January 16th:

IMG_9434.JPG
IMG_9433.JPG
IMG_9432.JPG
IMG_9426.JPG
 

Attachments

  • IMG_9434.JPG
    IMG_9434.JPG
    359.8 KB · Views: 398
  • IMG_9433.JPG
    IMG_9433.JPG
    248.2 KB · Views: 427
  • IMG_9432.JPG
    IMG_9432.JPG
    315.1 KB · Views: 398
  • IMG_9426.JPG
    IMG_9426.JPG
    342.5 KB · Views: 413
This is clunky, lazy architecture that's an affront to the prime location on the waterfront, and it imposes so close to the park it appears the park becomes a part of the project itself . Tridel has nothing to be proud of here.
 
I agree ..its basically ok but that's it. I will hold my final thoughts until I see it in person.
 
old boy said:
This is clunky, lazy architecture that's an affront to the prime location on the waterfront, and it imposes so close to the park it appears the park becomes a part of the project itself . Tridel has nothing to be proud of here.
Click to expand...

I don't begrudge them for the built form - that's something foreseen in the WT plans - it was meant to provide enclosure to Sherbourne Park. The design and choice of materials could be handled better - as it stands now the outcome is ok (more acceptable as an element of the ultimate neighbourhood than in and on its' own).

AoD
 
Maybe they should make the balconies red to distract from the awful window wall and to keep the design from becoming as totally dull as dishwater.
 
AlvinofDiaspar said:
I don't begrudge them for the built form - that's something foreseen in the WT plans - it was meant to provide enclosure to Sherbourne Park. The design and choice of materials could be handled better - as it stands now the outcome is ok (more acceptable as an element of the ultimate neighbourhood than in and on its' own).

AoD
Click to expand...

The length of the building to shelter Sherbourne Common was prescribed to the architects, but they handled that massing in a very awkward manner.

As for people's comments about adding red accents or other lipstick-on-a-pig measures - is that really how some people here view architecture? That you can slap on some visual "pops" to an unsuccessful design and draw attention to it and that will solve the problem?

The architecture here would be forgivable if the unit layouts were a justification but as I've voiced in this thread before, the layouts in Aquavista and Aqualina are horrible.
 
The quality of the interior layouts and that of the exterior expression are loosely linked at best in any building, so I don't see one as making up for the other where there are perceived deficiencies.

I do not begrudge anyone bemoaning the loss of colour on a building exterior (even though we all knew it was only temporary), and I think that dismissing visual "pops" as unworthy of consideration is also a mistake: any element of the exterior has to be considered for its part of the whole package.

In regards to this building being awkwardly massed: it's meant to be awkwardly massed. It's meant to be atypical, and eyeball-grabbing because of it. That doesn't mean that everyone is going to appreciate its aesthetic qualities, but I'm not sure that's what is being sought here anyway. Sometimes, just standing out a bit is a positive (to be weighed against everything else).

42
 
interchange42 said:
The quality of the interior layouts and that of the exterior expression are loosely linked at best in any building, so I don't see one as making up for the other where there are perceived deficiencies.

I do not begrudge anyone bemoaning the loss of colour on a building exterior (even though we all knew it was only temporary), and I think that dismissing visual "pops" as unworthy of consideration is also a mistake: any element of the exterior has to be considered for its part of the whole package.

In regards to this building being awkwardly massed: it's meant to be awkwardly massed. It's meant to be atypical, and eyeball-grabbing because of it. That doesn't mean that everyone is going to appreciate its aesthetic qualities, but I'm not sure that's what is being sought here anyway. Sometimes, just standing out a bit is a positive (to be weighed against everything else).

42
Click to expand...

I think you are misinterpreting what I'm saying, but we can agree to disagree. Let me clarify my points based on my view of architecture, both from what I have been taught from academics/profs, practitioners, and my own work:

1) True, often interior layout and exterior expression are often loosely linked in condominium design. But architects, when they have the time and budget, strive to have a connection between the two. The exterior expression shouldn't be fully detached from the rest of the building but a reflection of the suites inside - a building approached as a whole. What I was saying is that I would respect the way the exterior turned out if it was expressing some notion of suite layout that was successful. Unfortunately, the layouts here are not successful, and it weakens for me the way the exterior is articulated. (i.e. the serrated effect is useless because in the suites it leads to uncomfortable layouts due to a lack of space to really use the serration to any strong effect.)

2) I don't think visual "pops" are unworthy of consideration. I was articulating the opposite; that they should not be an afterthought tacked onto a poor design in order to save it. They should be part and parcel of the entire building's design.

3) There are many buildings that are awkwardly massed that are appreciable because it feels intentional. Here, a tower block at the far south is aligned with the north elevation; it feels like it needs more breathing room, and more space between it and the upper floors from the north mass. It just feels senseless; why that small gap? What is it really achieving for the suites? Why does the roofline not have even one "peak" that takes it above the rest of the mass? If the south and north are aligned to the same height, why even have the stepping-down effect only to block it from the south?
 
You must log in or register to post here.

Back
Top