I quite like Pei's design of the complex and court. His rather Ericksonesque CC East & CC South are an excellent foyle to his minimalist sleek tower and the baroque CC North. They added the right closure and scale for the court...well proportioned and designed. Sadly, it did not confront Wellington so well.

The new tower is big and will add to the density of the skyline, but is simply a numbers game while completely ignoring the kind of bigger thinking that was involved when designing Commerce Court.

TD Centre suffered the same fate.
 
.dwg said:
And I do believe that a substantiated opinion absolutely does hold some more value than "It's ugly and it's time for it to go." Statements like that suggest to me that the person making the statement hasn't a clue about who the architects were, how the design works, what the intent of the design is, and why it's the type of building we should be keeping around. It makes me wonder if they've even spent any time looking at it beyond driving past it or seeing it in photos, or if they've taken the time to experience how it actually works in the city and relates to the space and streets around it. I could be wrong, but it's how one-liners like that come across to me. I notice a lot of people on UT use them.
Click to expand...

A lot of whom might not know what I'm referring to re "de Chirico-like".

To put CCN/CCW in architectural context (and quite precociously for c1970 corporate architecture)
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rationalism_(architecture)
 
adma said:
A lot of whom might not know what I'm referring to re "de Chirico-like".
)
Click to expand...

Are you congratulating yourself on putting up a post that a significant portion of UT readers will not understand?

My thanks to Bogtrotter for taking the trouble of giving us an example of de Chirico’s work to illustrate the point. I needed the reminder, early twentieth century Italian painters not being my area of quiz show expertise.
 
67Cup said:
Are you congratulating yourself on putting up a post that a significant portion of UT readers will not understand?
Click to expand...

Yeah; in fact, I'd question why we should give the onus to that "significant portion", since they're the ones fuelling the "gee whiz, neato, another skyscraper" amnesia.

My thanks to Bogtrotter for taking the trouble of giving us an example of de Chirico’s work to illustrate the point. I needed the reminder, early twentieth century Italian painters not being my area of quiz show expertise.
Click to expand...

Ah, I miss the days of 70s/80s architectural criticism when a familiarity (or a will-to-know) with such reference points was "assumed" re the readership...
 
I'm familiar with the painter in question, Adma - had to study him back at art skule back in the day. Love his work.

Still, isn't it high time to stop pining for the glorious old days and get off of the high horse? Snobbery is snobbery.
 
Automation Gallery said:
Don't get it?, whats the fetish for this run of the mill 70s structure:confused:.............time to let go
View attachment 131299 View attachment 131302


and bring in something new, modern, and more exciting:)



View attachment 131301
Click to expand...
There is not a lot left of its ilk. Perhaps the Colonnade on Bloor. The transformation of Manulife Centre will remove most of the brutalist concrete frontage there. Not much else comes to mind that looks like this. Not against light-filled atria btw - more against overwhelming CCW with something so large. CCW will be positively non-descript next to something so large. Spire or rotated or whatever. The older building will be lost.
 
When looking at these towers- 5 Place Ville Marie comes to mind. Pei Cobb Freed & partners added more office space and resheathed the facades quite tastefully without destroying the integrity of the complex. In fact the glass quite nicely reflects the stunning SunLife building across the street. I wonder if they explored anything along these lines for CCE and CCS. It would of course involve adding significantly more height to both towers, much like 488 University.
3.ext.na.0315_Original.max-1600x1600.jpg


After
3.ren.0315_PVM01-To-Be-Built-copy.max-1600x1600.jpg

www.pcf-p.com
 
Similarly I would have preferred they not reclad 488 University, where they actually destroyed the concrete lattice. It seems 5 PVM was done differently with a glass curtain over top of the concrete cladding which actually showcases the pattern through the vision class- a double skin. I'm not suggesting at all that this is preferred, just a more tactful option of adding more office space - if indeed imminent- rather than destroying original structures and overall vision. Place Ville Marie was also by Pei in the early 60's.

pvm-5_b.png

(http://placevillemarie.com/en/offices/5-place-ville-marie/)
 
I liked the original cladding of 488 University also. But a question for information, not a veiled counter argument; what condition was the external concrete in, remembering that it would have endured the acid rain and pollution of decades?
 
The concrete grills for 488 were literally falling apart - some were held together by clamps as a temporary measure. I am also not terribly sure whether recladding the existing structure in contemporary glass is a good idea in this instance.

The pavilion for the current proposal look awfully fuzzy - trying too hard to be something and not quite getting there.

AoD
 
For me it is the weakest part of the design. It looks impermanent almost like a circus tent- and the elephant and silver balloons aren't helping :) It's the polar opposite of the heavy and austere architecture of CCE and CCW. I'm also having flashbacks to the ROM crystal- in terms of snow and heat retention is an all glass pavilion like this practical for a city with long cold winters...?

I like elements of the tower but it's awfully bulky- maybe a smaller footprint and taller would help.
 
This perspective really drives home how disrespectful this tower is of the original Commerce Court.

30327-104319-jpeg.131285

The tower needs to be slimmer and keep within the limits of the existing lower rise tower there now.
 
Yeah, every time I see that render it strikes me anew how unfortunate it is that the elegant original tower is so overshadowed by the rude bulk of this glassy new monstrosity. I certainly have no objection to the project per se but I would rather see it be a taller, more slender building offering a spatial accommodation with respect to the immediate area in which it would be situated.
 
You must log in or register to post here.

Back
Top