Toronto X The Condominium | ?m | 44s | Great Gulf | a—A

scarberiankhatru said:
...

There's a sliding scale with many shades of grey that we can use to label buildings - faux, neo, modern, interesting, copy, homage, etc. The subjectivities inherent in art free us to place pretty much any label on any building, but people like you and US, people who claim a stranglehold on what can be called 'well-designed,' effectively exclude everyone other than architects and academics and archisnobs from weighing in on defining contemporary labels. Which is fine...I mean, as long as this effort doesn't bleed into the realm of trying to define 'attractive' and 'appropriate' for the masses...which you're doing.
Click to expand...

Didn't have an adequate reply prepared for the prior post? I wish I could give you the benefit of the doubt, but you left me with nothing but that long ago tiresome rant that I have grown familiar.

As far as it concerns me, you do not have a clue as to my position on X or perhaps any other style of architecture. There is no sliding scale for my view, just the one that you think is there and isn't. I am not at all surprised that you are so swift to substitute this name-calling for a proper discussion. That has been your form before, and it will be again. Urban Schocker and I were never in lockstep, we had broad areas of agreement. If you had been paying attention, you would have known that some time ago - your fellow bloggers have mentioned it, I have left enough posts to document it, and more has come out as of late today. But where Urban Schocker and I do agree it has somehow infected your thoughts and led you to a particular kind of cognitive dissonance.

Again, speaking only for myself, I think I have been consistent whether I was talking about Stern or about Clewes. I have already used the same criterion in evaluating each, and my biases were not hidden but stated quite clearly some time back on the Stern thread. I therefore surmise you didn't think I would retain that perspective when it was on the "modernist" side of the ledger, your not so clever strategy of denial is transparent. The trouble is that those posts of mine were out there before the current exchange between you and I. In view of that evidence, your denial is peculiarly isolated from that critical fact.

You have a right to your opinions, I have a right to mine. I have no intention to "claim a stranglehold... (to) effectively exclude everyone other than architects and academics and archisnobs from weighing in ..." True, I come here from a particular background that informs my approach when writing these posts. That background is not masked, just not detailed. I have removed all the jargon and tech talk that I could have left in if my actual motivation was what you claim it to be. I would hope you would respect that, but you have proven time-and-again that you don't. Your constant charges of snobbery will not hide your own brand of snobbery on display here. This is not your forum or my forum but rather an open forum - deal with it!

.​
 
I don't see X as a literal copy of the TD Centre. It is a building that pays homage to the TD, a "master piece" in the original sense of the word - by someone who has earned the right to do this because he has reached a certain professional level. It isn't an apprentice piece by someone who aspires to be something and is laughed at because he copies, but rather by someone who has arrived. Maybe we're seeing Picasso's "great artists steal, good artists copy" thing at work - maybe that's the "dialogue with Mies" that he sets up. Others Miesian dialogues are possible too as Zephyr suggests - the Ernst & Young Tower is one that we've already got, somewhat unfortunately. Maybe the dialogue Clewes sets up with Torontonians is the design of attractive high rise homes for large numbers of condo dwellers that aren't priced beyond what many can afford. He has spoken of the need for the architectural profession to reclaim residential design from developers, after all. Perhaps X is also an homage to Toronto - a city that is defined by Modernist buildings like the TD Centre, an evolution of which style our leading designers continue to work in.
 
Copy or homage, the important thing should be: if you steal, steal from something worth stealing from. I think almost everyone can agree that TD is steal-worthy. Let's hope some of Tridel's buildings aren't revered 40 years from now...


And should I deal with it by going back and inserting rants into my posts after the discussion is over?
 
Perhaps X is also an homage to Toronto - a city that is defined by Modernist buildings like the TD Centre
Click to expand...

My Toronto is defined by historic lowrise retail strips such as the Annex, Little Italy, Chinatown and Queen West.
 
I wish it was 'defined by Modernist buildings like the TD Centre.' Unfortunately, we have too many designless concrete and mirrored glass office buildings, and bland soulless structures from the last half century, to make that statement even remotely true.
 
More mirrored glass corporate towers would be nice...with so many glass boxes going up in the next few years, my wish might come true :)
 
Every city has crappy buildings, but their best buildings are memorable, and treasured, and define those cities qualitatively.
 
July 31 Update:

966601158_06954fd26b_b.jpg


966601308_c28252b62a_b.jpg
 
The shoring process appears to have begun yesterday so finally some movement here.
 
From today (Sat. Sept. 1st). Lots of activity on site yesterday.

X-1.jpg
 
X Condo site on Sept. 23rd continuing with plenty of activity

X_Condo_Sept23-07.jpg
 
They just took down and shredded up a couple of mature trees on the perimeter of the site. A bit of a shame - hopefully they'll plant some replacements.
 
You must log in or register to post here.

Back
Top