I was so enthusiastic of seeing something so different for TCHC that I held back criticism of the street level design which doesn't seem to connect with the rest of it. What stopped me is that fact that having a substantially different ground floor design is quite common in Toronto and has resulted in an interesting architectural experience. I'm thinking of all the Victorian three storey blocks with modern minimalist glass storefronts on the ground level. It does detract somewhat, but not that much and I suspect it looks better in person.

The limited use of the bright colours isn't necessarily detrimental. They highlight the rare balconies in the facade, and hence the changes in function.
 
junctionist:

Whatever the rationale behind the ground level (I think it might be the public functions that requires exposure?) it is there right from the get-go - it wasn't an example of cheapening at least.

AoD
 
The ground floor was designed for a public restaurant and training kitchen, so it isn't unreasonable for to be differentiated. We get a layer of street-level transparency beneath a tower that's all about volumes, with smallish windows playing off of a large grey skin / white core ground. The terraced urban gardens for growing produce, and those red and orange colour highlights, also play off of this larger mass. There's complexity ... and restraint. Chromatically, it is a polite match for neighbourhood buildings - unlike, say, Kearns Mancini's hog-wild-for-colour George Brown addition, which mostly shouts down the earlier building to the east. When it comes to highlight colour there's no quota requirement, but the blue room at Casa, the colour slashes on X, and OCAD's windowsills are all in about the same proportion to the neutral grounds they play off of as are the colour highlights here: different architects have arrived at similar conclusions about that which works pleasingly for the eye.
 
I certainly like this building, and I admire every example that US has posted about complexity and restraint in the use of colour, but I wonder if there's only one answer. After all, those who decide such things, the elites as it were, decided that Kearns Mancini's addition was worthy of a Design Excellence Award. My Toronto is expansive enough to encompass this exuberance as well.
 
Jan 20 shots
IMG_jan-20-10-0065.jpg


IMG_jan-20-10-0062.jpg


IMG_jan-20-10-0066.jpg


IMG_jan-20-10-0067.jpg
 
could have used a teeny bit more glass, but it is indeed really nicely done...would do a lot better in a neighbourhood with other modern buildings.
 
I walked around this building a couple of days ago, and I applaud the TCHC and Teeple Architects for aspiring to do something different in Toronto with the condominium typology. Eschewing the normal window wall or brick defaults takes vision and courage and based on the response in this forum at least, that courage is justified by the project's warm reception.

Having said that, this project really suffers in its details. The way it hits ground with rough sheet metal riveted to the sidewalk, the awkwardness of the metal mesh soffit and rear wall cladding at the alley that is already getting beaten up by standard loading and garbage collection activities and which grabs all the fluff that falls from the exposed parking garage ceiling, the misalignment of the ground floor soffits with the cladding material transitions, the cracked cement panels, the awkward exposed window washing supports on the soffits, the inconsistency of the joint widths that looks so clumsy on the light-coloured cement panels, the unrefined and awkward balconies... this is a brave, powerful project that tries to do so much but starts to really fall apart upon closer inspection.

I fear that in 5 years it is going to look 30 years old. The ground floor will not withstand sidewalk snow removal, the white cement panels will not weather well or get cleaned as often as they will need, and the back-of-house areas will be bashed, battered and deformed to the point of needing replacement.

I also think the building does nothing to soften the sidewalk for a streetscape that for pedestrian life is little more pleasant than a highway. Some warmer materiality, proper canopies, benches, soft landscaping elements... it seems like the only real design intent was to maximize the retail potential along Richmond at whatever cost.

Most of this poor execution is because of the nature of condominium design and construction, where quick, rough and dirty is the norm.

My hope is that this project continues to get duly recognized for its courage and ambition, and for an overall scheme that is in many ways excellent - but that it also makes those following its lead with other outside-of-the-box projects understand that care must be taken to get the details right to take full advantage of the attention the novelty will bring. This is a brave first step in a new direction, but I'm most excited at the prospect of its refinement on future projects.
 
You must log in or register to post here.

Back
Top