0F98C41B-30BE-4647-98BA-AC3A29CD3B9A.jpeg
9EE552BB-9CA5-46CB-9058-62A1285CA13F.jpeg
18192421-7244-470A-8946-1CDF85D46EE0.jpeg
ACE137EC-4E45-40EC-A3EE-CC0799642D28.jpeg
 
...I don't think it's that messy. Slightly on the uninspiring end...but not messy.
 
In an era where metal panel cladding is ubiquitous, stainless steel is one of the better cladding options out there. You get reflection and sheen against what is generally a very matte material. Costly but looks fantastic.
 
  • Like
Reactions: xy3
Nearly all the buildings on that stretch of Charles are decent enough (non-offensive like Social or whatever ends with Haus), but bland and uninspiring. I guess Casa really set the tone for what the developers would call ‘timeless architecture’.
 
innsertnamehere said:
the majority of them are aA - which is why it's like that. Hell, half of the towers are all the same "development" as CASA.
Click to expand...

This is a tremendous oversimplification and shows that you are overlooking a lot of what makes Charles St E the way that it is.

It’s a street that was planned one lot at a time with little relationship between buildings. It being designed by other architects wouldn’t have created more variety beyond things that are skin deep - more facade doodads and attempts to look “different”.

I’d argue that without the CASA’s, love them or hate them, the only notable difference in how Charles St E turned out would be the lack of the mid-block connection planned through to Hayden Street.

In my opinion, less “sameness” wouldn’t be the antidote to the experience of Charles Street. It would have been planning on the scale of the block and alleviating the way each lot exists with complete indifference to the lot next to it. (i.e. the way servicing and frontages are handled, with each building having a driveway separating it from the lot next door.)

I don’t think the point I’m making would be very controversial. That said, if your argument is that the solution would have been more facade doodads and “articulation” to try and hide what is fundamentally the same housing beneath the facade - then I fundamentally disagree. I think that would be fenestration patterns creating visual clutter on a street that is still fundamentally flawed from a planning and city-building perspective.

The CASA’s and 55C are not without their flaws, but let’s not pretend that Chaz (IBI project) or the new Aspen Ridge (Quadrangle) project break the mould and contribute to the street in some deep and novel way. The issue here is deeper and more fundamental, and Toronto’s planning department has acknowledged this as well.


Screenshot 2024-06-07 at 2.35.53 PM.png

Above: For reference, an image of a bunch of residential towers each with a different facade, none of which were designed by a—A.

To conclude this long and overwrought post, in case someone misreads my intentions with this post as a "defender" of anything other than good planning and my subjective take that "variety" is not a better alternative to "sameness" of condo towers, I should add that I'm actually not a big fan of 55C.
 
Last edited:
You must log in or register to post here.

Back
Top