Toronto The Residences of 488 University Avenue | 206.95m | 55s | Amexon | Core Architects

ShonTron said:
There may be at least a few who feel the high point of "Yamasaki Modern" was this:

Pruitt-Igoe-housing-007.jpg
Click to expand...

Of course, what I *really* have in mind is "Yamasaki Gothic" a la One Woodward (or, for that matter, the metal-rather-than-concrete WTC)--which is only "Brutalist" to those who'd rather obtusely-contemptuously bundle *everything* 60s/70s-concrete under that brand of convenience.

Paradoxically, Pruitt-Igoe predates anything Gothicky/New Formalist-y or Brutalist-y within Yamasaki's oeuvre.
 
Automation Gallery said:
What, it sure has no historical value and see nothing special in trying to restore this... Its butt ugly, Yuk:eek:
Click to expand...

That's precisely the 'thinking of the day' towards every era of architecture that's been discarded. People tore down buildings like the Temple Building because they said it had no historical value, it was nothing special, and it was butt ugly. Most 1960s-1980s architecture won't fully be appreciated for another 40-50 years and our grand kids will look at us and ask why we had to tear 90% of it down because it wasn't fashionable at the time.

Do you really think people tore down all those old buildings because people back then valued them? No, they tore them down because they didn't like them. In 40 years when Toronto has hardly none of these 70s buildings left the same chorus of 'what were they thinking' will arise. Then the pattern will repeat.

40 years from now people will be calling our current building style ugly and of no historical importance. They'll call for their re-development because its 'ugly'. People never learn from history or past mistakes.
 
Last edited:
adma said:
Of course, what I *really* have in mind is "Yamasaki Gothic" a la One Woodward (or, for that matter, the metal-rather-than-concrete WTC)--which is only "Brutalist" to those who'd rather obtusely-contemptuously bundle *everything* 60s/70s-concrete under that brand of convenience.
Click to expand...

Of course, I purposely chose an image of the implosion, not of the intact Pruitt-Igoe complex (and went for a much more politically correct imploding Yamasaki building) There's going to be those who will advocate for ripping down most any modernist building, as per some of the above comments.
 
isaidso said:
That's precisely the 'thinking of the day' towards every era of architecture that's been discarded. People tore down buildings like the Temple Building because they said it had no historical value, it was nothing special, and it was butt ugly. Most 1960s-1980s architecture won't fully be appreciated for another 40-50 years and our grand kids will look at us and ask why we had to tear 90% of it down because it wasn't fashionable at the time.

Do you really think people tore down all those old buildings because people back then valued them? No, they tore them down because they didn't like them. In 40 years when Toronto has hardly none of these 70s buildings left the same chorus of 'what were they thinking' will arise. Then the pattern will repeat.

40 years from now people will be calling our current building style ugly and of no historical importance. They'll call for their re-development because its 'ugly'. People never learn from history or past mistakes.
Click to expand...

Gee, it must be boring around here when you have to dig up a post from 6 months ago to prove a lame definition (Temple Bldg. vs the Global House Bldg.)
Hey, if they hadnt demolished some of those old buildings in the core, we wouldnt have had much of a CBD...unfortunately same has happened to many other world citys, and have lost a lot of history to become what they are,

.. Come-on, 40 years from now people including our grandsons will understand just like we've had to understand the price you pay for progress.
Bottom line is, you can't have your cake and eat it too,...i still say, no love-loss on this building
 
Automation Gallery said:
Gee, it must be boring around here when you have to dig up a post from 6 months ago to prove a lame definition (Temple Bldg. vs the Global House Bldg.)
Hey, if they hadnt demolished some of those old buildings in the core, we wouldnt have had much of a CBD...unfortunately same has happened to many other world citys, and have lost a lot of history to become what they are,

.. Come-on, 40 years from now people including our grandsons will understand just like we've had to understand the price you pay for progress.
Bottom line is, you can't have your cake and eat it too,...i still say, no love-loss on this building
Click to expand...

So many spelling errors, syntax errors, and mangled phrases! My brain hurts!
 
Ralph said:
So many spelling errors, syntax errors, and mangled phrases! My brain hurts!
Click to expand...

Which, if I may get a bit beyond the specific post responded to, is a critical problem with too much of the dismissive judgment: that it's, well, ill-informed and incompetently stated. Like, bundling *all* such stuff from an era in an ill-fitting "Brutalist" label; and if anyone like me or whomever jumped in to clarify, the response is a an obtuse "who cares, a turd is a turd" smokescreen.

Conversely, by contextualizing the building in terms of its stylistic derivation from Yamasaki, I'm really looking beyond advancing crude "should it stay or should it go" arguments--but knowing, too, that the authority behind such putting-in-context is exactly that which'd fuel the "should it stay" camp. That is, provide the facts, and let the rest advance as it could/would/should.

(And perhaps one may say the same re the other end of the argument, i.e. the "should it go" camp is better off when coolly Glaeser-libertarian than explicitly "ugly concrete turd, get rid of it")
 
The base almost reads like a tribute/memorial to the existing "Yamasaki Modern" aesthetic.
 
isaidso said:
That's precisely the 'thinking of the day' towards every era of architecture that's been discarded. People tore down buildings like the Temple Building because they said it had no historical value, it was nothing special, and it was butt ugly. Most 1960s-1980s architecture won't fully be appreciated for another 40-50 years and our grand kids will look at us and ask why we had to tear 90% of it down because it wasn't fashionable at the time.

Do you really think people tore down all those old buildings because people back then valued them? No, they tore them down because they didn't like them. In 40 years when Toronto has hardly none of these 70s buildings left the same chorus of 'what were they thinking' will arise. Then the pattern will repeat.

40 years from now people will be calling our current building style ugly and of no historical importance. They'll call for their re-development because its 'ugly'. People never learn from history or past mistakes.
Click to expand...

So on the bright side all these new glass condos will be considered historical in 70-100 years, and not ghetto commie blocks as many people seem to suggest.
 
You must log in or register to post here.

Back
Top