My Gawd - these recent AA's elevation have been just comically bland. First 501 Yonge Street, and now this. It's looks like some kind of cartoon sterotype of minimalism. All the worse for unimaginatively copying it's very own copies.

Is this architecture? Really? Or to be fair, is this actually good architecture?

Thinly shod maximized profit. That's pretty unsubstantial stuff to try and enjoy as real architecture.
Or at what point does 'sleek, reductive modernist minimalism' become something like this: a blankly unimaginative stack of standard, well-milled parts?
 
Last edited:
CN: I gotta agree with you. Those elevations are bland, not the sleek minimalism type that could stand the test of time. All I can say it is in a good location, the building offers nothing interesting in architecture. Unfortunately, I bet they will charge similar downtown premiums of >$550/sf.

edit: unless AA does something significant with the exterior cladding/glazing with interesting colours, like OCAD-esque, then it will remain bland
 
Last edited:
It's strange, I love Casa from top to bottom but as Solaris points out, and I'm in agreement, I'm not happy to see a duplicate of it yet I'm thrilled we're getting to X's. Go figure.
 
not a fan at all of this project, ever since those early line drawings were released. and yeah, it basically is a copy-paste of an "as boxy and simple as it gets" tower.
My problem, is that Casa 1 is meant/looks best as a standalone tower. then they just go overkill by making an even larger one across the street that's hat is slightly different, which makes it look even worse.
I'd rather have a completely different design than Casa 1 and still call it Casa 2 then have this.

the whole Charles street streetwall is going to be destroyed/overkilled by this... Casa is already kinda chunky/dominatingly huge when you're driving westbound on charles, at around church street, and then this........

I'm never a fan of wrap-around balconies on box towers. and now, we're gonna have WAYYY too many balconies!!!! think both sides of the street having balconies facing balconies, facing east, facing west, facing , north, multiplied by 2!

i'm usually optimistic about tall projects, but this is an exception....
 
CanadianNational said:
My Gawd - these recent AA's elevation have been just comically bland. First 501 Yonge Street, and now this. It's looks like some kind of cartoon sterotype of minimalism. All the worse for unimaginatively copying it's very own copies.

Is this architecture? Really? Or to be fair, is this actually good architecture?

Thinly shod maximized profit. That's pretty unsubstantial stuff to try and enjoy as real architecture.
Or at what point does 'sleek, reductive modernist minimalism' become something like this: a blankly unimaginative stack of standard, well-milled parts?
Click to expand...

Really CN? It's funny, some of your posts (eg. in the DoFo-by-the-Bay thread) are bang on the mark, yet others (eg. this one) seem strangely aloof. "Thinly shod maximized profit" you write, all the while reinforcing what you seem not to understand.

aA (I was unaware that American Airlines had gotten into the design business) have never made any attempt to shy away from the fact that they do boxes. In fact, in an interview with JBM which appeared on the MYC website in its former, pre-relaunch iteration, Peter explains that they are proud of this reputation because they are constantly researching new ways to clad their buildings, to increase transparency (read: eliminate spandrels which are not self-conciously spandrelizing and are only there to fill space) in the units they contain, to find new ways of bringing things down at pedestrian level and, yes, once in awhile, to play with a few shapes (eg. Clear Spirit, Market Wharf, etc.).

I'm actually rather stunned that such a sizable minority of UT posters fail to recognize aA as one of the best firms in the city, if not the country. Sure, if you look at the shapes of their buildings and were unaware of the firm's motus operandi you might be disappointed that they're not doing backflips, but it's worthy of note that in this day and age, all condos are the exact same until the cladding arrives. For example, Nautilus actually has a pretty svelte figure when approaching from the west, but once the girl donned those garrish blue and green clothes all I'm left with is the impression that I wish she hadn't.

What I'm trying to say is that in many ways, what aA do and what G+C/Kirkor do is largely the same from a structural point of view. Its what's on the outside, so to speak, that counts. Because the firm is unconcerned with creating novel shapes for each of their new buildings, they have more time to work on details like the cladding, the windows, the balcony glass and the modulation of units to eliminate as much waste as possible. The results speak for themselves and if you're unable to see it maybe you just need to look a little closer.

If anything, I'm being too self-deprecating since the off-kilter columns at Clear Spirit, or the aerial walkways on District, or the cut-and-slice balconies on Parc seem to suggest that aA are confidently working on their own, more subtle, bag of tricks. In this sense, if its the clothes that make the building, and believe me, it surely is, then it seems pretty obvious that aA have the best fashion sense in the city.

dlam said:
CN: I gotta agree with you. Those elevations are bland, not the sleek minimalism type that could stand the test of time. All I can say it is in a good location, the building offers nothing interesting in architecture. Unfortunately, I bet they will charge similar downtown premiums of >$550/sf.

edit: unless AA does something significant with the exterior cladding/glazing with interesting colours, like OCAD-esque, then it will remain bland
Click to expand...

Seems interesting that you'd conclude that the building will fail to 'stand the test of time' when all you've had to look at are three line drawings and a site plan. Though I'm sure American Airlines would be completely unconcerned with your criticism, aA might argue that it would be easy to decry any modern building if one were to see similar evidence. In many ways, the buildings which excite keyboard commandos are often those which look 'iconic' in plan and elevation, yet the buildings which have a lasting impact on the city are those which focus on the details, not the shape.

steveve said:
not a fan at all of this project, ever since those early line drawings were released. and yeah, it basically is a copy-paste of an "as boxy and simple as it gets" tower.
My problem, is that Casa 1 is meant/looks best as a standalone tower. then they just go overkill by making an even larger one across the street that's hat is slightly different, which makes it look even worse.
I'd rather have a completely different design than Casa 1 and still call it Casa 2 then have this.

the whole Charles street streetwall is going to be destroyed/overkilled by this... Casa is already kinda chunky/dominatingly huge when you're driving westbound on charles, at around church street, and then this........

I'm never a fan of wrap-around balconies on box towers. and now, we're gonna have WAYYY too many balconies!!!! think both sides of the street having balconies facing balconies, facing east, facing west, facing , north, multiplied by 2!

i'm usually optimistic about tall projects, but this is an exception....
Click to expand...

i'm usually not optimistic about new/young posters, and this is no exception...
 
Last edited:
ProjectEnd said:
Really CN? It's funny, some of your posts (eg. in the DoFo-by-the-Bay thread) are bang on the mark, yet others (eg. this one) seem strangely aloof. "Thinly shod maximized profit" you write, all the while reinforcing what you seem not to understand.

aA (I was unaware that American Airlines had gotten into the design business) has never made any attempt to shy away from the fact that they do boxes. In fact, in an interview with JBM which appeared on the MYC website in its former, pre-relaunch iteration, Peter explains that they are proud of this reputation because they are constantly researching new ways to clad their buildings, to increase transparency (read: eliminate spandrels which are not self-conciously spandrelizing and are only there to fill space) in the units they contain, to find new ways of bringing things down at pedestrian level and, yes, once in awhile, to play with a few shapes (eg. Clear Spirit, Market Wharf, etc.).

I'm actually rather stunned that such a sizable minority of UT posters fail to recognize aA as one of the best firms in the city, if not the country. Sure, if you look at the shapes of their buildings and were unaware of the firm's motus operandi you might be disappointed that they're not doing backflips, but it's worthy of note that really all condos in this day and age are the exact same until the cladding arrives. For example, Nautilus actually has a pretty svelte figure when approaching from the west, but once the girl donned those garrish blue and green clothes she all I'm left with is the impression that I wish she hadn't.

What I'm trying to say is that in many ways, what aA do and what G+C/Kirkor do is largely the same from a structural point of view. Its what's on the outside, so to speak, that counts. Because the firm is unconcerned with creating novel shapes for each of their new buildings, they have more time to work on details like the cladding, the windows, the balcony glass and the modulation of units to eliminate as much waste as possible. The results speak for themselves and if you're unable to see it maybe you just need to look a little closer.

If anything, I'm being too self-deprecating since the off-kilter columns at Market Wharf, or the aerial walkways on District, or the cut-and-slice balconies on Parc seem to suggest that aA are confidently working on their own bag of more subtle tricks. In this sense, if its the clothes that make the building, and believe me, it surely is, then it seems pretty obvious that aA have the best fashion sense in the city.



Seems interesting that you'd conclude that the building will fail to 'stand the test of time' when all you've had to look at are three line drawings and a site plan. Though I'm sure American Airlines would be completely unconcerned with your criticism, aA might argue that it would be easy to decry any modern building if one were to see similar evidence. In many ways, the buildings which excite keyboard commandos are often those which look 'iconic' in plan and elevation, yet the buildings which have a lasting impact on the city are those which focus on the details, not the shape.



i'm usually not optimistic about new/young posters, and this is no exception...
Click to expand...

Normally I have something to say about everything, but you've spoken volumes here. Very well put, ProjectEnd, I agree completely.
 
Well said, ProjectEnd - and point taken.
My comment was reactionary and a bit angry. Typing's cheap and awfully easy.

However, I do have some concerns this new work about Aa. Not the firm, or the quality of the work they do in and of itself (which, in it's finished form I think is generally excellent), but where that work is being deployed, and it's context. My venting at the line drawing shown in the proposal above is, partly, a reaction to the sudden rush to build exceedingly tall on Charles Street of all places.

501 Yonge is what made me cautious. It looked to me like a developer had gotten ahold of Aa's skill and over-inflated it with speculation. For me, that was where their reductive simplicity took on a problematic quality - it looked like the art and integrity in their work might dwindle to being little more than sugar on the horse pill.

So, that stuck. And now, this.
I don't like that Charles Street is being so rashly developed. With this Aa building, I see 'developer' again more than I see 'architecture', as I think a firm with Aa's skill would be generally be more sensitive to context. The gently historical nature of Charles Street is bad place to be putting such large buildings. However fine-tuned a building Aa produces, it won't be a stand-alone object. It will put the smaller historical buildings on sufferance.
There a plenty of places to put this building in the city, where it would look great, and be complimentary. Naturally this would make the things that compose the building seem worthy and purposeful, instead of problematic.

But here, along with Casa and Chaz - speculation deployed by forces whose considerations are dubious is resulting in the overturn of a street. In this case, that changes the feel of the plans for me, and clouds the virtue of the things that will go into making it.
I would rather see it go elsewhere and be free to be thoroughly enjoyed, than go here and be the impeccably assembled face of inconsiderate development.
 
Last edited:
aA has designed plenty of good work but they have a tendency to repeat themselves and right now they're spread too thin. I think we all know what a glass box looks like by now and we don't need any further reminders. A city such as Toronto, with so much cultural diversity, shouldn't have such a limited architectural palate--especially given our rather modest natural assets. We need more variety and colour--and would it kill us to throw in the occasional doodad?
 
CN, you have nothing to apologize for. This proposal is nothing more than a weak excuse for a '60's apartment building. The fact that this ridiculous proposal is reaching 57 stories does not make this a good project, it makes it worse. I don't believe any self respecting architect would ever propose such a mundane tasteless building unless his arm was twisted by some greedy developer that refuses to spend any serious money to produce a respectable architecturally pleasing building.

I hope this proposal gets shot down and the land is sold to a more ambitious developer but unfortunately That's not likely. There's too much money to be made building these rectangular inexpensive knock-offs.

It seems you can get an architectural degree with cereal boxtops these days - no talent required.
 
I have no problem with aA's proclivity toward glass boxes. That's simply their design language and I applaud them for their willingness to promote a consistent theme. That's what gives their designs meaning and that's what true "artists" do. My problem is that recently they seem to be resting on their laurels instead of further evolving their style.

Spire, 18 Yorkville, Murano, Casa, X, Four Seasons, Pier 27, Market Wharf, East Lofts and the Distillery towers were all fantastic and original designs, which established aA's bona fides. That momentum culminated into designs like Ice and Theatre Park, which in my opinion, were a high water mark, proving that aA could become bolder and more innovative.

Since then I've felt that aA has taken a step backward with each successive design. Peter Street, King Charlotte and the Bloor & Sherbourne towers were all solid but unimaginative efforts. 9 Grenville and 501 Yonge seemed somewhat thoughtless. Casa 2 is simply derivative.

It seems like aA is no longer striving to break any ground. The best word I can think of to describe their recent work is "stale". It's still solid stuff, and remains some of the best work in the city, but frankly it's a little uninspiring given what we know they're capable of doing. I'd like to see aA become more adventurous with their use of materials. For that reason, I've been far more impressed with the stuff coming out of Rudy Wallman's office in the past couple of years.
 
Last edited:
My problem with aA is that it seems that most of their projects have exterior walls that have really high window to wall ratios (isn't Casa and presumably this building close to 100%?). I'd like to see that ratio change a bit, which I would hope would make them alter their future designs more.

I heard at the Pug Awards that KPMB is only designing buildings that have 40% window to 60% wall ratio, which is very pleasing to both interior and exteriors of units/buildings and also subsequently maximizes energy efficiency.

This is obviously not an issue for many people, but I would never buy in an aA project because I have lots of art and books that I need walls for. When you have an open concept kitchen & living/dining room with only one wall you lose options with how you can decorate and where you can place furniture.
 
ProjectEnd said:
Because the firm is unconcerned with creating novel shapes for each of their new buildings, they have more time to work on details like the cladding, the windows, the balcony glass and the modulation of units to eliminate as much waste as possible.

If anything, I'm being too self-deprecating since the off-kilter columns at Clear Spirit, or the aerial walkways on District, or the cut-and-slice balconies on Parc seem to suggest that aA are confidently working on their own, more subtle, bag of tricks. In this sense, if its the clothes that make the building, and believe me, it surely is, then it seems pretty obvious that aA have the best fashion sense in the city.
Click to expand...

The examples you sited are good, in that it the buildings do display personality with those additions.

I would argue with your first point though, just a bit. Efficiency in design is great. I completely agree that this is good and important and I very much appreciate when details to make space more efficient are taken into account. However, I think buildings that have units that are a bit wasteful in some way (let's say, what a bay window does to your average 12'x14' living room) make the building and its units unique and give it that subtle touch that makes that place more of a place and not so anonymous.
 
greenleaf said:
The examples you sited are good, in that it the buildings do display personality with those additions.

I would argue with your first point though, just a bit. Efficiency in design is great. I completely agree that this is good and important and I very much appreciate when details to make space more efficient are taken into account. However, I think buildings that have units that are a bit wasteful in some way (let's say, what a bay window does to your average 12'x14' living room) make the building and its units unique and give it that subtle touch that makes that place more of a place and not so anonymous.
Click to expand...

Fair enough, but for me, the initial stage of a building's life is only really complete when its balconies are filled up with everyone's stuff. The 'unique sense of place' you describe above is often best-achieved with bbq's, laundry, flags, banners, junk, stuff, etc. out on a building's balconies. It's ironic that many here stand by the tall, anorexic, point tower in all of its glassy, transparent glory as the ultimate architectural expression, yet complain that some phantom 'look' has been taken away as soon as the building looks remotely lived-in.

I don't disagree with what you've said (I want to put stuff on walls, ergo I won't buy in this building) but I might relate that I have two separate friends who live in condos downtown. One in Casa (26th floor) and the other in the new phase of Waterpark City (also 26th floor). The difference between their units (which are also similar in floor area) is remarkable. Because the main living space in Waterpark only has one small window, it feels dark, cramped and mass-produced whereas my Casa-dwelling friend has far more fenestration and as a result, his place feels lively and open. I guess what I'm trying to say is that Waterpark feels like it was produced, whereas Casa feels like it was created.
 
You must log in or register to post here.

Back
Top