junctionist
Senior Member
I think of it as a mosaic, and it's well put together.
|
|
|
- Thread starter ganjavih
- Start date
I think of it as a mosaic, and it's well put together.
adma
Superstar
Actually, it was a fairly solid bit of 1960ish white(?) brick spec anonymity--had it lasted a few years younger, it might well have offered itself for re-embrace. (One of those sorts of buildings whose honest expression sorta foreshadowed the midrise block-hugging likes of One City Hall.)
And most of those have some aspect or another that I'd place in the "Toronto buildings everyone loves to hate, but you think are OK" thread. Though IMO 77 Elm might actually be *overrated* relative to that thread. And maybe I'd substitute 720 Spadina for 666 Spadina...
scarberiankhatru
Senior Member
Sid Smith must die.
ProjectEnd
Superstar
NEVER.
adma
Superstar
You're too late. He died in 1959
L
lawsond
Guest
i like it too.
but it's a bit scary.
basically, it illustrates the concept that modern buildings are simply concrete cages with clothes on.
and every twenty or thirty years, as styles change, you change the clothes.
i have to say i like my buildings a bit more permanant.
L
lawsond
Guest
here's what i think is the most hideous mockery of a travesty of a huge fat ironic mistake in the history of toronto.
i have railed against this thing since it was built and have never EVER had a word of agreement from anyone.
i think it may be because the "building" houses the design exchange and is therefore sacrosanct.
what is wrong with this building?
recipe for architectural disaster:
take one classic mies design, squash it on top of an art deco building.
ensure that all the sight lines of the original mies building and pavillion are destroyed.
also ensure that the precise ratios of windows to beams to paving stones are violated in every possible way.
attempt to sew the mies structure onto the art deco building by hatching hideous cross beams on the bottom floors utterly destroying any visual flow.
then, in a final thunderous ironic flourish, house the f**kin' design exchange in the bottom floors.
oy. please make it go away.
someone.
jaborandi
Active Member
here's what i think is the most hideous mockery of a travesty of a huge fat ironic mistake in the history of toronto.
i have railed against this thing since it was built and have never EVER had a word of agreement from anyone.
i think it may be because the "building" houses the design exchange and is therefore sacrosanct.
what is wrong with this building?
recipe for architectural disaster:
take one classic mies design, squash it on top of an art deco building.
ensure that all the sight lines of the original mies building and pavillion are destroyed.
also ensure that the precise ratios of windows to beams to paving stones are violated in every possible way.
attempt to sew the mies structure onto the art deco building by hatching hideous cross beams on the bottom floors utterly destroying any visual flow.
then, in a final thunderous ironic flourish, house the f**kin' design exchange in the bottom floors.
oy. please make it go away.
someone.
I totally agree with you. What is sad is that originally, before Cadillac Fairview got it's grubby hands on the building, there was a proposal by Olympia & York to erect a silver & pink mirrored glass deco-ish tower with set backs to go on top. It complimented the original stock exchange instead of raping it. What is there now is one of the worst travesties this city has seen.
adma
Superstar
i have railed against this thing since it was built and have never EVER had a word of agreement from anyone.
Who says I'd disagree, either? And on top of everything, that mid-air bridge connecting Ernst & Young w/the TD bank tower...
L
lawsond
Guest
i guess i've been talking to the wrong people.
that's it.
AndreaPalladio
Senior Member
Of course, the Ernst & Young tower has nothing to do with Mies. He was dead for decades before it was concieved, and had nothing to do with its design. If he had designed a tower for that location, he'd have demolished the old stock exchange.
L
lawsond
Guest
^^^
i know.
that's what's so tragic about it.
as if the louvre allowed someone to paint a giant red ear on the side of the mona lisa for 30 millions dollars.
hey...it's a money making venture...
da vinci is long dead...
so why not.
BECAUSE IT'S ART DAG NABBIT.
and so is the TD centre. imo.
it just makes me mad s'all.
i know.
that's what's so tragic about it.
as if the louvre allowed someone to paint a giant red ear on the side of the mona lisa for 30 millions dollars.
hey...it's a money making venture...
da vinci is long dead...
so why not.
BECAUSE IT'S ART DAG NABBIT.
and so is the TD centre. imo.
it just makes me mad s'all.
Seacrest
New Member
Irishmonk, do you mean to say that you'd destroy Yonge-Eglinton Centre and leave Canada Square standing?
That monstrosity has to go.
That monstrosity has to go.
Redroom Studios
Senior Member
as I was just reminded in another thread... how about Maple Leaf Gardens? Lets see how many sentimental souls we have floating around here?
Seacrest
New Member
It might have made sense in the '70s, before the Habs became the winningest team, to convert Maple Leaf Gardens into the Hockey Hall of Fame, but since most people now living can't remember the Leafs winning the Cup, and since most people alive now probably won't live to see them do it again, bulldoze the Carlton Street bunker!