Barrytron, I find there is very little PoMo in the GTA of any merit. Mississauga City Hall is likely the greatest PoMo building in the country. In Toronto there are a couple of good PoMo libraries - Lillian Smith branch on College east of Spadina, and Barbara Frum branch northwest of the plaza at Lawrence and Bathurst. Scotia Plaza is good PoMo, although it's just barely Po, more simple Mo.
Anyway, yeah, most of the PoMo is undisciplined crap, most of it featuring slapped on cornices and mouldings here and there, fussy balcony grates, pretentious pedimented roof lines or arches, all manner of embellishments that scream more is more. University Plaza is a good example of a building with a bunch of these stupidities. If you already have a handsome building, why do you need all that stuff tacked on? If the design doesn't work without that stuff, does the stuff really fix it?
42
regarding clewes, let me just summarize my argument and end the discussion (for now) because we probably won't ever agree. i feel his work is repetitive and very much predictable now, even though he has some stunning structures, namely the spire and the pier 27. that aside, i feel his success has subdued his innovative ambitions. also, he often uses the same overly modest techniques and materials to design his buildings (often concrete, plain glass, and grey steel).
ok you make good points, but in any well-structured philosophical argument, let's define the terms first. generally speaking (thanks to wikipedia), "functional and formalized shapes and spaces of the modernist movement are replaced by unapologetically diverse aesthetics: styles collide, form is adopted for its own sake, and new ways of viewing familiar styles and space abound."
this is a very broad definition. indeed, scotiabank plaza, i feel one of toronto's best skyscraper's, falls under this category. but let's be honest, the rom, the ago, and ocad, with their expressionistic and bold style, also fall under this definition.
i'd like to think that the "upside down" sears office building on jarvis south of gerrard, while imposing, is terribly interesting.
these buildings to me, are noteworthy and triumphant. most importantly, i find they are fun, dynamic and iconic. 42, i agree there is bad postmodern architecture, but equally, there can be bad modern architecture. let's not suggest that preference of one style determines any objective truth.
