Toronto Spire Condos | 144.77m | 45s | Context Development | a—A

Everything looks different up close and it is illogical to expect that it won't. A Monet looks different up close but it is still a Monet. The expression sems to be more about confused expectations than anything else.
 
Urban Shocker said:
Everything looks different up close and it is illogical to expect that it won't. A Monet looks different up close but it is still a Monet. The expression sems to be more about confused expectations than anything else.
Click to expand...

Nobody is complaining that it looks different. It just does not look good. And our expectations are not confused. We expect it to look better than pre-cast and cinder blocks.
 
Why? It is a Clewes and you already know what his buildings look like up close. Are you playing games with your own expectations - setting yourself up to be disappointed?
 
I guess Clewes is the one architect that I should not expect decent street level aesthetics. My bad.
 
Conrad Black said:
The painted cinder block rather than cladding is the ultimate cheap out. And in such a prominant location at that.
Click to expand...

Since when is Church and Lombard prominent?

And Monet, in the "good from far, far from good" sense goes back at least to a line from Amy Heckerling's excellent 1995 movie, Clueless :

Tai: Do you think she's pretty?

Cher: No, she's a full-on Monet.

Tai: What's a monet?

Cher: It's like a painting, see? From far away, it's OK, but up close, it's a big old mess. Let's ask a guy. Christian, what do you think of Amber?

Christian: Hagsville.

Cher: See?
 
alklay: You're already on record as prefering the street level aesthetics of 1 St Thomas and Element, so it is clear that your expectations lie with Palladian Home Depot fronts and frontages lurking behind colonnades.
 
There is also cinder block at the front of the building on Adelaide. The pre-cast is along Church and along Lombard.
 
I will proudly take 1 St Thomas and Element over cinder block any day of the week, month or year.
 
Everything looks different up close and it is illogical to expect that it won't.
Click to expand...

That's one of the major differences between contemporary architecture and the superior architecture of the past... the attention to detail, the pride in workmanship... looking good whatever distance you are from the building.
 
Too bad Spire has fallen out of favour because of cinderblock. As for plywood, the colour of the panels is too consistent to be be plywood. I still think the building looks great.
 
Does anyone know if there is still an option to buy parking?

I didn't opt for it, but now I need it...

Any ideas?
 
That's the trouble with parking spots. You choke on it when buying one, but then it comes in handy. If you don't buy one, you feel great until you choke on the lack of one.

Sdamien, I suppose you could seek out someone renting one, or even selling one. But in the latter case, just hope they are not tuned to what parking spaces are going for these days in new developments. You could easily see an asking price 50% above what the original buyer paid.
 
Urban Shocker said:
Then you're hung up on materials.
Click to expand...

I am indeed hung up on materials as they are important details. And any good architect should be hung up on such details.

Great modernism looks as good close up as it does afar, because of the use of materials and details. Mies' works look as breathtaking up close as they do afar because of his attention to detail and use of materials (his buildings would not be what they were if he used plywood instead of glass - materials count for everything).

Kuwabara Payne McKenna Blumberg's recent works demonstrate that modernism is indeed enhanced, and no less 'modern', when you use decent stone and brick.
 
You must log in or register to post here.

Back
Top