xy3 said:
Do you live in the area?
Click to expand...

Why is that a concern?

xy3 said:
Does the entire city have to be homogenous and contemporary to fit one person's taste?
Click to expand...

No, that is not a requirement by any means; I don't believe I said otherwise.

xy3 said:
Is X Condos 'neo historical' since clearly is a derivative of Mies Van Der Rohe ?
Click to expand...

Arguably yes; but not the way in which I was using the term.
 
xy3 said:
I think somthing like the podium of 31R Parliment proposal would be a much more appropriate alternative to this aA design, based on your valid critique of the podium of this proposal being too monolithic and austere. I agree with you there.
Click to expand...

I went to review the retail level in the 31R proposal before commenting.

I concur that idea would be more suitable.

Though the detailing might be different in order to jive with this proposal above it.
 
  • Like
Reactions: xy3
xy3 said:
Do you live in the area? Does the entire city have to be homogenous and contemporary to fit one person's taste? For example, it's probably a positive that Humber Bay Shores wasnt designed to appease my own architectural tastes. For all it's flaws, the monolithic green glass towers (and parkade podiums) have given that area a kind of mini Biscayne , mini Miami identity that kind of works. Bespoke Audax midrises or Robert Stern highrises would be out of place there, just as they'd be out of place at Ossington and Dupont or Sterling Rd.

Is X Condos 'neo historical' since clearly is a derivative of Mies Van Der Rohe ?

I think somthing like the podium of 31R Parliment proposal would be a much more appropriate alternative to this aA design, based on your valid critique of the podium of this proposal being too monolithic and austere. I agree with you there.
Click to expand...
Wild ride in that post there, friendo...
 
xy3 said:
Do you live in the area? Does the entire city have to be homogenous and contemporary to fit one person's taste? For example, it's probably a positive that Humber Bay Shores wasnt designed to appease my own architectural tastes. For all its flaws, the monolithic green glass towers (and parkade podiums) have given that area a kind of mini Biscayne , mini Miami identity that kind of works. Bespoke Audax midrises or Robert Stern highrises would be out of place there, just as they'd be out of place at Ossington and Dupont or Sterling Rd.
Click to expand...
No-one has to "live in the area" to leave an architectural critique here, enough of that parochialism.

There are no above-ground garages in Humber Bay Shores.

42
 
Curious to see if Zinc will bring on a partner to go at this as a joint venture, build this themselves, or flip the property eventually. Their portfolio of completed projects where they go solo isn't as established yet. So this project may go in different directions.
 
interchange42 said:
No-one has to "live in the area" to leave an architectural critique here, enough of that parochialism.

There are no above-ground garages in Humber Bay Shores.

42
Click to expand...
Saying "We don't need neo-historicism here", as if speaking for everyone,, certainly isn't an actual architectural critique and extremely parochial. So I thought the reply was fitting.

And calling all neo-historicist architecture 'schlock' is also indicative of lazy thinking and a cheap attempt to dunk on an architect like Wengle, when person making the dismissive so-called 'critique' never picked up drafting equipment and pen in their life

(Im not picking on the individual I quoted, this seems to be a social virus/meme that infects this forum of labeling anything thats not contemporary as 'schlock'. In fact most of the arguments put forth by the person regarding architectural context and materials were solid except for the lazy copy-pasted 'schlock' argument is a dime a dozen on UT. Yes I agree I am biased and I am nitpicking here )

The reality is most neo-historicist and contemporary buildings going up in this city (the latter which dwarfs the former) both tend to suffer from the exact same flaws. There are far more flawed contemporary buildings than neo-historic buildings because there is such an underwhelming amount of the latter in the first place.

My mistake on Humber Bay as I was thinking of the Mirabella development.
 
Last edited:
Northern Light said:
Why is that a concern?
Click to expand...

Because that's how contemporary idpol works: by making bogus "as an x identity," "as someone living in this area," "lived experience" type of claims. Strange to see it embraced in one prog context, but dismissed in another. But hey, who cares about consistency?
 
Undead said:
Because that's how contemporary idpol works: by making bogus "as an x identity," "as someone living in this area," "lived experience" type of claims. Strange to see it embraced in one prog context, but dismissed in another. But hey, who cares about consistency?
Click to expand...
See above post. Not conspiracy theories. I just view blanket statements that smear all new build non-contemporary architecture as "schlock" as being dismissive, just like the NIMBY movement is as a whole very dismissive and tends to make lazy 'arguments' against anything being constructed in their area.

The poster made some excellent points about the context and the materials depicted in the render acting as a transition between the 1140 mid-rise and the Scrivener Square development, but I felt the lazy anti-historicist sentence he threw in there stuck out like a sore thumb and could have been copy-pasted from anywhere on UT. Smearing historicism without giving an in depth critique of an actual building or holding contemporary buildings to the exact same scrutiny.

An aside: In my opinion, I find Exchange District condos in Mississauga to be the epitome of schlock. These grubby monsters feature an assortment of trendy wallpaper patterns and clunky offset proportions without any consideration for the pedestrian experience.
 
Last edited:
xy3 said:
See above post. Not conspiracy theories. I just view blanket statements that smear all new build non-contemporary architecture as "schlock" as being dismissive, just like the NIMBY movement is as a whole very dismissive and tends to make lazy 'arguments' against anything being constructed in their area.
Click to expand...

I have no comment on any of the architecture discussion. Just my take on such "identity" based arguments. Depending on the context, they can have merit.
 
xy3 said:
See above post. Not conspiracy theories. I just view blanket statements that smear all new build non-contemporary architecture as "schlock" as being dismissive, just like the NIMBY movement is as a whole very dismissive and tends to make lazy 'arguments' against anything being constructed in their area.

The poster made some excellent points about the context and the materials depicted in the render acting as a transition between the 1140 mid-rise and the Scrivener Square development, but I felt the lazy anti-historicist sentence he threw in there stuck out like a sore thumb and could have been copy-pasted from anywhere on UT. Smearing historicism without giving an in depth critique of an actual building or holding contemporary buildings to the exact same scrutiny.

An aside: In my opinion, I find Exchange District condos in Mississauga to be the epitome of schlock. These grubby monsters feature an assortment of trendy wallpaper patterns and clunky offset proportions without any consideration for the pedestrian experience.
Click to expand...

I did not smear historicism.

I simply said I didn't require it.

That was me saying I'm open to a range of design choices; and then going on to specifically identify what I did have a problem with in the design. (The retail level)

Edit to add: I just re-read that last 4 sentences in that post, and stand by that I didn't not bury historicism in anyway)
 
Northern Light said:
I did not smear historicism.

I simply said I didn't require it.

That was me saying I'm open to a range of design choices; and then going on to specifically identify what I did have a problem with in the design. (The retail level)

Edit to add: I just re-read that last 4 sentences in that post, and stand by that I didn't not bury historicism in anyway)
Click to expand...
If you meant you didn't think the site required it, then I misunderstood that statement and I stand corrected. You made excellent points, including the choice of cladding depicting in the rendering acting as a transition between Scrivener Square and 1140 Yonge Street imho. Your analysis of the design and site context is more concise and clear than I could make.
 
xy3 said:
If you meant you didn't think the site required it, then I misunderstood that statement and I stand corrected. You made excellent points, including the choice of cladding depicting in the rendering acting as a transition between Scrivener Square and 1140 Yonge Street imho. Your analysis of the design and site context is more concise and clear than I could make.
Click to expand...

That was exactly what I was meaning.
 
ProjectEnd said:
Interestingly enough, a gas station used to occupy the whole block. Was split up in the 80s to its current state.
Click to expand...
Indeed, it was Gene's Garage from around 1970 to the late nineties. My friends, Gene and Steve Kosa, with their Mom Anne operated it. The family contracted the construction of the building there now, Gene was in charge. Those guys worked like dogs there over the years. Hard to believe that building will be gone soon too.
 
You must log in or register to post here.

Back
Top