TheKingEast said:
With any non-positive post about aA it's the same people crying foul, but they have no issue bashing other firms. Just an observation. All I did was ask a poster to list some examples and look at how that turned out. You have picked your side though so I'll move on.
Click to expand...
I have an issue when people bash P+S. I like remind them that P+S won the poll for best building completed in Toronto in 2014.
I have an issue when people bash Kirkor because I can easily point to terrific buildings like Limelight in Mississauga (one of the best podiums in recent years) and the Hullmark Centre in North York… and just because they don't like other Kirkor projects does not mean that another Kirkor building will automatically be a dud. So I get sick of that bashing too.

I also have an issue when I try to get you to own up to having insulted members instead of arguing a point about buildings. Instead, you tell me that I have picked sides, totally ignoring the fact that you denigrated anyone who disagreed with you. Just because others come to a different conclusion than you does not mean that they cannot think critically. Bot is not an acceptable way to characterize your opposition, the kind of thing you've done again and again and again, I might add. Essentially, if you are unwilling to discuss your differences of opinion, but instead resort to name calling, it's just trolling.

I'm going to give you a little while to figure out what the difference is.

42
 
giphy.gif
 
Oh mic firmly dropped, yeah—nice one. To second and expand on 42's mic dropping, unsurprisingly, randomly overemotional hyperbole rarely fosters good discussions, and discussion of aA projects very often seems to fall within that construct.

Not to get too into it (and recognizing this is an 88 Scott thread), but can we just all agree that (setting aside for a moment that virtually all architectural commentary is subjective), pretty much every firm produces some popular designs and some unpopular designs? Has aA offered up some duds? Sure, as have most. Has aA produced some wonderful buildings? Absolutely? Can we just permanently ditch the "is aA awful?" debate?

Very quickly, an admittedly subjective assessment of a smattering of their projects underscoring the above assertion:
> Ice Condos: Ambitious, and the recipient of much praise both on these forums and outside of them
> Terrence Donnelly Centre for Cellular and Biomolecular Research: A unique building, inside and out, and drastically different than most other buildings in the city
> Pier 27: Frequently accused of being a little kitschy, but certainly at least somewhat unique (even if you think cantilevers are played out)
> 18 Yorkville: Yeah, pretty awful
> Form Condos: Again, many don't love the supposedly overwrought stacked boxes motif, but many like it as a nice complement to its architecturally daring neighbours (myself included)
> Museum FLTS: Completely against the grain, and super unique (as long as you're more or less willing to stop at the facade and not consider the form)
> Sun Life Financial Tower: Has lots of advocates in the forum for its simplicity and elegance; other decry it as another example of big, glass, rectangular architecture in a city overfull of it
> West Block: Yeah, the towers are awful, unimaginative dreck
> X Condo: Too boring and rectangular for some; wonderfully simple, elegant, and an homage to Mies, for others
> 89 Avenue: May not survive the planning process as-is, but worth remembering it would have been a super welcome jolt of creativity in a fairly drab Yorkville neighbourhood, as far as contemporary architecture is concerned

I'm not looking to foster a debate on this thread (if someone wants to start a "what are the best arch firms in TO?" thread, perhaps we could do it there), my point is simply that it's overly simplistic and reductionist to say that aA doesn't do cool stuff. They have good, bad, awful, great, and everything in between—and, of course, many people would apply each of those descriptors to the very same buildings!

It's also worth remembering that the "good, bad, awful, great, and everything in between" dynamic is applied to the heavyweight firms that so many people on this forum cry out for more love from in the city—the BIGs, Foster+Partners, Snohettas, NADAAAs of the world; people love and hate their buildings, too.

Let's have a higher calibre of debate about the merits of the firms that design most often in Toronto, shall we?

Back to your regularly scheduled 88 Scott programming.
 
aA aren't doing the towers at West Block - only the commercial building

P+S are doing the towers
 
ADRM said:
Very quickly, an admittedly subjective assessment of a smattering of their projects underscoring the above assertion:
> Ice Condos: Ambitious, and the recipient of much praise both on these forums and outside of them
> Terrence Donnelly Centre for Cellular and Biomolecular Research: A unique building, inside and out, and drastically different than most other buildings in the city
> Pier 27: Frequently accused of being a little kitschy, but certainly at least somewhat unique (even if you think cantilevers are played out)
> 18 Yorkville: Yeah, pretty awful
> Form Condos: Again, many don't love the supposedly overwrought stacked boxes motif, but many like it as a nice complement to its architecturally daring neighbours (myself included)
> Museum FLTS: Completely against the grain, and super unique (as long as you're more or less willing to stop at the facade and not consider the form)
> Sun Life Financial Tower: Has lots of advocates in the forum for its simplicity and elegance; other decry it as another example of big, glass, rectangular architecture in a city overfull of it
> West Block: Yeah, the towers are awful, unimaginative dreck
> X Condo: Too boring and rectangular for some; wonderfully simple, elegant, and an homage to Mies, for others
> 89 Avenue: May not survive the planning process as-is, but worth remembering it would have been a super welcome jolt of creativity in a fairly drab Yorkville neighbourhood, as far as contemporary architecture is concerned
Click to expand...

Sunlife is NOT aA (unless you are talking the Harbourwhatever), and 18 Yorkville was groundbreaking for its' time - the brick clad podium remains a good example how a tower should interface with the street. You really can't isolate the aA portfolio without regards to how it relates to the general level of quality of their contemporary. Also, what of smaller and earlier projects like 18 Niagara, Mozo, District Lofts, etc?

AoD
 
Last edited:
From yesterday. Sorry about the poor phone quality.

IMG_8628.JPG
IMG_8629.JPG
 

Attachments

  • IMG_8628.JPG
    IMG_8628.JPG
    226.1 KB · Views: 1,056
  • IMG_8629.JPG
    IMG_8629.JPG
    220.2 KB · Views: 1,085
AlvinofDiaspar said:
Sunlife is NOT aA (unless you are talking the Harbourwhatever), and 18 Yorkville was groundbreaking for its' time - the brick clad podium remains a good example how a tower should interface with the street. You really can't isolate the aA portfolio without regards to how it relates to the general level of quality of their contemporary. Also, what of smaller and earlier projects like 18 Niagara, Mozo, District Lofts, etc?

AoD
Click to expand...


Yeah, 18 Yorkville had me puzzled. The condo corp. was registered in 2005. It has a good form, decent looking window wall and, a solid base even for those set to be completed by 2018.
 
I agree, 18 Yorkville has great proportions and uses solid materials throughout. The mid-rise building is a great example of the types of buildings that could go up along our Avenues (with some ground-related commercial mixed in). Along with 18 Yorkville, I would put the D&S designed The Hudson as two of my favourite buildings from the mid-2000's that hold up their own to this day. Coincidentally, or not, both by Great Gulf.

As for 88 Scott, still a lot of waiting-and-seeing to see how it all comes together. I find the renderings rather "meh". It's rather vanilla at this point.
 
marcus_a_j said:
Along with 18 Yorkville, I would put the D&S designed The Hudson as two of my favourite buildings from the mid-2000's that hold up their own to this day. Coincidentally, or not, both by Great Gulf.
Click to expand...

And the fellow who was in charge at Great Gulf at the time now is responsible for Five and Massey Tower. Coincidence? I think not.
 
ptbotrmpfn said:
Y of guys need to stop apologizing for your phone pictures. Some of us appreciate that you even bothered to take a picture of the progress. thanks to you all who a take the time who live in the area.
Click to expand...

Sorry about the quality. Sorry about the fog. Sorry about the overly bright afternoon sun. Sorry for everything that I have no control over.
 
ProjectEnd said:
For all the whining about things by other firms 'not looking like the renders,' the 'monstrous carbuncles' on this pile are certainly much heaver than promised.
Click to expand...

And if that's the worst of it consider me impressed! To be fair, the most recent video does show them as being heavier than what was first depicted in the original renderings.

Personally I'm more concerned about how the window wall above will turn out. I'm guessing average.
 
ProjectEnd said:
For all the whining about things by other firms 'not looking like the renders,' the 'monstrous carbuncles' on this pile are certainly much heaver than promised.

Compare:

urbantoronto-88-scott-1.jpg

Photo by Concert

Photo by @MafaldaBoy
Click to expand...


The drawing in itself should be taken with a huge dose of scepticism given the rendering somehow has the building located at Front and Simcoe, and with a height well in excess of 300 m. I mean, seriously, how hard is it in this day and age to give an accurate portrayal of the back drop!?
 
Last edited:
You must log in or register to post here.

Back
Top