LowPolygon
Senior Member
wow--totally fantastic!
|
|
|
- Thread starter Ladies Mile
- Start date
wow--totally fantastic!
Urban Shocker
Doyenne
"quite similar" and "would produce" - here we go again, assuming that you know what a given local architect would do based on some foreign model.
The essence of contextual design is fitting into different contexts, something you clearly don't understand.
Your committment to the inauthentic means you'll only be content when Toronto becomes somewhere it isn't, and has nothing to do with local design culture. Your timid and conservative denial of local excellence in favour of subservience to the Dutch, the pretentious historical dreck purveyed by the dull Mr. Stern, and Renzo the Roofer shows the depth of your wallow.
ProjectEnd
Superstar
Blah, blah, blah, we're the best. Blah, blah, blah, Toronto is its own city and isn't somewhere else. Blah, Blah, Blah, local 'excellence.' Blah, Blah, Blah you're conservative. Blah, Blah, Blah depth of your wallow.
The stream of pretentious, indefatigable, Toronto-is-the-best twaddle continues to spew from your over-the-hill brain to the keyboard and we're none the wiser because of it. Is there any substance left in there Shockah?
(the 'local excellence' was good for a laugh or two though)
ProjectEnd
Superstar
It's not the foreign model on which I'm relying, just the built examples of Kuwabara's work in the educational sector thus far. I'm reminded of Le Quartier Concordia Phase 1+2, St. Andrew's College, University of Toronto Scarborough Faculty of Management, and Centennial HP Science and Technology Centre - and that's just off the top of my head...
Urban Shocker
Doyenne
Tewder
Senior Member
No question. Our crap is as good as crap anywhere else, but then what?
Ramako
Moderator
I wonder, how many cities out there have a clearly definable style? New York... Chicago... Miami...Vancouver... who else?
ProjectEnd
Superstar
None! None of them do! Have you not read the last x pages of dialogue?
ProjectEnd
Superstar
Shocker; reduced to the same ctrl-c, crtl-v crap as the developers he so derides. This could, however, be a commentary on that same ctrl-c, ctrl-v Toronto-Style nonsense he so promotes.
Sad really, how the mind goes after a certain point...
Archivist
Senior Member
Now that we've discussed it a fair bit and not really come to an agreement, I'll ask my other question about the Toronto Style. This is not "What is the Toronto Style?", but "Why a Toronto Style?". This follows naturally from Tewder's thoughful post, paraphrased below.
... some view it as a unique pure style that we can point to and say 'Eureka, here's a brand new design baby in Toronto, never been seen before'. In this sense I'd probably agree that the notion of a Toronto style is problematic. ...
If on the other hand we're talking a little more self-referentially in terms of understanding the built form here specifically and the work of local designers and architects etc then I think the term is very useful. In this regard I will repeat what I said earlier that if we are true to a philosophy of integrity to a local context then what we build *must* be unique and different to that of other places, because our context is different. If you're committed to this or to some degree of it then you will be less likely to mindlessly build McMansions or to mindlessly even want them....
Much to the chagrin of some who abhor any intrusion into their particular frame of reference, I insist on a conversation about what one actually means when one says "Toronto Style", with as much precision and depth as possible, precisely because I want it to be useful, to reference a shared language that tells me more about the city I live in. I am not yet satisfied with answers that there must be a style that is different from other places, because our context is different or because we have a shared community of architects.
To make one waggish suggestion, if these circular definitions are to be accepted, then the chipboard chateaus of North York, far more numerous than any neo-modernist affair downtown, should also show evidence of a Toronto style (of chipboard chateau), since they, too, are the result of a shared community of practice and a shared context. (And perhaps they do?). I am left with nothing, if our Toronto Style is inevitable, arising from our particular context and arising from a shared practice.
So far, though, I am intrigued by the modernism-in-context arguments, which eliminate specimens such as 18 Yorkville or Casa from consideration, but do include the Ballet School / Radio City. Could we then conclude that the Muranos are not TS, but Burano might be?
... some view it as a unique pure style that we can point to and say 'Eureka, here's a brand new design baby in Toronto, never been seen before'. In this sense I'd probably agree that the notion of a Toronto style is problematic. ...
If on the other hand we're talking a little more self-referentially in terms of understanding the built form here specifically and the work of local designers and architects etc then I think the term is very useful. In this regard I will repeat what I said earlier that if we are true to a philosophy of integrity to a local context then what we build *must* be unique and different to that of other places, because our context is different. If you're committed to this or to some degree of it then you will be less likely to mindlessly build McMansions or to mindlessly even want them....
Much to the chagrin of some who abhor any intrusion into their particular frame of reference, I insist on a conversation about what one actually means when one says "Toronto Style", with as much precision and depth as possible, precisely because I want it to be useful, to reference a shared language that tells me more about the city I live in. I am not yet satisfied with answers that there must be a style that is different from other places, because our context is different or because we have a shared community of architects.
To make one waggish suggestion, if these circular definitions are to be accepted, then the chipboard chateaus of North York, far more numerous than any neo-modernist affair downtown, should also show evidence of a Toronto style (of chipboard chateau), since they, too, are the result of a shared community of practice and a shared context. (And perhaps they do?). I am left with nothing, if our Toronto Style is inevitable, arising from our particular context and arising from a shared practice.
So far, though, I am intrigued by the modernism-in-context arguments, which eliminate specimens such as 18 Yorkville or Casa from consideration, but do include the Ballet School / Radio City. Could we then conclude that the Muranos are not TS, but Burano might be?
Tewder
Senior Member
What's in a name? Maybe the problem is simply one of terminology, the conflating of a philosophy based on regional contextualism to a level where it bears our very name? Too much?? For me this is liberating in that it allows the articulation of a Tronto style to morph and be inclusive, the value-system of the style being contextuality rather than the purist strictures of any one particular design form. This in itself feels very 'Toronto'.
That said, we also have to be careful not to wield any notion of a Toronto Style in the circumscribing of design in the city. It is one perspective, not the only perspective. It bears our name because it is anchored in a philosophy that in its very essence strives to connect with a local or regional context, but this should in no way preclude that other design responses may be preferred or desired for different considerations or for different values. I too love a good showpiece of design and would love to see some of the designers ProjectEnd mentions working here! As a counterpoint to the local vernacular they have enormous impact.
The notion of a local style should be informative not prescriptive. Maybe it's just the name that bothers some but given that it is highly unlikely we'll ever experience that city-wide 'Eureka' moment in the genesis of a style of architecture that announces itself as original to the city I think it is reasonable to be willing to attach our name to a design philosophy that believes that this name stands for something integral that *does* make design unique.
Edited to resond to Archivist:
If we consider the philosophy of a proposed Toronto Style I think we would have to reject chipboard chateaux from it, even if there is a proliferation of them all over Toronto. If the hallmark of the style is contextuality there is very little that these chateaux can be grounded to in terms of design tradition, heritage, materials, geography etc. etc. I'm not saying that you wont find something that feels authentic to Toronto about them, or claiming that they don't have their own design language and philosophy, or that they don't respond to certain specific local socio-economic realities. Indeed, they very much do. The issue here though is that they just do not reflect the specific value-system of a design philosophy that is consciously and strategically grounded in contextuality. If a faux-chateau here is different than a faux-chateau in Chicago it is probably more of an accident than the result of a design philosophy, no?
That said, we also have to be careful not to wield any notion of a Toronto Style in the circumscribing of design in the city. It is one perspective, not the only perspective. It bears our name because it is anchored in a philosophy that in its very essence strives to connect with a local or regional context, but this should in no way preclude that other design responses may be preferred or desired for different considerations or for different values. I too love a good showpiece of design and would love to see some of the designers ProjectEnd mentions working here! As a counterpoint to the local vernacular they have enormous impact.
The notion of a local style should be informative not prescriptive. Maybe it's just the name that bothers some but given that it is highly unlikely we'll ever experience that city-wide 'Eureka' moment in the genesis of a style of architecture that announces itself as original to the city I think it is reasonable to be willing to attach our name to a design philosophy that believes that this name stands for something integral that *does* make design unique.
Edited to resond to Archivist:
If we consider the philosophy of a proposed Toronto Style I think we would have to reject chipboard chateaux from it, even if there is a proliferation of them all over Toronto. If the hallmark of the style is contextuality there is very little that these chateaux can be grounded to in terms of design tradition, heritage, materials, geography etc. etc. I'm not saying that you wont find something that feels authentic to Toronto about them, or claiming that they don't have their own design language and philosophy, or that they don't respond to certain specific local socio-economic realities. Indeed, they very much do. The issue here though is that they just do not reflect the specific value-system of a design philosophy that is consciously and strategically grounded in contextuality. If a faux-chateau here is different than a faux-chateau in Chicago it is probably more of an accident than the result of a design philosophy, no?
Last edited:
Urban Shocker
Doyenne
My Toronto Style includes the Ballet School and Casa, but not the frass left behind by the Cheddingtonistas as they munch their way across town devouring perfectly decent Modernist bungalows ( which represent an earlier iteration in the evolution of said style ) and leaving faux monstrosities in their wake. It is based solely on quality ... because to base it on the shoddy and the second rate and the derivative insults the notion of design culture and misses the point of how it forms the basis for the excellence that defines us. Archivist's mischeviously waggish death-by-a-thousand-cuts approach - in separating Casa from Radio City for instance, or de-contextualizing 18 Yorkville from the collective of Clewes point towers that's increasingly defining the skyline, to say nothing of the contribution it makes to the local neighbourhood it helps define - misses that bigger, qualitative, cohesive picture. I understand his eagerness to pigeonhole and cross-reference and put things into neat little boxes - he's a categorizer by nature and that's his frame of reference - but in winding Toronto Style up so tightly he may be dooming himself to a lifetime of frustration.
The answer to "why a Toronto Style?" It's inevitable that whenever there's a critical mass of creative people at work, exchanging ideas and generating modes of expression that express a community, such things will happen. It can't be prevented, and there's no reason why it should.
I'm reminded of the old saw:
Q: What is art?
A: Art is what artists do.
The answer to "why a Toronto Style?" It's inevitable that whenever there's a critical mass of creative people at work, exchanging ideas and generating modes of expression that express a community, such things will happen. It can't be prevented, and there's no reason why it should.
I'm reminded of the old saw:
Q: What is art?
A: Art is what artists do.
Archivist
Senior Member
US, let me state this one more time: I do not care what you call the Toronto Style, because I already have the answer for your definition - it is a building you care for. I'm fine with that. I would no sooner seek to have you abandon that concept than to insist on what you dreamed about last night - things that reside only within your head are yours. Take your Toronto Style and run with it.
My contention is that it is not self-evident that a critical mass of architects will end up creating works that express a community (whatever that means). Through education and professional associations, through working closely with firms in other jurisdictions, through travel and friendships with other architects, the influences that bind together architects based in Toronto do not necessarily outweigh the influences on Toronto architects from around the world. At the very least, it is not enough to state (and state, and state, and state, and state) that it must be their influence on each other results in a demonstratable style - it is an assertion that must, on some level, be demonstrated in the actual buildings these architects produce.
You are particularly shy of doing so. I assume this is because you can't. Trust me, I'm not frustrated at all, but you're quite right - it is my nature to pick away at something until I see some meaning shining through. Your bland circular "it must be so because I say it is so and therefore it is so" definitions hold no sway for me.
We now have a proposition in hand that a Toronto style building is simply one of "quality". I guess then, that we can assume that Loggia condos, Academy Lane, and Jazz are Toronto Style. And we have Casa thrown into the mix for good measure. I wonder how far we are moving away from Victorian/Industrial context or sensitivity to site.
My contention is that it is not self-evident that a critical mass of architects will end up creating works that express a community (whatever that means). Through education and professional associations, through working closely with firms in other jurisdictions, through travel and friendships with other architects, the influences that bind together architects based in Toronto do not necessarily outweigh the influences on Toronto architects from around the world. At the very least, it is not enough to state (and state, and state, and state, and state) that it must be their influence on each other results in a demonstratable style - it is an assertion that must, on some level, be demonstrated in the actual buildings these architects produce.
You are particularly shy of doing so. I assume this is because you can't. Trust me, I'm not frustrated at all, but you're quite right - it is my nature to pick away at something until I see some meaning shining through. Your bland circular "it must be so because I say it is so and therefore it is so" definitions hold no sway for me.
We now have a proposition in hand that a Toronto style building is simply one of "quality". I guess then, that we can assume that Loggia condos, Academy Lane, and Jazz are Toronto Style. And we have Casa thrown into the mix for good measure. I wonder how far we are moving away from Victorian/Industrial context or sensitivity to site.
Tewder
Senior Member
I think I'd bring the conversation back to this:
The comments don't even mention minimalism or specific design aesthetics per se but talk instead about context, the blending of elements like heritage, and the sensibility of an architecture reflecting city values. Is it any wonder the Ballet School feels so right in an urbanistic way rather than just looking pretty or interesting?
The comments don't even mention minimalism or specific design aesthetics per se but talk instead about context, the blending of elements like heritage, and the sensibility of an architecture reflecting city values. Is it any wonder the Ballet School feels so right in an urbanistic way rather than just looking pretty or interesting?
Archivist
Senior Member
Tewder, yes, I really like that quote, and much of it rings true for me. I pass through the Ballet School and Radio City quite frequently, and it really does, for me, sum up what can be accomplished by a wonderfully talented group of architects. No question there.
For me, I'm willing to go with the proposition that there are deftly handled, strongly contextual projects in the city which tend to arise from a cluster of firms. In many of these cases, the relationship to existing heritage buildings is ably demonstrated. I love Pure Spirit and look forward to its brethren.
I am quite happy to acknowledge all of this, and I am also quite willing to throw less-contextual, more freestanding buildings like Casa into the mix. Having said that, I find that calling it Toronto Style is unnecessary and adds nothing to my understanding or appreciation of it, while at the same time introducing uncomfortable and unprovable assertions about its definition as a style, or its uniqueness to Toronto.
For me, I'm willing to go with the proposition that there are deftly handled, strongly contextual projects in the city which tend to arise from a cluster of firms. In many of these cases, the relationship to existing heritage buildings is ably demonstrated. I love Pure Spirit and look forward to its brethren.
I am quite happy to acknowledge all of this, and I am also quite willing to throw less-contextual, more freestanding buildings like Casa into the mix. Having said that, I find that calling it Toronto Style is unnecessary and adds nothing to my understanding or appreciation of it, while at the same time introducing uncomfortable and unprovable assertions about its definition as a style, or its uniqueness to Toronto.