busybeaver said:
the building if fine until it meets the street. why do Toronto architects insist on designing street level walls of glass? do they not see this creates a bland sterile vibe?
Click to expand...
Definitely strange. The tower is really great. The ground kinda stinks. Why not extend the middle section to the ground? It has never made sense to me. Love the rest of this building though.
 
  • Like
Reactions: xy3
interchange42 said:
There's no objective truth revealed here, just subjectivity. You speak for yourself, and others, very obviously, in regard to what you like, but you should not presume to speak for everyone, nor that big A Architecture is monolithic, nor that any particular style is inherently inhuman. Give me good Modern and I'll be as happy as I am with good Retro-Neo-whatever. Some others will agree, some won't, big deal, that won't affect how a particular style of architecture suits me. I just want good examples of whatever style, and a solid reason why that style is proposed for any particular site.

42
Click to expand...
With all due respect, in actuality, there is research on cognitive architecture (how the brain unconsciously responds to architecture, due in part to how the brain has evolved) that implies that much of modern architecture is inhuman (or at least inherently sterile and uninteresting in that it fails to generate the sort of unconscious reaction that can be generated by texture, color, symmetry, detail/ornament), some of it originating with architects suffering from PTSD building bunkers as residential homes and an icon of modern architecture (Le Corbusier) that was probably on the spectrum and could not understand how people might react to architecture/beauty
 
egotrippin said:
I don't think desperateAmbassador is wrong in saying there's a general fatigue when it comes to bland, neo-modernist buildings that have dominated the Toronto landscape for the past twenty years though. The reaction to this project's render seems to support the argument too, there's over a full page of similar sentiments; something you don't really see for a lot of typical Toronto proposals.
Click to expand...
What I objected to was not the fatigue with poorly done glass and steel buildings, in fact I recognize it in my post. My objection is to the characterization of a whole style as being universally loathed or immutably bad. Neither are true.

formerTorontonian said:
With all due respect, in actuality, there is research on cognitive architecture (how the brain unconsciously responds to architecture, due in part to how the brain has evolved) that implies that much of modern architecture is inhuman (or at least inherently sterile and uninteresting in that it fails to generate the sort of unconscious reaction that can be generated by texture, color, symmetry, detail/ornament), some of it originating with architects suffering from PTSD building bunkers as residential homes and an icon of modern architecture (Le Corbusier) that was probably on the spectrum and could not understand how people might react to architecture/beauty
Click to expand...
Not what I said.

Good modern architecture can be exhilarating and wonderful. For some reason, you and some others seem to deny that, but at the same time I am not defending every Modernist architect nor every Modernist work. If you can find where I said that in my post, please quote it back to me.

Again, what I am trying to get across is that there are good examples of all types of architecture, and there are bad examples of all types of architecture. Arguing that an entire style is bad is ridiculous.

42
 
Last edited:
Great building, just bring the brick to grade :).

Given the Developer is Devron, I expect them to likely go for a more luxury play in terms of pricing and the architure will similarly need to reflect that as the area has a lot of upscale product coming online to otherwise purchase. We should be in good hands design wise.🤞
 
interchange42 said:
What I objected to was not the fatigue with poorly done glass and steel buildings, in fact I recognize it in my post. My objection is to the characterization of a whole style as being universally loathed or immutably bad. Neither are true.


Not what I said.

Good modern architecture can be exhilarating and wonderful. For some reason, you and some others seem to deny that, but at the same time I am not defending every Modernist architect nor every Modernist work. If you can find where I said that in my post, please quote it back to me.

Again, what I am trying to get across is that there are good examples of all types of architecture, and there are bad examples of all types of architecture. Arguing that an entire style is bad is ridiculous.

42
Click to expand...
I certainly don't mean to write-off entire styles of architecture, and I agree that modern and post-modern styles when executed well can be fantastic. What I bristle at however is a notion that seems to prevail in some architecture circles that we aren't "allowed" to build in these classic styles any more despite their obvious appeal because would be derivative, phoney or backwards looking.

You're right nobody's taste can claim to speak for everyone, but ultimately I think people reveal their preference with their feet and wallets. Boston brownstones, New York's upper east side and meatpacking districts, Paris's latin quarter, all among the most desirable places to live in their cities (and indeed the world). The fact that there is little to no construction in these styles to satisfy the obviously massive demand baffles me. When people visit London, it's not to see the Shard, and no one plans a trip to Paris to see La Defense.
 
formerTorontonian said:
all due respect, in actuality, there is research on cognitive architecture (how the brain unconsciously responds to architecture, due in part to how the brain has evolved) that implies that much of modern architecture is inhuman (or at least inherently sterile and uninteresting in that it fails to generate the sort of unconscious reaction that can be generated by texture, color, symmetry, detail/ornament), some of it originating with architects suffering from PTSD building bunkers as residential homes and an icon of modern architecture (Le Corbusier) that was probably on the spectrum and could not understand how people might react to architecture/beauty
Click to expand...
This is some ableist, ahistorical, unscientific bullshit.

But the building is nice.
 
AlexBozikovic said:
This is some ableist, ahistorical, unscientific bullshit.

But the building is nice.
Click to expand...

In fairness I see a shortage of citations of peer-reviewed research across p-o-v in the posts above.

Anecdotes are just that; but I must confess; I do feel somewhat confident that if you surveyed the general populace and asked what they think of this building vs the majority of what Le Corbusier is known for.........most would pick this one.

Perhaps I am in error in that assumption; but I don't think so.

People's preferences, of course, need not have a hard scientific basis, and may, in some respects be objectively wrong.

But all other things being equal, I suspect there is much more sympathy for form follows function in architectural and planning circles than there in evolutionary biology.

But lest I carry this thread away on a tangent, perhaps we can start a new thread, in the appropriate forum/section where we can discuss with evidence what preferences exist and why, w/o belabouring this one project with all of that.
 
Northern Light said:
In fairness I see a shortage of citations of peer-reviewed research across p-o-v in the posts above.
Click to expand...
The onus is on the person making the claim, and not on the person bringing it to question though. Therefore, Mr. Bozikovic's rebuttal is fairly valid.

...the only thing I can say, that you'll unlikely see his response in print in the G&M like that, lol.
 
Why does the city seem to want parks at the intersection of major streets. Wouldn't it make more sense to place the park away from the noise and exhaust of traffic. Put the park on the south side, and have it encompass Oxley. It would make for a bigger, quieter park.
 
AlexBozikovic said:
This is some ableist, ahistorical, unscientific bullshit.

But the building is nice.
Click to expand...
Alex,

I'm a big fan of your writing, and don't mean to be adversarial (toward anybody on here), so I will clarify what I said.

There is research on how certain types of architectural features/details/variety attract people's eyes/attention (much of which is guided subconsciously) more than others (for a book citing some of this research I'd like to suggest "Cognitive Architecture: Designing for How we Respond to the Built Environment" by Ann Sussman and Justin Hollander).

My claims about Corbusier (as well as Bauhaus) also come from the same book and I fully acknowledge that these particular parts/conclusions of the book (unlike the actual research that the book points to) are not scientific, but based in large part on speculation (untested hypothesis) by the authors. I think you were a bit quick to become seemingly upset at my comment (by calling it ableism where there no was ill intent/will behind the comment) but that's the times we live in and I should have anticipated someone saying something along those lines.

I personally don't enjoy seeing certain brutalist/modern buildings being town down in the city (some of them obviously have more merit than others), as I appreciate the history/variety that they bring to the city, but at the same time I can understand why many people would find them sterile (the same actually goes for glass buildings without any texture/detail/variety to take away from their dullness).

I've seen your writing/commentary and I believe that that you've talked about how the lack of detail/variety/articulation on the ground realm can deaden the street (feel free to correct me or clarify if I've misunderstood), so I presume that you do have some appreciation for these ideas

Respectfully
 
Last edited:
You must log in or register to post here.

Back
Top