It's not that he doesn't read them - his objective is to pick a fight, not engage in discussion - further reinforced by post #418 - replying to his posts is futile.
Oh, $%^& off Project End. That you've gotten to a mod stage with that narrow mind of yours is a shame and a pain in the ass. Stop reflexively shitting on people, and just do your job for awhile.
Very true, but Project End is from the other spectrum and doesn't contribute anything positive to the discussion either. If anyone needs me, I'll be camping out somewhere in the middle ground.
Strong language. Let's take a second to dissect what seems to be going on here.
I, unsure what was so ground-breaking about the RAW proposal, asked that very question a page or so back. Responses varied but generally adhered to the: 'it's not a Toronto box' talking-point (buildup, I apologize, I should have responded when you first asked). I didn't and still don't see how canting one wall out then in again and pixelating the other two was symbolic of a dramatic departure from 'the norm.'
interchange then gave us an elegant description of how aA rises above the rest yet still catches flack on UT for not doing...something(?). CanadianNational then posed a list of his/her dream firms to which interchange and Alvin raised fair points about the nature of clients and what Concord might do if they had hired Piano or some other architect of international repute.
neubilder then gave us an 'interesting' conspiracy theory as to why Concord moved from full service firms of the HOK and P+S variety to design-focused offices like KPMB - *hint: the real reason they did this can be found in our Prishram Jain interview from a few weeks back (and people accuse
me of not reading things). Sentinel, egotrippin and arvelomcquaig then offered differing yet generally positive of support for aA.
And here is where things get a bit murky. At this point, our very own Architect let us know that while aA's sense of materiality is superior, their 'designs' are 'below-average,' then oddly invoked my name in a triumphalist, 'I-refuse-to-engage' corollary. Next, I'm being told '$%^& off' and am accused of 'not reading, just arguing' (paraphrased).
So, where does that leave us? Given that the posts taking issue with ProjectEnd centered around trolling and 'forum decorum' (I do like that one!), what can be said about those that followed my own cheeky (though accurate) response to The_Architect? Pause for reflection, no?
I think I find it odd that people take such issue with what I and many others consider to be the best firm in the city. Wouldn't that bile be better-directed at something like Kirkor, G+C, E.I. Richmond, Raphael & Bigauskas, P+S, Baldwin and Franklin and so forth (the list does, sadly, go on and on). Yet many ignore the incredible things aA is doing (re-read interchange's excellent post for a more complete description) and simply choose to harp on the fact that the majority of their work is rectilinear (would anyone accuse David Chipperfield of just doing 'boring British boxes?'). If you need 'proof,' just check out Atlantis' latest photoset in the
Pure Spirit thread. If there's any multi-unit, residential building in Toronto which even approaches the quality displayed there, please let me know.
I am passionate about the firm in question and I wear that passion on my sleeve. It's therefore hard to read uninformed (technically speaking) criticism from members who clearly aren't familiar with how a building is brought to life (no fault of their own). For example, the idea that a box is 'easier' to design than some other shape (save perhaps for Absolute in Mississauga which required a reevaluation of construction techniques and was far costlier because of it) is ridiculous.
It's never my intention to boil blood but sometimes tempers do spill over. It's also hard to receive 'you-only-argue' style snipes after spending hours agonizing over the format of a post (and from members who often refuse to use proper punctuation). However, to anyone I may have offended over the years - I do heartily apologize.
