Traynor said:
Very true... However, in this particular case the design has been 'used up'. If Toronto ever built a tower or two that had a similar twisting floor plate now, we would be laughed at and chided for copying Mississauga. There would be no end of "You stole our idea" rants all over the web.
Click to expand...

Mississauga copied Malmö, Sweden.
 
Traynor said:
Very true... However, in this particular case the design has been 'used up'. If Toronto ever built a tower or two that had a similar twisting floor plate now, we would be laughed at and chided for copying Mississauga. There would be no end of "You stole our idea" rants all over the web.

So in this aspect I empathize with all those that wish these towers were down on Queen's Quay. I feel it is only because Toronto is so jealous of these towers and now can never have them, without looking imitative and unoriginal.
Click to expand...

But surely there are many, many ways to design a voluptuous, twisting building. Nobody gives up building boxes because there exists one particularly spectacular specimen of box.
It's just disappointing to me that some of the reaction is not "hey, that's cool -- let's build something even better downtown" but "that doesn't belong in the suburbs". What are we, crabs in a bucket?
 
Mississauga didn't copy anything. If anything MAD copied Calatrava. But just because the two buildings twist, doesn't mean they're anything alike.
 
Traynor said:
Very true... However, in this particular case the design has been 'used up'. If Toronto ever built a tower or two that had a similar twisting floor plate now, we would be laughed at and chided for copying Mississauga. There would be no end of "You stole our idea" rants all over the web.
Click to expand...

So no one can have them because Toronto can't have them?

You sound like a baby... seriously.
 
Did you guys even read the rest of my post?????

Of course Toronto COULD have them but....

Furthermore, Toronto's newest condo architecture suffers form "Trying to please everyone" syndrome. The designs are banal and simplistic because they are afraid of turning off the foreign investor that is buying into them. It is the same reasoning condo owners paint and decorate their units in neutral colours. So you won't offend some potential buyer. This sentiment has found its way into the design of the entire buildings these days.

When a great portion of the potential investors come from all over the world, you have to remain fairly neutral, or you may potentially turn off the group of buyers you were aiming for. Whereas ofttimes the buyer in the suburbs are Canadians relocating or downsizing from a home and will tolerate a more distinctive design.

Sad, but that's why Toronto architecture tends to be green, glass boxes these days.
Click to expand...
 
Tuscani01 said:
So no one can have them because Toronto can't have them?

You sound like a baby... seriously.
Click to expand...

That's not what I said at all. You interpreted my words that way because YOU think like a baby. That never even crossed my mind. What I said (and what I meant) was Toronto can't have them TOO. As in "As well as somewhere else so close".

Seriously, learn to read.
 
khristopher said:
Mississauga didn't copy anything. If anything MAD copied Calatrava. But just because the two buildings twist, doesn't mean they're anything alike.
Click to expand...

Mississauga, MAD, whatever. The simple fact that they twist means they are alike in that regard. The floorplates and the degree of twisting are different, but it is the basic concept that is the same. How many other buildings in the world have a dramatic twist to them?
 
Traynor said:
So in this aspect I empathize with all those that wish these towers were down on Queen's Quay. I feel it is only because Toronto is so jealous of these towers and now can never have them, without looking imitative and unoriginal.
Click to expand...

Methinks you're reading more of a Springfield vs Shelbyville rivalry thing here than actually exists. Other than among penis-comparing skyscraper-boarding dorks, there is negligible jealousy. If Mississauga's up to building Marilyn--terrific. Good for you, Mississauga. Torontonians by and large aren't jealous because (a) there's more to life than neato high-rise condo design, and (b) Mississauga's part of the GTA, anyway; we're all in this together...
 
adma said:
Methinks you're reading more of a Springfield vs Shelbyville rivalry thing here than actually exists. Other than among penis-comparing skyscraper-boarding dorks, there is negligible jealousy. If Mississauga's up to building Marilyn--terrific. Good for you, Mississauga. Torontonians by and large aren't jealous because (a) there's more to life than neato high-rise condo design, and (b) Mississauga's part of the GTA, anyway; we're all in this together...
Click to expand...

+1
 
adma said:
Methinks you're reading more of a Springfield vs Shelbyville rivalry thing here than actually exists. Other than among penis-comparing skyscraper-boarding dorks, there is negligible jealousy. If Mississauga's up to building Marilyn--terrific. Good for you, Mississauga. Torontonians by and large aren't jealous because (a) there's more to life than neato high-rise condo design, and (b) Mississauga's part of the GTA, anyway; we're all in this together...
Click to expand...

Methinks Torontonians will be happy to claim Mississauga things when it suits them (Absolute World) and dismiss Mississauga at every other opportunity that presents itself (all the rest of the time).
 
Yup and yup.

Adma and Coruscanti you both make very valid points.

I hate that every single Mississauga thread results in these types of conversations. Why can't everyone in the GTA just be happy that we're getting these beautiful towers, and be done with it. Lets just enjoy them, and enjoy the changes that are happening to a suburban city, and be proud of it. Enough of the stupid jealousy. It's whiny and immature.
 
Now I know why this building does not really excited me. There is a danish architecture firm I learned about in one of my classes that designed something similar.

It was four smaller white towers like AW, they were pretty neat. I'll post when I find a picture.

Not saying there is something wrong with AW or Mississauga or anything... just saying I've seen other architecture similar to this around the world. Good thing Canada is on that list now.
 
FWIW - the towers weren't originally designed as twisting towers, and there was only one. MADs original design had a fluid, organic shape and had no 'twist' at all, so they didn't copy anything from Malmo.

It was only later when they got into the logistics of the construction that they had to simplify the design. This is where the twist came in, but even then, the differences are significant from Malmo. The round floor plates change and the twist is not consistent throughout all the floors. Malmo's twisting tower is a square floor plate that rotates at the exact same rate for every floor. The ATI building in Markham does that, too. Then, because the response was so overwhelmingly positive, they decided to make it two towers that complement each other. Malmo is just one.

It's like saying Skydome copied the Metrodome.
 
Coruscanti Cognoscente said:
Methinks Torontonians will be happy to claim Mississauga things when it suits them (Absolute World) and dismiss Mississauga at every other opportunity that presents itself (all the rest of the time).
Click to expand...

Actually, a Torontonian who thinks that Mississauga City Hall is nothing more than an ugly dated eyesore is no less an idiot than a Mississaugan who thinks that Mississauga City Hall is nothing more than an ugly dated eyesore...
 
You must log in or register to post here.

Back
Top