I don't think anyone is knocking the quality of aA's work, but the monotony and non-iconic form of Clewes' designs. "Signature" means exactly that, a building that isn't afraid to shout about itself. Theatre Park might just be a glimpse of some imagination, but I doubt he's up to the task of a true landmark project. I'll be happy to proved wrong in this case!
 
No, you're not knocking the quality of aA's work… but neither are you knocking the monotony nor the "non-iconic form", whatever the hell that bafflegab actually means. You're just saying that you (and your kin) don't read Clewes/aA-style modernism the way that some others do. You don't know the language, so it all sounds like a monotone to you. You wouldn't recognize the best example of the form from the least; it all looks the same to you… so I'm not holding my breath regarding any pronouncement from you on aA's "Signature" work, because you don't really know what you're looking at, and you won't likely recognize a landmark at all.

That said, I'm not convinced we'll get a landmark here. I don't know if Concord are sure for it. I think Concord still have to prove themselves in that regard. They have some good designs at CityPlace, with Neo, Montage, Luna, and Panorama the best, but they are not consistent. Parade's bridge is terrific in form, and overall the massing is good for both phases, but Parade lacks in the details department. We were all so thrilled when Parade's balconies were suddenly wrapped in black netting not because of the preventative manoeuvre it announced, but because there was finally some contrast on the facade against the relentless grey/beige of the spandrels and mullions. One figures they would have paid more attention to the details at such a prominent project for them, but everything at Parade other than the bridge itself is so ordinary.

Who knows if Concord will keep the name Signature for this project (it's been such a long time coming that marketing may be totally different for it than what was imagined when the project was named years ago) but let's hope that they understand that this project will be heavily scrutinized, and that they need to let their winning architect (has aA been confirmed, anyway?) blow us away with this one. No "cheaping-out" on ordinary materials this time.
 
So, I was concerned I was going a bit too far with this...

Platform 27 said:
...the haughty lectures that get dispensed around these parts from a cast of several that we're just too ignorant in the ways of architecture to "get" the world-beating modernist perfection that is Murano or Spire, and I think you can begin to understand some of the pushback.
Click to expand...

And right on cue...

ProjectEnd said:
It's therefore hard to read uninformed (technically speaking) criticism from members who clearly aren't familiar with how a building is brought to life (no fault of their own).
Click to expand...

WiddleBittyKitty said:
You're just saying that you (and your kin) don't read Clewes/aA-style modernism the way that some others do. You don't know the language, so it all sounds like a monotone to you. You wouldn't recognize the best example of the form from the least; it all looks the same to you… so I'm not holding my breath regarding any pronouncement from you on aA's "Signature" work, because you don't really know what you're looking at, and you won't likely recognize a landmark at all.
Click to expand...

(Again, in the interests of full disclosure, I write this as a case-by-case faAn who has fully accepted Our Lord and Saviour Four Seasons into my heart.)

So, serious question, because I've never quite worked up the gumption to ask it straight out and this is as good a spot as ever: What is it about aA that inspires such a, for lack of a better term, personal edge to the countercriticism?

I mean, I think it's safe to say there's a majority of folks in these parts who dislike Trump and a minority who do, but the jibes about tacky taste in that thread always seem good-natured. There's a huge gulf of opinion right now on all things Aura, but you rarely see people really dipping into the "you know nothing about anything" vault of snark. But to watch someone offer up some commentary about this firm--fair or unfair, thoughtful or unthoughtful, full of big words or spelled in leetspeak---and see the sort of reaction it provokes, it's like someone walked into a used record store in Kensington Market proclaiming Coldplay is the greatest band of all time.

What's striking to me is not so much the passion of the pro-aA rebuttal (nothing wrong with that) but the distinct tone I tend to detect that this is not about opinion but fact, and stating that one finds Karma to be an aesthetically substandard building is tantamount to saying 2 + 2 = 5. The first response from the firm's defenders is usually for them to kindly correct your mistake, but continue to express that viewpoint and it's as if the aAcolytes determine the only logical conclusion is one is simply too ignorant of the field or mentally defective to properly participate in worthwhile architectural discussion.

So, what is it about this firm, and this firm alone, that drives thoughtful, expressive, otherwise-welcoming posters on this forum to become such hipster dicks? An understandable reaction to an unreasonable and rude cadre of box haters? A defensiveness about the paragon of a homegrown design aesthetic? I'd love to hear a serious explanations about the weird tribal politics of online architecture forums if anyone's got one. Or does Peter Clewes just have a really big family?
 
Platform 27

Interesting post. Personally I think the failings of aA projects falls into 2 categories - in execution (e.g. 22 for poor detailing) or in context (e.g. Karma, Theatre Park) - and not so much so the design themselves. If a client hire aA, there is an expectation of a certain aesthetic - would one call individual Mies' projects "aesthetically substandard" even though there is tendency to be monotonous when applied liberally to one area? I would be hesitant to call any firm "best" considering other equally competent firms in Toronto (large ones like KPMB, D+S; Teeple, etc.) but I certainly won't be hesitant to say it is better than the firms PE listed.

I suppose the aggressiveness and passion in the of the defence for aA speaks to the inspiration the projects provided - and that in itself speaks volume. This whole debate reminded me of the more binary Mac vs. PC one actually...

AoD
 
Last edited:
Excellent post Platform 27. I'd like to know if certain members work for, or have worked for aA, or perhaps have a vested interest in the company, as the jump to aA's defense seems somewhat personal.

If not, it's just verging on fanboy-style online banter.
 
wmedia said:
Excellent post Platform 27. I'd like to know if certain members work for, or have worked for aA, or perhaps have a vested interest in the company, as the jump to aA's defense seems somewhat personal.

If not, it's just verging on fanboy-style online banter.
Click to expand...

ProjectEnd works for aA.
 
Platform 27 said:
So, serious question, because I've never quite worked up the gumption to ask it straight out and this...
Click to expand...

Superb.

Ramako said:
ProjectEnd works for aA.
Click to expand...

I assumed this quite early on, even before I read a post confirming it, which is the main reason I never seriously waded into this argument (I've always suspected egotrippin as well but couldn't be sure). I believe even if I made a solid argument it's hard to see past one's own bias. That and as an architecture hobbyist, I know it would be extremely difficult to try and debate the finer points of design with a trained and practicing architect when I'm not fluent in the technical speak of the trade.

My problem isn't so much with aA's design style per sae, it's now more that there is so much of it and that it is so distinct (despite all the examples of varying built forms listed earlier, it's still pretty easy to spot a Clewes). Thus my earlier objection to them being selected for this project.
 
I thought that ProjectEnd indicated he HAD worked for aA, I assume as a summer student?

As much as Platform 27 asks what it is that drives such passionate defence of aA, I wonder why we see such particular vitriol for aA. It's not that aA gets attacked as much as D+S or KPMB, and then we defenders go particularly overboard in defending it in response. It's that aA gets attacked much more than anyone else here. The_Architect and some others are particularly truculent when it comes to this firm, so in accordance with Newton's Third Law of Motion, the truculence is meeting with an equal and opposite reaction.

So Platform 27, if the vitriol spat aA's way were to wane, I'm sure the contrapuntal praise would become a little less effusive too.
 
To clarify: I have never worked for aA. I worked for pA which shares an office with aA and rP and rA at 317 Adelaide St W. Sorry for any confusion.
 
my Opinion of aA is that they will always turn out good designs, and the odd really good one, but they are not capable of true masterpieces. plus the sheer amount of buildings being built in Toronto by aA mean that it gets a bit monotonous. (there are currently 4 buildings proposed by aA over 200m, 2 more at 196m, and this one) I worry that by the end of this boom that the skyline will be too dominated by aA. aA is a good thing, but you can have too much of a good thing, and I worry that we are getting to that point.
 
I visit this thread hoping to see some new information on Signature Tower. Instead I get pages and pages of the same old tired arguments about Aa etc. Can we not find a better place to quibble until someome has something to say about the topic listed in the thread title? Please?
 
You must log in or register to post here.

Back
Top