... thanks Ed and yyzer! I'll be posting photos to some of the other project threads now that I've figured out the process.
 
Looking at it today, I'm not sure whether it registers more as a design flaw or a modern-day version of a "beton brut" design gesture. Sort of like the architectural equivalent of the blemishes and imperfections on an American Apparel model. (Look, this is the Church + Wellesley vicinity we're talking about.)
 
If that's the case, they can say it was designed that way intentionally, no matter how great or awful it turned out. That kind of thinking may set a dangerous precedent for shoddy buildings, though. "Those windows are supposed to fall out! And the leaky roof is the water feature!"
 
I agree, adma - thankfully, it was never intended to be a building for the "quality finishes" hangup crowd. It reads instantly as a whole, and you're in the door in a flash without having to put up with any ostentatiously teased architectural foreplay.

If someone is so distracted by a bit of chipped balcony front that they're blinded to the elegance of the whole, then best to stay away. And stay clear of the Parthenon, Stonehenge and the Colosseum too - they've got all kinds of bits missing.
 
And stay clear of the Parthenon, Stonehenge and the Colosseum too - they've got all kinds of bits missing.
Click to expand...

And just how old are they? I would expect some bits missing from them. But 22 isn't even finished and its already got bits missing.
 
The gaudy red, green, orange and blue painting on the Parthenon probably began to fade shortly after it was applied, and no doubt some of the Ancient Greeks were in a tizzy about that too ...
 
"The Parthenon has chips therefore 22 Wellesley can have chips and if you complain, you just don't understand."

The rationalizations are just becoming more absurd (and fun) by the minute.
 
If your rationale for dismissing a series of buildings by one of the best architects working locally is based solely on a few chips to a balcony and a personal aesthetic sense that doesn't countenance using cinderblock for a bicycle rack area at the rear of a condo, that says more about you than it does the buildings.
 
Who is dismissing buildings? We are rightfully complaining only about certain things. Read the posts more carefully.
 
On the 1 St Thomas thread, based solely only on your liking for the "quite nicely done" doorway entrance in a photograph of that building, you conclude, "When compared to the entrance to 22 Wellesley, it's hard not to see why people reject the modern and gravitate to faux like this." So that's exactly what you're doing.
 
I am not doing anything like that. I am simply pointing out why modernism is disliked by so many and why a building like 1 St. Thomas has such mass appeal. If modernism is precast and cinder blocks at ground level, is there any doubt that it may be rejected by many? Nope.
 
It is rejected by people like you who don't like cinderblock or precast because of your hangup with the materials. Faux buildings use cinderblock and precast too but the cinderblock is hidden, which you prefer.
 
I like aA, but this building is probably the worst one the firm has ever designed. Shoddy workmanship aside, the base is underwhelming and the giant westward-facing brise soleil (roof overhang) which was supposed to be the building's signature feature feels chopped off; almost non-existent.
 
Urban Shocker said:
It is rejected by people like you who don't like cinderblock or precast because of your hangup with the materials. Faux buildings use cinderblock and precast too but the cinderblock is hidden, which you prefer.
Click to expand...

Consider this a warning. Patience is wearing very thin for the harsh, personal shots you make when defending your personal tastes on architecture. There is nothing wrong with defending your opinions, as long as it stays civil.
 
You must log in or register to post here.

Back
Top