IMG_2560.jpeg
IMG_2559.jpeg
IMG_2566.jpeg
IMG_2567.jpeg
 
bro-arch said:
I think I may be in the minority here, but I think this turned out pretty well. I don't think pictures do the building or balconies justice, and the patterning looks really good in real life.
Click to expand...
Agreed. Decent quality materials at street levels, and will be a nice addition when finished. Definitely a "looks better in person" type of project.
 
The problem is that all of these Charles street towers merge into one gigantic amorphous blob of icy blue glass and metal from a distance. At certain angles, each individual building is hardly distinguishable. I know that each building being a unique style is kind of a reach and can be seen as unnecessary, but the flip side to that is we end up with these clusters which don’t really add anything to the skyline, or to the streets below.
 
bro-arch said:
I think I may be in the minority here, but I think this turned out pretty well. I don't think pictures do the building or balconies justice, and the patterning looks really good in real life.
Click to expand...
Are you in the minority? I think the consensus has been pretty favourable to this building. MOD does great work in my opinion.
 
DavidCapizzano said:
The problem is that all of these Charles street towers merge into one gigantic amorphous blob of icy blue glass and metal from a distance. At certain angles, each individual building is hardly distinguishable. I know that each building being a unique style is kind of a reach and can be seen as unnecessary, but the flip side to that is we end up with these clusters which don’t really add anything to the skyline, or to the streets below.
Click to expand...
Agreed. These buildings are above standard, but they're not really inspiring or memorable, IMO.
 
I think it’s a reflection of development industry decision maker tastes.

There is a belief that anything that could be perceived as tacky or pastiche is unacceptable, and the default should always be (well detailed, albeit v boring) minimalism. This works sometimes - but a whole block like this can feel oppressive and uninspiring.

Architects work at the will of clients, so clients need to have a clear and concise vision of what they want to build. We would see more daring, textural, colourful and substantial buildings if clients asked for them, but to many of those decision makers, those four adjectives are to be avoided.

Charles looks the way it does because of risk averse folks in blue suits with 2007 taste designing buildings in spreadsheets.

Fortunately we’ve got our gairlochs and a few others that seem to have a vision and push to execute well.
 
DavidCapizzano said:
I think it’s a reflection of development industry decision maker tastes.

There is a belief that anything that could be perceived as tacky or pastiche is unacceptable, and the default should always be (well detailed, albeit v boring) minimalism. This works sometimes - but a whole block like this can feel oppressive and uninspiring.

Architects work at the will of clients, so clients need to have a clear and concise vision of what they want to build. We would see more daring, textural, colourful and substantial buildings if clients asked for them, but to many of those decision makers, those four adjectives are to be avoided.

Charles looks the way it does because of risk averse folks in blue suits with 2007 taste designing buildings in spreadsheets.

Fortunately we’ve got our gairlochs and a few others that seem to have a vision and push to execute well.
Click to expand...
While I agree with your "risk adverse" comments with regards to many of the developments scattered throughout the city, Charles Street East, on the other hand is different given that four of the seven towers on the street (Casas I, II, III and 55C) were designed by the same architect and have all tried to create something understated and elegant, notwithstanding the stranglehold of massing and setback requirements of the Tall Building Guidelines. While some may see this approach as "boring", I see it as intrinsically urbane and comparable to other cities where high-density residential neighbourhoods contain buildings that are compatible with one another without shouting out their differences. The consistency and quality of the materials mean more on an urban level than each building trying to be different and "daring". This is also not about the clients stuck in their blue suits in 2007. Both Cressford and MOD have done the kind of "daring" buildings of which you speak. This block of Charles was just not seen as the context for those types of buildings.
 
...I give that the podiums are a tad more interesting than their towers.

But I'll agree that more colour variation is needed, to which can be done without going all crazy arsed with the design. And in doing so, still using quality materials.
 
Last edited:
DavidCapizzano said:
The problem is that all of these Charles street towers merge into one gigantic amorphous blob of icy blue glass and metal from a distance. At certain angles, each individual building is hardly distinguishable. I know that each building being a unique style is kind of a reach and can be seen as unnecessary, but the flip side to that is we end up with these clusters which don’t really add anything to the skyline, or to the streets below.
Click to expand...


I couldn't disagree more. Unlike city place, they have that crappy blue/green colour. They are nice and dark.
 
Last edited:
thecharioteer said:
While I agree with your "risk adverse" comments with regards to many of the developments scattered throughout the city, Charles Street East, on the other hand is different given that four of the seven towers on the street (Casas I, II, III and 55C) were designed by the same architect and have all tried to create something understated and elegant, notwithstanding the stranglehold of massing and setback requirements of the Tall Building Guidelines. While some may see this approach as "boring", I see it as intrinsically urbane and comparable to other cities where high-density residential neighbourhoods contain buildings that are compatible with one another without shouting out their differences. The consistency and quality of the materials mean more on an urban level than each building trying to be different and "daring". This is also not about the clients stuck in their blue suits in 2007. Both Cressford and MOD have done the kind of "daring" buildings of which you speak. This block of Charles was just not seen as the context for those types of buildings.
Click to expand...

I don't really think the buildings need to "shout" their differences - I guess I would just like it if 7 buildings looked like 7 buildings instead of one giant building. Think the rows of mid century apartments on Jamieson or St George vs the towers of davisville or st Jamestown. One is interesting, engaging, uses a variety of materials and forms, while the other is monolithic and inward facing.

Yes, cities throughout the world have areas where many of the buildings look the same, or are even copies of each other. This is fine. Toronto has lots of these areas too. Fair.

I think my main criticism is that the style of these buildings feels cold and sterile. The "quality and consistency" of materials here is 50 shades of grey aluminum and glass (with a dribble of stainless steel)

You can absolutely do refined minimalism that still feels residential, engaging and materially contextual (think Tower Hill on st Clair)

The development / design industry seems to really resist the idea that Torontonians are very exhausted of this genre of tower. We're exhausted by steely minimalism. We want warmth, texture and colour.

Anyways.... Really it comes down to taste. Having travelled recently to New York, Montreal and a few other cities going through building booms, its hard to come back to Toronto and justify an alunimnum window wall balcony tower as being good. Everywhere else seems to be ok with a bit more flair.... why is Toronto so scared?
 
Last edited:
bro-arch said:
I think I may be in the minority here, but I think this turned out pretty well. I don't think pictures do the building or balconies justice, and the patterning looks really good in real life.
Click to expand...
You know what, I totally get what you mean! Pictures can sometimes fall short of, and I agree, the balconies and patterning must look even more impressive up close.
 
You must log in or register to post here.

Back
Top