zang said:
Except that beauty is subjective? Some obviously find this design pleasant. Discounting their opinions means one believes their opinion is the only one that truly matters.

Sometimes, you just have to accept that there will always be something on the skyline that not everyone agrees upon.
Click to expand...
This kind of feels more like willful ignorance. While beauty is somewhat subjective, there are generally accepted guidelines around what makes good architecture. This does not fall within many of those guidelines, sadly.
 
Miss J said:
This tower has been put on hold? i see on the Skyscraper Page's Toronto page it shows it's on hold and so too is the Pemberton tower. We're down from 116 towers built, u/c and completed to 114. We're going the wrong way, lol! 😜
Click to expand...
ehlluiib1o911.jpg
 
urbanexplorer said:
This kind of feels more like willful ignorance. While beauty is somewhat subjective, there are generally accepted guidelines around what makes good architecture. This does not fall within many of those guidelines, sadly.
Click to expand...
And these guidelines are written down where?

Not to be a sh!t about it, but are you sure you aren’t ascribing the term “guideline” to your personal feelings? Because these are the kind of thoughts I hear expressed when others look at abstracts and say, “that’s not art”, because forms aren’t reproduced proportionally, etc.
 
Last edited:
zang said:
And these guidelines are written down where?

Not to be a sh!t about it, but are you sure you aren’t ascribing the term “guideline” to your personal feelings? Because these are the kind of thoughts I hear expressed when others look at abstracts and say, “that’s not art”, because forms aren’t reproduced proportionally, etc.
Click to expand...
Yes I'm sure. That's what they teach in any reputable school for architecture.

Generally speaking, putting profits ahead of people does not make good architecture. This building is shaping up to be the epitome of that. You can see that from the visceral reaction from all the people in this thread.

While you might personally feel like you like the design, that does not in itself mean it's a successful building from an architecture standpoint.

But woohoo, it's tall 🎉
 
urbanexplorer said:
Yes I'm sure. That's what they teach in any reputable school for architecture.

Generally speaking, putting profits ahead of people does not make good architecture. This building is shaping up to be the epitome of that. You can see that from the visceral reaction from all the people in this thread.

While you might personally feel like you like the design, that does not in itself mean it's a successful building from an architecture standpoint.

But woohoo, it's tall 🎉
Click to expand...
See kids ! Don't have this kind of perspective to life !
Judging a building based solely on a single early rendering, without any progress on ground. This is not how architecture works sir ! And this is coming from an architect.
 
Strange Advance said:
See, now that's just a facilely elitist dismissal of those who might like this design, or at least don't mind it.
Click to expand...
I thought it was because that they might be just disagreeing...

...here's the rub from a different perspective (mine). The current shape of the build is okay, which was based on KPF's last design of said building before Cresford went belly up. It tries to at least push the building dynamics outside of the glass box quo with some interesting angles. As well as, it has made fairly decent attempt to keep streetscape dynamics by retaining much of the original heritage facade...thus, It isn't going to feel like walking past a Walmart store podium at that level. So these are good things, IMO.

But to be clear, I am also of the opinion that building of this magnitude and prime location should look as good in the daylight as well as night. Perhaps more so, due the fact that more peeps will likely be seeing it in the waking daytimes as opposed to at night. So it's not an unreasonable expectation by any stretch to make it look good regardless of how subjective the opinions of what good should look like.

As well as, I don't think anyone here is wanting and/or expecting this to be dripping in marble and gold plated window walls either. Lots of examples around buildings looking smart by simply not looking busy. Or by doing something interesting. Etc...

...so I can only hope for the best in this regards. /shrug
 
Last edited:
Can anyone here who likes this design point to a Concord project in Toronto that they think is a good/great piece of architecture in design and execution?
 
allengeorge said:
Can anyone here who likes this design point to a Concord project in Toronto that they think is a good/great piece of architecture in design and execution?
Click to expand...
Probably not, but it's a moot point until the building is finished. Despite the track record, doesn't mean 100% every building will suck.
 
allengeorge said:
Can anyone here who likes this design point to a Concord project in Toronto that they think is a good/great piece of architecture in design and execution?
Click to expand...
Good/great execution yes, but not piece of architecture, their best projects, Takeover ready to go belly up developers projects like Ysl with rock bottom price and turn around, build them with cheap material to make more profit.
 
Last edited:
C-mac said:
Probably not, but it's a moot point until the building is finished. Despite the track record, doesn't mean 100% every building will suck.
Click to expand...
That’s a harder-to-defend position than those who look at Concord’s track record in Toronto, see a bunch of clunkers, and assume this project will be more of the same. It assumes that despite historical behavior, Concord will pull an about-face here. Why?

Heck - Canada House, supposedly a marquee project - is pretty unredeeming architecturally. I’m happy to revisit this thread once we see the cladding go up there so we can comment on Concord’s execution on that marquee project.
 
You must log in or register to post here.

Back
Top