Toronto The Florian | ?m | 25s | Mirabella Dev Corp | Hariri Pontarini

[egotrippin]

Or they could just hire aA to do it for them.

Agreed. I'd be happy to see aA work on many more projects in this city. Throw in Wallman, Teeple, and maybe RAW to mix things up a bit as well.

So aA has designed a couple of derivative "boxes" (driven largely by the developers' request, blaming aA is way off base). If one actually took the time to look at their projects, it's pretty hard to deny that they've got the attention to detail thing down.

Their use of alternating patterned balconies, the beautiful crisp podiums, and excellent proportions are several items that set aA apart from the norm. I'd rather have a well proportioned box, than some stumpy mess with easy-sell curves and setbacks which only serve as a cheap way of disguising poor design.

 

[egotrippin]

It may not be significant enough to you but, aA was the first to use coloured spandrel and add visual interest through balcony placement. Their attention to detail is exceptional considering how many others cheat by offering up spandrel glass towers; a lazy compromise in matching up the interior space with the exterior deisgn. I'd hate to see this city without their input.

And of course there's the alternating window patterns, angled support columns, soaring lobbies, cantilevers, crisp modern materials and colours... The list goes on.

 

[Irishmonk]

This building is turning into something quite special. Hope 1 Bloor follows this route and not Vu.

 

[vegeta_skyline]

If one actually took the time to look at their projects, it's pretty hard to deny that they've got the attention to detail thing down.

I have looked at their projects and I feel their highrises are grossly over-rated. Especially here on UT.
I do not have issue with their lowrises or even the podiums on their buildings or how they meet the street, which are typically of high quality and well done.

Many applaud them for avoiding or minimizing the used of spandrels, the presence of which is somehow thought of as the instant kiss of death by aA proponents. In truth if their use is not excessive (obvious failures in that respect; Parade 1, Nautilus, Crystal Blue amongst others) and if the color selection does not contrast with the glass (i.e. Trump), their presence is not automatically revolting or even all that noticeable.

Likewise with precast. Because evidently a little bit of texture can kill you. Of course a lot of it, with little texture or details can indeed blind you, at least temporarily (see Uptown, if you must). But when applied with restraint and/or of high quality, looking at you; One Saint Thomas, Florian, WHC & One Park. The results speak for themselves.

There are those here who would deride some of those buildings. But I would contest any assessment that even WHC & One Park were not decently executed for the style. In their defense I submit that this was done by minimizing the use of precast(no wide slabs), by the inclusion of some degree of detailing without being tacky and by incorporating interesting symmetrical patterns. Their appeal is also largely due to the interesting contrast they provide against the sea of glass surrounding them. Naturally, I don't expect any aA proponents to agree, as these buildings are almost at the opposite end of the spectrum after all.

aA supporters will further exclaim the virtues of the firm by stating its far superior to the 'crap' that gets built in the suburbs. But really, aside from Crystal Blue, BSN, Uptown, ROCP, Infinity (examples of 'crap') and a few other exceptions, the quality of architecture generally trends to be higher downtown than in the suburbs. There is little sense in comparing the two.

With that I ask, just what makes CASA, Murano, Pure/Clear Spirits, U Condos, 22 Wellesley, NXT or MYC condo so special?
Simply being clad in glass, occasionally with off-set windows, large balconies and sometimes a slightly angled facade, which is barely even noticeable, does not make a building impressive by any means, in my eyes. The same can be said about most of their recent proposals; Karma, Peter Street Condominiums & 42 Charles St East. Simply put, the current repetitiveness of their designs is nauseating.

Moving along to their better highrises; Spire, Market Wharf, 18 Yorkville, X & Radio City all have a little more going for them. There's some texture here, some uniqueness and overall there's a concerted effect to make a dynamic buildings and not one that looks massed produced off a production line. Still, they are constrained by their form.

I don't mind any of those buildings as opposed to the first batch I mentioned. They don't negatively effect the skyline by any means and are indeed of good quality. But neither do they catch my eye. Save for perhaps X, when I ignore that obtuse mechanical box that is, as it is a very respectful homage to the TD Center.

However we've been doing boxes in Toronto for over 50 years now and the form was mastered way back in 1967. Now that isn't to say that developers should cease and desist any further development. But architects around the world have realized the limitations of the form. It's a shame that so many in Toronto still have not(with that I lay blame not just on the architects but the developers as well).

With regards to Theater Park; its essentially a box with horizontal lines, as opposed to the vertical ones at the base of U condos. Neither of which are structural in nature and will likely lack any real 'definition'. While it is something new and interesting, for aA, its not enough to elevate it into landmark status imo.
It reminds me of the acclaim the Ritz first received from the renders (I know, different firm). The final product, while quite decent, clearly did not live up to the original expectations.
As for Burano, its also a decent attempt at something different but even it feels muted by the choice in cladding.

For those who wonder what I actually do find appealing then, here's few examples; Scotia, Royal Bank Plaza, Sun Life, Commerce Court North(original), One St. Thomas(modern variation), Shangri-La, The Met, Telus and Lumiere (and when I go to Mississauga Absolute World) These will soon be complimented by L, Aura, Cumberland Terrace, One Bloor, Picasso and Monde. And providing that the execution isn't flawed; 88 Scott and Eden Park in North York.

aA contribution to that list; The 4 Seasons
and in the future; ICE.

My point here;
For a developer that's commissioning more downtown projects than any other, that will hardly suffice.

 

[egotrippin]

So, I'm sorry, if even the better aA examples (Market Wharf, et al) are still constrained by their form, how can you also enjoy the TD Centre (and aA's homage to it: X)? Mies' TD Centre is the epitome of the unadorned box, driven by a pursuit for purity and restraint; beautifully executed I might add.

The precast heavy examples you've touted here are unfortunately, less forward thinking than a glass clad box (save the Florian perhaps). 1 St. Thomas suffers from a mishmash of unrelated references to past styles, WHC is messy and awkward, and 1 Park is just a plain embarrassment (it looks like they bought the finishes from a sale at the Home Depot historicist aisle). I'm not just ragging on buildings that use precast, or materials other than glass, either; rather it's the blatant rehash of former styles that have no place being poorly recreated in contemporary times. However, your favourite aA, has shown that precast can be used effectively: check out District Lofts (388 Richmond St W) or the beautiful work they did with phase 2 at Tip Top.

I understand the frustration with the recent wave of aA proposals, as they've all been a variation on a similar theme, but if you look at architecture historically, you'll see this is the norm. Architects tend to stick with a style for a period of time, update and refine it, and move on. Why does nobody lament all the identical Victorian blocks that define most of our commercial thoroughfares? Once the dust has settled, the buildings we'll be praising will be the aA's of the world; I can't imagine the likes of 1 Park or WHC will age very well, and I bet they will be seen as the '00s PoMo in the history books.

 

[ProjectEnd]

It's ok, one day you'll see it vegeta. One day.

Also, well-put egotrippin.

 

[Red October]

I have looked at their projects and I feel their highrises are grossly over-rated. Especially here on UT.
I do not have issue with their lowrises or even the podiums on their buildings or how they meet the street, which are typically of high quality and well done.

Many applaud them for avoiding or minimizing the used of spandrels, the presence of which is somehow thought of as the instant kiss of death by aA proponents. In truth if their use is not excessive (obvious failures in that respect; Parade 1, Nautilus, Crystal Blue amongst others) and if the color selection does not contrast with the glass (i.e. Trump), their presence is not automatically revolting or even all that noticeable.

Likewise with precast. Because evidently a little bit of texture can kill you. Of course a lot of it, with little texture or details can indeed blind you, at least temporarily (see Uptown, if you must). But when applied with restraint and/or of high quality, looking at you; One Saint Thomas, Florian, WHC & One Park. The results speak for themselves.

There are those here who would deride some of those buildings. But I would contest any assessment that even WHC & One Park were not decently executed for the style. In their defense I submit that this was done by minimizing the use of precast(no wide slabs), by the inclusion of some degree of detailing without being tacky and by incorporating interesting symmetrical patterns. Their appeal is also largely due to the interesting contrast they provide against the sea of glass surrounding them. Naturally, I don't expect any aA proponents to agree, as these buildings are almost at the opposite end of the spectrum after all.

aA supporters will further exclaim the virtues of the firm by stating its far superior to the 'crap' that gets built in the suburbs. But really, aside from Crystal Blue, BSN, Uptown, ROCP, Infinity (examples of 'crap') and a few other exceptions, the quality of architecture generally trends to be higher downtown than in the suburbs. There is little sense in comparing the two.

With that I ask, just what makes CASA, Murano, Pure/Clear Spirits, U Condos, 22 Wellesley, NXT or MYC condo so special?
Simply being clad in glass, occasionally with off-set windows, large balconies and sometimes a slightly angled facade, which is barely even noticeable, does not make a building impressive by any means, in my eyes. The same can be said about most of their recent proposals; Karma, Peter Street Condominiums & 42 Charles St East. Simply put, the current repetitiveness of their designs is nauseating.

Moving along to their better highrises; Spire, Market Wharf, 18 Yorkville, X & Radio City all have a little more going for them. There's some texture here, some uniqueness and overall there's a concerted effect to make a dynamic buildings and not one that looks massed produced off a production line. Still, they are constrained by their form.

I don't mind any of those buildings as opposed to the first batch I mentioned. They don't negatively effect the skyline by any means and are indeed of good quality. But neither do they catch my eye. Save for perhaps X, when I ignore that obtuse mechanical box that is, as it is a very respectful homage to the TD Center.

However we've been doing boxes in Toronto for over 50 years now and the form was mastered way back in 1967. Now that isn't to say that developers should cease and desist any further development. But architects around the world have realized the limitations of the form. It's a shame that so many in Toronto still have not(with that I lay blame not just on the architects but the developers as well).

With regards to Theater Park; its essentially a box with horizontal lines, as opposed to the vertical ones at the base of U condos. Neither of which are structural in nature and will likely lack any real 'definition'. While it is something new and interesting, for aA, its not enough to elevate it into landmark status imo.
It reminds me of the acclaim the Ritz first received from the renders (I know, different firm). The final product, while quite decent, clearly did not live up to the original expectations.
As for Burano, its also a decent attempt at something different but even it feels muted by the choice in cladding.

For those who wonder what I actually do find appealing then, here's few examples; Scotia, Royal Bank Plaza, Sun Life, Commerce Court North(original), One St. Thomas(modern variation), Shangri-La, The Met, Telus and Lumiere (and when I go to Mississauga Absolute World) These will soon be complimented by L, Aura, Cumberland Terrace, One Bloor, Picasso and Monde. And providing that the execution isn't flawed; 88 Scott and Eden Park in North York.

aA contribution to that list; The 4 Seasons
and in the future; ICE.

My point here;
For a developer that's commissioning more downtown projects than any other, that will hardly suffice.

Incredibly well said vegeta! I agree entirely.

It's not that I dislike all of aA's work.. Their past buildings were good (the obvious exception being Murano), it's their new stuff that's plain old boring, unoriginal, and straight off the assembly line.

 

[vegeta_skyline]

Thank you. I've said it elsewhere before, but this is where it really needed to be said.

It's ok, one day you'll see it vegeta. One day.

Its always the same refrain. But its not about 'getting it'. I understand perfectly well what aA is about.

I'm not suggesting that aA is the worst thing to happen to this city, there are obviously worse firms out there. I just feel the unconditional love for all things aA that some of you have embraced is undeserved. While their flaws are of a different nature than that of buildings you detest, with a few exceptions, they are flawed none the less. But I do not expect those blinded by their ideals to ever see them.

So, I'm sorry, if even the better aA examples (Market Wharf, et al) are still constrained by their form, how can you also enjoy the TD Centre (and aA's homage to it: X)? Mies' TD Centre is the epitome of the unadorned box, driven by a pursuit for purity and restraint; beautifully executed I might add.

I'm not sure why there's any confusion on the matter. Why would I not appreciate a building that's the best at what it does? That doesn't mean its one of my absolute favorites(see the list in my previous post), but I still recognize quality when I see it. And really, save for the 4 Season's and X, few aA buildings can claim to even approach the TD Center in reverence.

Also, I'm under no illusions to think that an aA supporter such as your self would approve of those supposedly 'precast heavy' buildings. Though I found your description of One St. Thomas, a building that's almost universally approved of here on UT quite humorous indeed. Of course you have every right to hold steadfast to your views and I have no real interest in attempting to swaying your opinion on the matter either.

 

[Solaris]

I have looked at their projects and I feel their highrises are grossly over-rated. Especially here on UT.
I do not have issue with their lowrises or even the podiums on their buildings or how they meet the street, which are typically of high quality and well done.

Many applaud them for avoiding or minimizing the used of spandrels, the presence of which is somehow thought of as the instant kiss of death by aA proponents. In truth if their use is not excessive (obvious failures in that respect; Parade 1, Nautilus, Crystal Blue amongst others) and if the color selection does not contrast with the glass (i.e. Trump), their presence is not automatically revolting or even all that noticeable.

Likewise with precast. Because evidently a little bit of texture can kill you. Of course a lot of it, with little texture or details can indeed blind you, at least temporarily (see Uptown, if you must). But when applied with restraint and/or of high quality, looking at you; One Saint Thomas, Florian, WHC & One Park. The results speak for themselves.

There are those here who would deride some of those buildings. But I would contest any assessment that even WHC & One Park were not decently executed for the style. In their defense I submit that this was done by minimizing the use of precast(no wide slabs), by the inclusion of some degree of detailing without being tacky and by incorporating interesting symmetrical patterns. Their appeal is also largely due to the interesting contrast they provide against the sea of glass surrounding them. Naturally, I don't expect any aA proponents to agree, as these buildings are almost at the opposite end of the spectrum after all.

aA supporters will further exclaim the virtues of the firm by stating its far superior to the 'crap' that gets built in the suburbs. But really, aside from Crystal Blue, BSN, Uptown, ROCP, Infinity (examples of 'crap') and a few other exceptions, the quality of architecture generally trends to be higher downtown than in the suburbs. There is little sense in comparing the two.

With that I ask, just what makes CASA, Murano, Pure/Clear Spirits, U Condos, 22 Wellesley, NXT or MYC condo so special?
Simply being clad in glass, occasionally with off-set windows, large balconies and sometimes a slightly angled facade, which is barely even noticeable, does not make a building impressive by any means, in my eyes. The same can be said about most of their recent proposals; Karma, Peter Street Condominiums & 42 Charles St East. Simply put, the current repetitiveness of their designs is nauseating.

Moving along to their better highrises; Spire, Market Wharf, 18 Yorkville, X & Radio City all have a little more going for them. There's some texture here, some uniqueness and overall there's a concerted effect to make a dynamic buildings and not one that looks massed produced off a production line. Still, they are constrained by their form.

I don't mind any of those buildings as opposed to the first batch I mentioned. They don't negatively effect the skyline by any means and are indeed of good quality. But neither do they catch my eye. Save for perhaps X, when I ignore that obtuse mechanical box that is, as it is a very respectful homage to the TD Center.

However we've been doing boxes in Toronto for over 50 years now and the form was mastered way back in 1967. Now that isn't to say that developers should cease and desist any further development. But architects around the world have realized the limitations of the form. It's a shame that so many in Toronto still have not(with that I lay blame not just on the architects but the developers as well).

With regards to Theater Park; its essentially a box with horizontal lines, as opposed to the vertical ones at the base of U condos. Neither of which are structural in nature and will likely lack any real 'definition'. While it is something new and interesting, for aA, its not enough to elevate it into landmark status imo.
It reminds me of the acclaim the Ritz first received from the renders (I know, different firm). The final product, while quite decent, clearly did not live up to the original expectations.
As for Burano, its also a decent attempt at something different but even it feels muted by the choice in cladding.

For those who wonder what I actually do find appealing then, here's few examples; Scotia, Royal Bank Plaza, Sun Life, Commerce Court North(original), One St. Thomas(modern variation), Shangri-La, The Met, Telus and Lumiere (and when I go to Mississauga Absolute World) These will soon be complimented by L, Aura, Cumberland Terrace, One Bloor, Picasso and Monde. And providing that the execution isn't flawed; 88 Scott and Eden Park in North York.

aA contribution to that list; The 4 Seasons
and in the future; ICE.

My point here;
For a developer that's commissioning more downtown projects than any other, that will hardly suffice.

Thank you for laying out your thoughts ... I agree with you completely ~

Personally, the aA projects that I do like are: 18 Yorkville, top hat of Casa, base of Market Wharf, Quay West @ Tip Top, and ICE ... which are in fact very 'original' in design

 

[ProjectEnd]

Thank you. I've said it elsewhere before, but this is where it really needed to be said.

Its always the same refrain. But its not about 'getting it'. I understand perfectly well what aA is about.

I'm not suggesting that aA is the worst thing to happen to this city, there are obviously worse firms out there. I just feel the unconditional love for all things aA that some of you have embraced is undeserved. While their flaws are of a different nature than that of buildings you detest, with a few exceptions, they are flawed none the less. But I do not expect those blinded by their ideals to ever see them.

I'm not sure why there's any confusion on the matter. Why would I not appreciate a building that's the best at what it does? That doesn't mean its one of my absolute favorites(see the list in my previous post), but I still recognize quality when I see it. And really, save for the 4 Season's and X, few aA buildings can claim to even approach the TD Center in reverence.

Also, I'm under no illusions to think that an aA supporter such as your self would approve of those supposedly 'precast heavy' buildings. Though I found your description of One St. Thomas, a building that's almost universally approved of here on UT quite humorous indeed. Of course you have every right to hold steadfast to your views and I have no real interest in attempting to swaying your opinion on the matter either.

It's true, if ever there were a place to disparage the work of a particular firm, its surely in the thread for a building by another firm. Well played sir.

And even if you claim to 'get' 'it,' you're still not 'seeing' 'it,' which is too bad because these lengthy screeds seem to indicate that you really do want to see 'it' (kinda like people who consistently attack certain things are usually the ones with something to hide).

I think what egotrippin finds odd is'nt necessarily your praise of a single building, but your expectation that designers need to churn out novel shapes for each project they author. In this sense, its less about the TD Centre as a stand-alone piece of architecture than it is about the entire Miesian oeuvre (about which you haven't spoken at all). Like Mies, aA have also been evolving their own set of practices and principles which pop up at different points in each new project we see. They may be of a more subtle variety but they're surely there and, taken together, represent a far more intelligent evolution of the oft-debated Toronto Style than the alien shapes and rushed details of buildings by less-talented firms.

 

[vegeta_skyline]

Oh there are opinions that I am trying to sway, its just not really his or yours.
And I do believe this is as good of a good place as any to note the shortcomings of aA buildings, since its a beautiful project designed by a firm that actually creates the type of building that I prefer.

I think what egotrippin finds odd is'nt necessarily your praise of a single building, but your expectation that designers need to churn out novel shapes for each project they author.

That's not all that I'm advocating for. For instance the Florian itself isn't necessarily a 'novel shape'. Aside from the sleek curve on the southern facade, its largely a box. But the differences between it and most aA projects is as clear as night and day.

As I've noted before, there are aA project that I do appreciate and yes, even admire(4Season's, ICE). Despite my seemingly harsh criticism, this isn't some hate fest. There is a place for their work in this city. Nor do I dispute that there are worse firms out there. I just don't have much interest in further maligning them as their weak work is already thoroughly critiqued here on UT. (After all what fun is there to be had in a debate where there is little resistance?) Also, I don't disagree that aA's work continues to evolve, however subtly. But just the same, there is an alarming trend of increasing subservience with each new project as their work becomes more and more generic.

Ultimately, I strongly disagree with the core belief that you and a few others seem to have that they are the ones who set the standard for architecture in this city. As long as Hariri Pontarini, Teeple, Core Wallman and the occasional celebrity architects i.e. Libeskind, Safdie, Pelli, MAD etc. are commissioning projects in this city, I will never agree.

And yes, I am aware of Wallman's association with aA(although its his new work I'm more interested in - Bisha, The Yorkville). In fact I'm thankfully for such as where he's involved(X, Quay West) their projects are typically all the better for it.

 

[Parkdalian]

Ultimately, I strongly disagree with the core belief that you and a few others seem to have that they are the ones who set the standard for architecture in this city.

What I find amusing about the aA dislike is that it's never really grounded in an explanation of why the "box" is such a terrible object but that aA has become a signifier of a perceived collection of tastemakers that are applauding weak work for the sake of maintaining their status in an elite clique.

Here's a tip for those people who don't like aA and who don't want to be shot down when you complain, yet again, about the fact that their buildings are boxes: if you don't like boxes - stop talking about aA. They like boxes! You don't! End of story.

Or better yet - forget that aA exists and simply respond to each building as a building, and not an indicator that everyone else who disagrees with you is part of some elite group that has not invited you to join them.

 

[Parkdalian]

Oh, and just a note: if you hate boxes, why are you interested in architecture? It's pretty much mostly boxes.

 

[vegeta_skyline]

Your really reaching now, first off architecture is clearly not just about boxes. But more to the point, I've never stated that I unequivocally 'hate' boxes as there are indeed many creative things you can do with them.

if you don't like boxes - stop talking about aA. They like boxes! You don't! End of story.

I'm sorry, but isn't the whole idea of this forum to encourage discussion on architecture?
That and the dissemination of information are obviously UT's two primary purposes.

Or better yet - forget that aA exists and simply respond to each building as a building, and not an indicator that everyone else who disagrees with you is part of some elite group that has not invited you to join them.

Not sure how you didn't notice, but that is precisely what I have been doing; looking at buildings on a case by case basis. If that was not the case, than why would I have any appreciation for aA's 4 Season's, X or ICE?

Not inviting me to join them you say? No thanks. I quite like that my alliances aren't centered primarily around a single firm. And btw, I'm not the one that originally initiated the discussion on aA in this thread;

Or they could just hire aA to do it for them.

I'm simply finishing it.

 

[vegeta_skyline]

From WAY above;