So are statues, murals, sculpture, and memorials. Just down the street is the new 30ft abstract work by Albert Paley at the corner of Yonge & Gloucester. It will likely be there as long as and be more noticed than the architecture of the building it goes along with. After all, Paley’s piece is bright red and at street level. Far fewer however, will look up to analyze the design above the podium, or care if “premium” materials are used on the balconies.
That's your opinion. Perhaps the architecture won't be noticed because it looks like every other building.
No, if someone can point me to and explain which of the aforementioned “guidelines of architecture” that have been allegedly broken, I’ll be more than happy to concede it’s not subjective opinion.
There are many kinds of architectural styles with different principles, but modernist architecture often ignores what makes all of them successful.
Not everyone will be in full agreement, ever.
I agree with you there but most people can agree that Toronto, in general, is not the prettiest of cities. That doesn't mean we don't have amazing places or decent ones, it means that as a whole it isn't aesthetically-pleasing. You should search for surveys to see where the public stands on architecture. The most well-liked buildings are not modernist, and the ones that are usually have a contextual or a poetic approach... like Frank Lloyd Wright's buildings. It doesn't seem like a good idea to just stick to the same styles that work, but clearly much of today's architecture is unpopular and designers need to think about the successes of old buildings to inform new styles of architecture. There are many contemporary projects that are very popular... like
Aqualuna! It's not classical but there's a reason so many people like it, as do I. Perhaps the form, elegant curves, people-centric public realm, the beautiful copper (not grey), and maybe... just maybe... that there's a theme going on that ties into the ambitious revitalization of our waterfront. Most people also like
CIBC Square. Just look at the comments and reactions!
Some good proof of popular opinion re architecture...
https://www.bloomberg.com/news/arti...t-modern-ones-in-u-s-poll?srnd=citylab-design
Survey results:
https://www.civicart.org/americans-preferred-architecture-for-federal-buildings
One’s brutalist masterpiece is another’s ugly hulking bunker.
Some people like brutalism. Most people hate it. There are exceptions, of course, but in general it is an unpopular style that has a troubled past of scarring the urban fabric of cities.
Enough of the skyline-genital-measuring-contests
It really is a tasteless d_ck measuring contest
Not an architect. But if you’re arguing about there being objective tenets of architecture, shouldn’t the word of an architect hold more weight? Otherwise, you’re just getting back into subjectivity.
No. The difference is an architect knows all the technical stuff but, like I said, it is people that have to look at and live in the works of architects... so it is their opinions that must matter the most.
At the same time, architects work for developers so of course they praise these designs... because that's where their salary comes from.
