The inside renderings of this building look decent but the building itself is a typical glass box. There are no design elements that interest me at all. Even the podium is pretty bland and will add nothing at street level. I would hate to see the city populated with more of these soulless, predictable, typical grey/blue/green glass boxes. It's just getting tedious seeing a view where almost every building looks like it was designed by the exact same architect and developer. Isn't Toronto's motto "Diversity Is Our Strength"? Can we not have a bit of diversity in design, materials, colours and over-all architecture? I want to see some radical new designs and "extreme architecture" as River City likes to claim. Put those tiny, little brains to work and give Toronto something to get excited about!
 
^ Agreed. I would love to see something from Zaha Hadid - why not throw some sort of exoskeleton on the typical glass box. Often times, we see a glass box with different balcony treatments. It's time for something different.

toronto-box.jpg
 
everytime you talk about Asia as if it is an inferior thing in general, as if in terms of architecture, Asian cities has little value.
maybe so compared with Paris or Barcelona, but Toronto's lacklustre buildings really don't get to be dismissive about "concrete buildings in Asia". As mentioned before, there is nothing in GTA that is remotely comparable to the quality and diversity of the buildings on the "Bund" in Shanghai for example. Kyoto's historic buildings are 1000 years older than the "heritage" Victorians in Cabbagetown or the Annex we seem to be so proud of (therefore a lot more historic value).
There are probably 10 Asian cities that has better achitecture than Toronto.
Being a bit modest won't kill you. If you think all Asia has is 70s moss park type of concrete blocks, you are being incredible ignorant.
Click to expand...

Um, actually I was responding to the idea that it is a mediocre 70s building, and someone else mentioned that it could be from Tokyo in a dismissive manner. I was actually saying that it was better than a pervasive 70s building, whether in Tokyo or Toronto (which has a lot of terrible 60s and 70s buildings). No one mentioned Kyoto, only you did. Tokyo has some really interesting buildings, and I think lots of cities in Asia are great, so I didn't mean to give that impression and apologise if I did. But you seem to suggest that razing everything for tall buildings would be better and I disagree, and you just denigrate Toronto's history without prompt, which I don't think is helpful either. In the end I was actually agreeing with you about U Condos!
 
Last edited:
Our landmarks like Old City Hall and University College are comparable to most of the world's finest.
 
cruzin4u said:
^ Agreed. I would love to see something from Zaha Hadid - why not throw some sort of exoskeleton on the typical glass box. Often times, we see a glass box with different balcony treatments. It's time for something different.
Click to expand...

Fifty storeys of empty vaginal pretension? No thanks. I'm fine to let her continue to produce concert halls and stadiums for the world's finest dictators.

Now Renzo on the other hand...
 
Last edited by a moderator:
cruzin4u said:
^ Agreed. I would love to see something from Zaha Hadid - why not throw some sort of exoskeleton on the typical glass box. Often times, we see a glass box with different balcony treatments. It's time for something different.
Click to expand...

Only six examples?!

It's crazy how all of the new buildings look the same. Architects in this town need to reimagine the glass box.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
but when you look at these projects they don't look the same: aA has many very interesting details on their neo-modernist "boxes." Casa is certainly different from U Condos, which is becoming a lot more interesting as the finishing touches are put on. Personally I prefer nuanced modernism to a lot of other architectural styles.
 
smably said:
Uh, what's that supposed to mean?
Click to expand...

Well for one...

agoraflaneur said:
but when you look at these projects they don't look the same: aA has many very interesting details on their neo-modernist "boxes." Casa is certainly different from U Condos, which is becoming a lot more interesting as the finishing touches are put on. Personally I prefer nuanced modernism to a lot of other architectural styles.
Click to expand...

Agree entirely.
 
ProjectEnd said:
Fifty storeys of empty vaginal pretension? No thanks. I'm fine to let her continue to produce concert halls and stadiums for the world's finest dictators.

Now Renzo on the other hand...
Click to expand...


We had Adma's repeated posts with phallic imagery and now we get "vaginal pretensions???" Well, I guess I can put up with that but please, let's not move to the one remaining possibility for orifice based metaphors. :)
 
Further reinforcement from one of the world's most skilled critics:

"Profiles of Hadid routinely cite her imperious behavior, which she seems to exhibit with particular satisfaction when writers are around. Several articles begin with her keeping the interviewer waiting an annoyingly long time; move on to the architect throwing a tantrum, often at the expense of some hapless underling, in full sight of her visitor; and include a litany of Hadid’s complaints about how she is misperceived, insisting that no one would call her a “diva” if she were a man."

"...Seated in Hadid’s London office, the critic learns of her impending arrival when a flunky arrives with the architect’s large designer handbag—“white and gold and tsarist, Fabergé in its intensity of ornament, but also futurist”—shortly before his subject emerges from “a pearly Chrysler Voyager. She has just been driven from her airy, all-white rooftop flat, two hundred yards away."

Filler is in a league of his own, at once marrying precision and delicacy in sentences like this:

"...[the] self-indulgent solipsism and crushing grandiosity that typify Hadid’s work"

So ya, my 'empty vaginal pretension' may not be as well-worded as Filler's work but the intent is still there.

Source
 
all the architects in the Toronto design same kind of stuff. there should be change in designs. doesn't matter developers change the architects (from other countries) or the same architects design something different and good.
 
Taking a closer look at the renderings - you'd see massive X bracing in the existing structure. The building isn't as boring as it might first appear.

AoD
 
AlvinofDiaspar said:
The building isn't as boring as it might first appear.

AoD
Click to expand...

sir adding few details to the building does not change the shape of the building. a box remains a box even if I draw some flowers or cover it in some colorful wrapping sheet. Toronto need buildings of new shapes and designs. buildings should be more attractive. why look at many boxy looking buildings when you have boxes at home.
 
You must log in or register to post here.

Back
Top