Okay.

One more try:

Why is this building, of all the buildings underway in this city, worth calling out as the pinnacle of philistinism?

It has concept-free doodads galore, I'll admit, but so do any number of other projects. Including many of those by the vaunted aA. The majority of their work is exploration in concept-free doodad design. Wavy balconies, angled podium boxes, zig-zaggy striping, flecks of colour - these aren't concept-driven moves, they are decorations. Why is that these moves are admirable, but the decorative moves here - stepped crown, asymmetrical cladding - are worthy of such scorn?

I realize to some extent it's all a matter of taste, but I would think that as such an overt intellectual you would base your opinion in some notable categorical difference, and not just whim.

So again, why the hate? And why here and not elsewhere?
 
What I'm saying is that U Condos and 88 Scott are both decorated sheds. They are fundamentally the same building type, with the same tectonics, the same circulation strategy, the same program, the same partitioning, an so on. One has 'neomodern' decorations, the other has 'semi-modern/semi-traditional' decorations.

And what I mean by 'concept-free' is that they are not intended to convey some idea about the building or operate in some architectural way - the formal moves don't convey anything about the building's inner workings, they don't act in relation to surroundings, they don't capture light or wind, or grant some particular experience to the building user, and so on. They are pure decorations in that they only convey their own intrinsic messages - they are the big signs on top of Venturi's shed. One says 'NEOMODERNISM!', the other says 'TRADITION AND MODERNISM can be friends, right?" and that's all they do.

So to me, the heated response to the decorations of 88 Scott seems to be completely ideological and solely related to the message conveyed. Is there no room for the 'Tradition and Modernism' message in your vision of Toronto? Because while it is not my preferred cup of ideological tea, either, I recognize that a city like ours needs diversity in its fabric.
 
I agree completely, you just illustrated my thoughts better than I would have. There are still some who would say aA or nothing local I am sure...
 
88 Scott, well let me opine ... if built as as proposed, it will be one of those buildings that is just there. No real statement, no real offence, and no dialogue with neighbouring structures.
 
bengaijin said:
Way to dodge a conversation about substance with a bit of snottiness about style. Predictable.
Click to expand...

We have been discussing the substance of the design in the sense that all we have to go on are renderings, the exterior style of the building that they present to the world, and our assessment of the values represented by those renderings. Those values have been defined, variously, as dithery, schizophernic, lacking in sophistication, messy and "Vegas", and there has been a sensible suggestion that the design review process should be applied to the design. You invite comparisons between 88 Scott and aA's work, and question why some of us see the qualitative difference between the two design approaches and some of you don't, and all I can suggest is that you should look harder: but if you don't see the difference it isn't a moral failing on your part, it's just that you don't see it.
 
Urban Shocker said:
all I can suggest is that you should look harder: but if you don't see the difference it isn't a moral failing on your part, it's just that you don't see it.
Click to expand...

Please, don't patronize us.
I know its you and your mate's favorite mantra, but it has absolutely nothing to do with 'not seeing it'.
Nobody is wrong here or conversely, 'not seeing the picture'. Our tastes in architecture are just divergent.
Its as simple as that.
 
But it goes deeper than that. As I and others have said before (and you've agreed), beyond stylistic differences, there are notable ways in which certain firms detail buildings so that they are just better pieces of building. Museum House for example, takes a simple form but is executed so poorly I'm left wondering which poor sucker paid 'premium' prices for a unit there. You just don't find those sorts of shortcomings with 'other' firms no matter how hard you look.

It's your prerogative to like buildings like 88 Scott and indeed, you can hardly be faulted for preferring one form over another. But don't try and sell the snake oil that is 'all buildings are constructed equal' cause' brother, you're not even close.
 
ProjectEnd said:
But don't try and sell the snake oil that is 'all buildings are constructed equal' cause' brother, you're not even close.
Click to expand...

Trust me, I'm not.
While there might not be a general consensus on high profile buildings such as this one, I do believe a clear majority of us are in agreement when it comes to the real duds; e.g. ROCP, Uptown, Cblu, BSN, Infinity, Parade 1, most of Liberty Village, at least half of the Etobicoke waterfront and a sizable portion of all those condo's going up in the subrbs.
 
vegeta_skyline said:
Trust me, I'm not.
While there might not be a general consensus on high profile buildings such as this one, I do believe a clear majority of us are in agreement when it comes to the real duds; e.g. ROCP, Uptown, Cblu, BSN, Infinity, Parade 1, most of Liberty Village, at least half of the Etobicoke waterfront and a sizable portion of all those condo's going up in the subrbs.
Click to expand...

Just curious, why does everyone hate rocp? I think they're nice looking towers and create a positive impact in the skyline, everything from their shape to the materials (which do seem low quality) but I like how the precast is used in contrast with the curtain wall.
Theyre better than murano, crystal blue, pantages, and most cityplace projects IMO just to name a few.
 
sentinel said:
Just curious, why does everyone hate rocp? I think they're nice looking towers and create a positive impact in the skyline, everything from their shape to the materials (which do seem low quality) but I like how the precast is used in contrast with the curtain wall.
Theyre better than murano, crystal blue, pantages, and most cityplace projects IMO just to name a few.
Click to expand...

I dont know why...seems like a bunch of followers that just dont like precast.
I agree...Murano is just a plain glass box, and Pantages is just butt ugly.
 
A lot of us don't like RoCP because it's the laziest aping of Art Deco imaginable. It's like they were standing around in the office asking each other "Does this look Art Decoish?" "Ehhh, I dunno." "Well, I'm putting it on."

42
 
You must log in or register to post here.

Back
Top