It's too bad you can't RT on UT. Well said egotrippin.

Remember however, that even if said 'world-famous architects' were hauled in from points unknown, Gehry's Beekman Tower is essentially a box-in-expensive-drag and Nouvel's Torre Agbar is Parade II with a better wardrobe and a more phallic haircut. Who's to say that these international superstars will woo us with their 'unique' forms since both examples assume simple shapes but make use of inventive and excellently-executed detailing.

I believe Shocker accurately termed them 'easy-sell curves' a few years back.
 
@ egotrippin and ProjectEnd

Unreservedly +1. I would add Snøw Hatter's Ryerson Student Learning Centre to the Beekman and Torre Agbar examples.
 
Last edited:
ProjectEnd said:
I believe Shocker accurately termed them 'easy-sell curves' a few years back.
Click to expand...

Are we talking about the easy-sell curves of Market Wharf's balconies, or Ãce's everything? Just checking!

42
loving aA's easy-sell curves, and the shuffled balconies here too
 
There is also a practical angle to riffing on balconies. These are condos after all and people want balconies. Form follows function in this case.
 
Tulse said:
Playing with balconies seems to be the current vogue in Toronto architecture. I understand that it's a cheap way to give a building interest, but I much prefer more substantial architectural statements that do something with the actual building structure, such as Absolute World and L.
Click to expand...

i see your point. these balconies (wavy or staggered in pattern) are being seen everywhere in TO (ex clear spirit and company). I, for one, am not a fan of wrap around balconies in box towers (like Casa), and it's weird how they're making a comeback all of a sudden.

My preference is glass curtainwall towers, or ones that keep balconies to a minimal. (aura)

ones that will be amazing however are One Bloor and Absolute (already built)
 
egotrippin said:
The higher quality glass and finishing touches on better condos such as CASA (and other similar aA buildings) are a testament to this.
Click to expand...

Like Murano? lol.

I don't intend on sounding like a blind aA/neo-Modernist defender, but it's tiring to hear the same cheap box routine in every thread.
Click to expand...

Maybe if they stopped spitting out cheap nothing boxes, you wouldn't hear this routine in every thread.
 
The_Architect said:
Maybe if they stopped spitting out cheap nothing boxes, you wouldn't hear this routine in every thread.
Click to expand...

No no, we will hear about it in every thread, because you and your ilk will never get it. You will never understand the joys of simple, clean, minimal, but disciplined neo-modernism, and even more fundamentally you will never understand the difference between architecture and installed glass. I'm pretty confident about this because months after the first balcony glass broke you have shown no understanding of where one ends and the other begins.
 
I'm curious for all the people posting about "cheap" boxes or "cheap" whatever if they actually have any knowledge whatsoever of the hard construction costs? I see post after post claiming that such and such project is "cheap", which gets rather tiresome when very few people on the forum actually have any idea what the hard costs are and what the cost differences are between various material or design elements of the structures they are discussing. There are a lot of assumptions made here that are posted as if they are facts.

I'd suggest that a lot of these elements are rather expensive and placing strong upward pressure on pricing that is generally being absorbed primarily because of the low interest rate environment and strong investor market - should there be any major economic challenges in the years ahead for the Toronto condo market or significant jumps in mortgage rates many of these elements which some forumers are already claiming to be "cheap" will have to re-evaluated as affordability of the product for the broader middle class buyer is challenged. A healthy housing market is a lot more than very expensive units targeting wealthy buyers with high-end glazing and curvy design elements that may be nice to look at from the exterior, but pose interior issues -especially as units progressively get smaller to ensure the end price remains affordable (I'm speaking in general & not specifically about 1000 Bay).
 
WiddleBittyKitty said:
No no, we will hear about it in every thread, because you and your ilk will never get it. You will never understand the joys of simple, clean, minimal, but disciplined neo-modernism, and even more fundamentally you will never understand the difference between architecture and installed glass. I'm pretty confident about this because months after the first balcony glass broke you have shown no understanding of where one ends and the other begins.
Click to expand...

Actually I do, being a fan of Van der Rohe, because at the time it was an original idea. When a firm decides to spit out the same crap with a balcony or two moved over and over again it gets tiring. Maybe you should read my posts before making a completely off base response.. You're starting to turn into ProjectEnd.

And I know the difference between architecture and installed glass thanks. I was making a joke because egotrippin used a poor choice of words with "quality" glass. Though since people like you have no sense of humour I'll let you go on that one.
 
I enjoy the back and forth of a good argument, especially when it comes to architecture. In general, though, I am unimpressed with the anti-aA sentiment out there. Perhaps it is because there aren't enough examples of architecture that aA's detractors like, but I detect a paucity of positive criticism from the other side.

So, a simple question: what are the examples of good architecture currently being produced in the world according to the critics of neo-modernism? It doesn't seem to be postmodern design, nor does it seem to be faux-schtick historicism - perhaps the CADism of the Marilyn towers is what suffices? Sophisticated neo-moderism a la L-tower? I certainly notice a preference for a dutch or Scandinavian designed tower, such as teeple's Picasso or the 154 Front proposal. But what else?
 
Only in Toronto would such a regular group of competent modernist buildings inspire such a joyless circle-jerk of smug self-congratulation. Knock yourself out, boys.

Twee and ridiculous.
 
ProjectEnd said:
It's too bad you can't RT on UT. Well said egotrippin.

Remember however, that even if said 'world-famous architects' were hauled in from points unknown, Gehry's Beekman Tower is essentially a box-in-expensive-drag and Nouvel's Torre Agbar is Parade II with a better wardrobe and a more phallic haircut. Who's to say that these international superstars will woo us with their 'unique' forms since both examples assume simple shapes but make use of inventive and excellently-executed detailing.

I believe Shocker accurately termed them 'easy-sell curves' a few years back.
Click to expand...

Thanks ProjectEnd. Indeed many (good) examples of architecture abroad also follow the trend of simpler forms, and pay more attention to detailing and finishes. If there's anything we should be focusing on, and demanding more from, it's the use of better materials and the street level design of new towers.

The_Architect said:
And I know the difference between architecture and installed glass thanks. I was making a joke because egotrippin used a poor choice of words with "quality" glass. Though since people like you have no sense of humour I'll let you go on that one.
Click to expand...

You'll note that I made mention of "a few missteps" in my post, to suggest that yes, there have been some flaws as of late. But your "Like Murano? lol" comment suggests that you have trouble quantifying your side of the argument. Either way, the issue at Murano has to do entirely with the glass contractor, and is independent of the architecture. I know we don't all share the same taste, but it'd be nice to hear some more suggestions and constructive criticism. And remember, ultimately square buildings make the most sense for condos from a financial and liveability standpoint. Curves and undulating forms are nice, but good luck with furnishing all those odd angles. This is why clever balcony designs are a thoughtful and interesting way to dress up a simpler form.
 
egotrippin said:
You'll note that I made mention of "a few missteps" in my post, to suggest that yes, there have been some flaws as of late. But your "Like Murano? lol" comment suggests that you have trouble quantifying your side of the argument. Either way, the issue at Murano has to do entirely with the glass contractor, and is independent of the architecture. I know we don't all share the same taste, but it'd be nice to hear some more suggestions and constructive criticism. And remember, ultimately square buildings make the most sense for condos from a financial and liveability standpoint. Curves and undulating forms are nice, but good luck with furnishing all those odd angles. This is why clever balcony designs are a thoughtful and interesting way to dress up a simpler form.
Click to expand...

I tried constructive criticism, but certain pretentious members just wave it off as "lol u dnt kno arkitecshure". I had quite the writeup of what i specifically didn't like about some recent aA buildings (and in the same post talked about the aA buildings I absolutely love), but if people aren't going to have an open mind, what's the point?
 
egotrippin said:
TAnd remember, ultimately square buildings make the most sense for condos from a financial and liveability standpoint.
Click to expand...

re: livability: Except when they have a giant pillar in the living room.

Is this something that is simply easier in terms of construction of a building, or is it stylistic ala "loft" living? aA is not the only culprit here, so my apologies for picking on them, but aA tends to use glass for almost all exterior walls in their designs which results in these pillars which are a huge inefficiency, in my opinion.
 
You must log in or register to post here.

Back
Top