wmedia
Senior Member
All I can add is that after a particularly traumatic acid trip, I once felt compelled to re-create Ville Radieuse. Make of that what you will. 
Last edited:
- Thread starter AHK
- Start date
junctionist
Senior Member
I agree with much of this comment, but I think that the Shard is a great landmark of our time and will remain so. I'll want to see it the next time I'm in London.
I don't have anything against Modernism. It doesn't have to be cold, sterile, and depressing. That's not fair at all to the style. There are so many shapes, colours, textures, patterns, and materials that can be used. The mind can be just as positively stimulated by a Modernist building as by an earlier style.
At the same time, the notion that we can no longer enjoy earlier styles of architecture by using them for new buildings is strange and untenable in my opinion. All things considered, we are a more advanced society today than 500 years ago. To think that we can't build something today that Western societies could build 500 years ago is unsupported by 500 years of Western technological innovation and progress.
I look forward to a time when computer design, 3D printing, laser cutting, and robotics are used to build buildings just as ornate as the standard before Modernism and done with modern economics in mind. Until then, it won't hurt anyone to hire some artists to design some carved stone panels and mosaics on buildings like this one.
greenleaf
Senior Member
This building feels fun. A bit campy, perhaps. There should be room for that in Toronto. Iām looking forward to seeing it being built.
jje1000
Senior Member
I do agree that I sense there is an growing undercurrent of dissatisfaction that feels that much of contemporary mainstream modernism has increasingly become overextended, reliant on overplayed tropes, constantly at the mercy of assembly manufacturers*, and for its more fervent deriders- even anti-urban? It's not dissimilar to the dissatisfaction that led to the rise of modernism itself, and I don't know how to truly describe it- that contemporary mainstream modernism is exhausted, satisfying neither believers of modernism or those who reject it?
I think that while it's not necessary to ape previous designs, future modernisms must attempt to break once more through beyond the artificial amnesia created by the mid-century modernist ideologues, and be capable of referencing the rich repertoire of untouchable architectural technologies, languages, and materialities if it wants to survive. Those who do reference the past and its vernacular, i.e. Peter Barber, have been capable of creating wonderful buildings that are neither derivative, nor bland. Fukuyama's End of History has been massively challenged in the last few years or so; architecture has eternity ahead of it- it's foolhardy to believe that modernism will be the final word.
(Conversely, I do ironically think that contemporary landscape architecture is coming into its prime, as the movement towards reclaiming space from cars and rejuvenating urban landscapes is increasing in strength (both undercurrents that have finally burst into public discourse). Perhaps its inherent strength is that it must always be contextual in order to be successful, and it can never truly be single-handedly heroic?)
*Not to mention their overextended, energy-intensive supply chains.
Last edited:
AlexBozikovic
Active Member
The debate between modern and ātraditionalā is often based on poor information. Architecture before 1920 wasnāt one thing (!), nor was it always ornate. Likewise, the problems with contemporary buildings arenāt about āmodernismā as an ideology. Itās not that simple.
A quick response to @formerTorontonian: The piece I posted above responds specifically to Sussman and Hollander, whose work is trash. The central ideas of modern architecture in Europe date back to at least the 1880s and have a range of influences and sources.
A quick response to @formerTorontonian: The piece I posted above responds specifically to Sussman and Hollander, whose work is trash. The central ideas of modern architecture in Europe date back to at least the 1880s and have a range of influences and sources.
isaidso
Senior Member
This.
There's a tendency to insist that only one type of architecture is acceptable and even go as far as to dictate that buildings must be tall & skinny. If we only build to satisfy the preferences of one segment of the population we have failed. The reality is that people have different taste and it doesn't hold that one is always better than the other. Besides, it's absurd to assume that just because something is new, current, or trendy that it is superior to what came before. People are quick to throw things in the trash just because it's old.
Last edited:
jje1000
Senior Member
Unpack this statement please. Explain the differentiation between 'modern' and 'traditional'.
Explain this please. Is it really just an issue about ornamentation? What's the problem with mainstream contemporary architecture that we see around us today?
Again, a 'modern' avant-garde building of the 19th century (which themselves were incredibly regional and diverse) is hardly comparable to a new mainstream contemporary modernist structure today- which is what people have focused on as a point of contention. Are we comparing the Roman Empire of Augustus to the Late Roman Empire?
Last edited:
AlexBozikovic
Active Member
@jje1000, Iām reluctant to take this thread so far sideways. But a few thoughts:
1) ātraditionalā on its own is a meaningless term. Using it without more specificity doesnāt get us anywhere.
2) The best critique of contemporary neo-modernism is that large buildings donāt address the street well. The key ingredients of variety, texture, rhythm are missing. In the period of high modernism, this was sometimes a product of aesthetics and ideology. Take Mies and TD Centre.
But often (including at TD Centre) the large scale and monolithic feeling of high modernist buildings was produced by larger economic and cultural factors.There are many people in the forum who can speak to how commercial, technical and regulatory constraints influence the design of ground floors right now.
For me the bottom line is: we should work towards architecture and urban design that makes good streets above all. This can be accomplished with historicist detailing, or without it. Stylistic variety is good.
Case in point: I like this building design, on the whole. But its ground floor appears to be double height and almost completely glazed with very little articulation. This is backwards. If youāre going to have masonry and lots of detail anywhere, put it on the ground floor.
1) ātraditionalā on its own is a meaningless term. Using it without more specificity doesnāt get us anywhere.
2) The best critique of contemporary neo-modernism is that large buildings donāt address the street well. The key ingredients of variety, texture, rhythm are missing. In the period of high modernism, this was sometimes a product of aesthetics and ideology. Take Mies and TD Centre.
But often (including at TD Centre) the large scale and monolithic feeling of high modernist buildings was produced by larger economic and cultural factors.There are many people in the forum who can speak to how commercial, technical and regulatory constraints influence the design of ground floors right now.
For me the bottom line is: we should work towards architecture and urban design that makes good streets above all. This can be accomplished with historicist detailing, or without it. Stylistic variety is good.
Case in point: I like this building design, on the whole. But its ground floor appears to be double height and almost completely glazed with very little articulation. This is backwards. If youāre going to have masonry and lots of detail anywhere, put it on the ground floor.
Ward8
Active Member
Something I like the idea of, is forcing developers to post renderings of the building from various street level positions. Most importantly, a rendering of what it is like to look at the building from the sidewalk 6 ft away from the wall. Most renderings show buildings from a location in which they can never be viewed, and it seems to fuel the street level problem that we have. This building is definitely not the worst offender in any way, but it's such a shame for a great looking tower to fumble the ball where it's most important.
C-mac
Senior Member
The renderings of the building look gorgeous.
jje1000
Senior Member
Yes, and "traditional" is a term that should be broken down into several gradations which include technology and planning- or better yet, totally discarded alongside the "modern-traditional" binary as a ideological hangover from the mid-century proponents of the International style. As noted, there are viewpoints that most of industrial-era Paris is 'not traditional'', nor are the products of the late 19th century C 'modern' movements.
At its core, modern architecture does not preclude a specific style (Art Deco can be considered 'modern'), and yet I still see complaints (not from you) about 'pastiche' or 'ahistoricity' levied against new large-scale buildings that deviate from this mid-century ideological stranglehold. By these metrics, even the most twee pile Stern puts up is arguably just as technologically modern and functional as whatever contemporary modernism is heralded as the avant-garde.
So ultimately it shouldn't matter whatever style or detail architects apply to their buildings, as long as it works best for the street and place. 'Pastiche', 'zeitgeist', or 'ahistoricity'- should these be relegated to the dustbins of architectural terminology?
TBH, this seems like a glamour shot designed to provoke a good initial reaction from the city, and the precursor of future marketing material (which the public is even less discerning of); most planning documents do sometimes include additional, less-flashy views from the street and from other angles.
Perhaps this is where the city could standardize the views required for submission; maybe in the future, submissions could demand a full 3d model of the building + the local context, as the architectural field is rapidly moving towards real-time, explorable visualization.
Last edited:
Northern Light
Superstar
Obsidian
Active Member
And so starts the 3 year journey to get final approval.
xy3
Active Member
Re: The semantics of Modern vs Traditional.
The Reliance Building in Chicago is technically the first building clad in curtainwall. While not modernist, Id consider it very modern in this regard.
Re: 101 Spadina
It will be just shy of the height of the Palmolive Building in Chicago [roof height]. In some ways it could be considered Palmolive's postmodern cousin without the spire.
The Reliance Building in Chicago is technically the first building clad in curtainwall. While not modernist, Id consider it very modern in this regard.
Re: 101 Spadina
It will be just shy of the height of the Palmolive Building in Chicago [roof height]. In some ways it could be considered Palmolive's postmodern cousin without the spire.
