Torontovibe said:
Most people on this site seem to be happy with third rate architecture in the form of glass boxes. The thought of a world class building is beyond their wildest dreams. We are a very modest city, don't you know. Greatness scares us, as does taking any kind of risk, so keep those grey spandrel boxes coming.
Click to expand...

And then there are the people on this site who don't know the difference between good architecture and bad; who don't know good glazing from bad, good proportion, good detailing, good execution. They want dodecahedrons instead of boring boxes. They want "iconic." They want Dubai. They want height for height's sake. An 80-storey building in the middle of Cabbagetown, they clamour. If China can do it, why can't we!
 
Torontovibe said:
Most people on this site seem to be happy with third rate architecture in the form of glass boxes. The thought of a world class building is beyond their wildest dreams. We are a very modest city, don't you know. Greatness scares us, as does taking any kind of risk, so keep those grey spandrel boxes coming.
Click to expand...

Good point! Why don't you start by pointing out all of the spandrel (grey or otherwise) on this 'boring box.' Don't worry, I'll wait.
 
daddy-o.gif

I don't understand the haters.. This tower is slick!
 

Attachments

  • daddy-o.gif
    daddy-o.gif
    499.8 KB · Views: 1,660
It's a 32 storey building. It's going to get lost in the forest either way. But since the pink 'crown' hasn't even been poured yet, any judgement is premature at this point.
 
Podium and cladding are really well done! It's a win in my book. Nothing wrong with boxes; I actually prefer them..
 
Torontovibe said:
Most people on this site seem to be happy with third rate architecture in the form of glass boxes. The thought of a world class building is beyond their wildest dreams. We are a very modest city, don't you know. Greatness scares us, as does taking any kind of risk, so keep those grey spandrel boxes coming.
Click to expand...

Still waiting.
 
i would say that yes a new building downtown should attempt to be captivating and attractive from all angles, obviously with a focus on the most high profiled angle.
 
Who's to say that this isn't all of those things? Given the discourse in this (and most other) thread(s), I'm surely not putting any faith in the unwashed masses to decide whose aesthetic prevails.
 
Last edited:
stjames2queenwest said:
i would say that yes a new building downtown should attempt to be captivating and attractive from all angles, obviously with a focus on the most high profiled angle.
Click to expand...

I find very few apartment towers that captivate our fellow forumers to be any good. Time and changing trends will only make it more apparent. There is new hope on our commercial side where budgets are larger to pull off something a little more complex and engaging.
 
maestro said:
I find very few apartment towers that captivate our fellow forumers to be any good. Time and changing trends will only make it more apparent. There is new hope on our commercial side where budgets are larger to pull off something a little more complex and engaging.
Click to expand...

So what you're saying is that your view won't change, but everyone else's will, coming 'round eventually to see that you were right all along? How infallible of you.
 
modernizt said:
Does a building need to be captivating/attention-grabbing from every angle? (Or does it need to look attention-grabbing or captivating at all?)
Click to expand...

The idea that only bits and pieces should look good is bizarre. If you can see it, it needs to be visually appealing. Would you only comb a third of your hair? Put on a $4 tie with your $2000 suit? Only put lipstick on one lip? Cities (buildings, sidewalks, lamp posts, parks, roads, etc) are no different. Every square inch that you can see needs to look good.
 
Last edited:
You must log in or register to post here.

Back
Top