builders of their day had tried their best to create a unified language of style unique to the city. The modernists of the 1950s and 1960s had their kick at the can but were brought down by building such resolutely suburban and auto-centric developments in the heart of the city (turning lanes and front lawns do not lend themselves to great city building).

I think I had high hopes for Clewes and his team about five years ago, when they left a signature style across the city but were cognizant of their surroundings: Spire was built because a tall building fit the site, while MoZo was the right scale for King and Sherbourne and Ideal lofts for Bathurst and College. Red brick was used where it was appropriate and glass curtains in other areas. Now that they just plant green glass point towers ad nauseam across the landscape, it's hard to back their designs.
 
Who cares? They don't need your backing. They have the backing of the people that count - the developers who pay their bills and the purchasers who pay the developers.
 
You must log in or register to post here.

Back
Top