[ProjectEnd]

I'm sorry, I'm going to have to outright disagree with you on that. Symmetry is the ultimate beauty and perfect proportion.

Symmetry (from Greek συμμετρεῖν symmetreín "to measure together") has two meanings. The first is a vague sense of harmonious and beautiful proportion and balance.[1][2] The second is an exact mathematical "patterned self-similarity" that can be demonstrated with the rules of a formal system, such as geometry or physics. (wikipedia)

Some of the words most amazing buildings are symmetrical. Some of the worlds most amazing churches and monuments are symmetrical. Some of the most awkward and depressing buildings to look at are not...

Some of them are, some are not. If "symmetry is the ultimate beauty and perfect proportion" then would all of the world's most amazing buildings, churches and monuments adhere to this rule? What's more, if only "some of" the "most awkward and depressing buildings to look at" are not symmetrical, does this mean that "some of" them are?

Your poking holes in your own faulty logic.

 

[dt_toronto_geek]

The photo of that "house" sets off my OCD meter with that rock and tree on the left, Couture does not.

 

[SP!RE]

I'm sorry, I'm going to have to outright disagree with you on that.

You don't have to define "symmetry" for me. In architecture school we've covered it many times, mostly in discussions of why it has little place in modern buildings.

 

[interchange42]

I'm sorry, I'm going to have to outright disagree with you on that. Symmetry is the ultimate beauty and perfect proportion.

Symmetry has its place, and that's not every place. Yes, it works beautifully when you have a great design. The Parthenon springs to my mind… and even yet, though the design of the Parthenon is one of the most universally revered in history, it's not usually the symmetrical façade that we see straight on in photographs. Rather it's the three-quarter view of the Parthenon that we see again and again and again. I'd argue that's because it adds depth and complexity and therefore is of more interest for the viewer. Sure, symmetry can be beautiful, but it needs to be balanced by 'the chaos' around it to really work.

Source

Back to Couture's uneven top though: when I see asymmetry I don't recoil in horror, I get more interested. I think that's the way it is for a lot of people too. You won't find that everyone subscribes to your theories here.

42

 

[someMidTowner]

Symmetry, just like asymmetry seems to be completely hit or miss.
For every Parthenon there is a Ryugyong.

 

[Canadian Chocho]

^^ Hell you could make the strong arguement that that is preciely the perspective we're supposed to look at it from (many art historians will say this is fact). If you follow the path of the Sacred Way in the Acropolis, you are introduced with the Parthenon from an asymmetrical viewpoint, not face to face.

Look at the Romans if you want symmetry, the Greeks were more of an ordered chaos folk.

 

[AlbertC]

Re: Monster house on previous page.

Yikes! What a terrifying mixture of gaudy old-world grandness and kitschy new -world design motifs. Kind of like Versailles meets MacMansion. Brampton is such a dreary place, best to avoid it.

 

[urbandreamer]

Symmetry is fine...but in the wrong hands it can be dangerous. I would never trust G+C with even a straight line.

 

[AlbertC]

My all-time favourite asymmetrical building. Love the piercing angles.

 

[SP!RE]

The problem with symmetry isn't just aesthetics. In fact, aesthetically it can be quite pleasing, though I would posit, very boring.

The main issue is that a building should be designed for functionality as well. You don't start designing something with the idea "I am going to design something symmetrical." Imagine what that could do to your plans and the flow of the interior spaces! Extremely limiting.

 

[interchange42]

The problem with symmetry isn't just aesthetics. In fact, aesthetically it can be quite pleasing, though I would posit, very boring.

Exactly what I'm saying.

The main issue is that a building should be designed for functionality as well. You don't start designing something with the idea "I am going to design something symmetrical." Imagine what that could do to your plans and the flow of the interior spaces! Extremely limiting.

But there are those who very specifically do design with symmetry in mind, like those who designed the house I posted on the previous page. That's not my cup of tea, but obviously it is for others. I can't tell them that they are objectively wrong, just as they can't prove the reverse to me (or you, or Canadian Choc, or AlbertC, or etc…)

42

 

[junctionist]

I don't know how symmetry versus asymmetry could even be debated when there are thousands of great examples of both in the world of architecture. To choose one or the other is to limit creativity.

 

[4grand]

Some of them are, some are not. If "symmetry is the ultimate beauty and perfect proportion" then would all of the world's most amazing buildings, churches and monuments adhere to this rule? What's more, if only "some of" the "most awkward and depressing buildings to look at" are not symmetrical, does this mean that "some of" them are?

Your poking holes in your own faulty logic.

Good God.

First of all, no offense, but I believe you mean "you're". I'm a linguistics major, so don't take it personally.

Secondly, I never said that every building must be symmetrical for it to be worthwhile, nor did I ever say that unsymmetrical buildings are always unattractive.

Empire State Building, Chrysler Building, Rockefeller Centre. I just wish buildings like Couture could take inspiration from classics like those, as opposed to some demented idea of what futuristic factories will look like.

There is a reason London, Paris, NYC, Chicago, Boston, Amsterdam, Prague, and Rome all have such classic and warm feelings associated with them. They aren't all basic, square designs, made out of glass and cold, grey steel.


edit: I'm sitting in the new addition to the reference library at Yonge/Bloor as I type this. The cold, grey steel and boxy glass that lines this new addition, is so cheap looking that I avert my eyes from it. It is this same, cold, grey steel and glass motif that has become ubiquitous in Toronto, and in my opinion, is ruining and cheapening the city.

How anyone could compliment Couture is beyond me. It looks like a 5-year old drew a square and then two rectangles on either side. He shortened one rectangle to add some kind of basic, tacky design element and felt that he had actually designed a building, worthy of standing erected in a city. He drew the podium in about 3 minutes after drawing shapes on awkward angles, and then added a giant, hideous box on top to house the mechanics of the building. By this point, his favourite cartoon had just started on TV and he decided he didn't care enough to try to incorporate the box on top into the design at all. He then scribbled down what materials he would use, and built it out of the cheapest and tackiest materials possible.

 

[4grand]

You don't have to define "symmetry" for me. In architecture school we've covered it many times, mostly in discussions of why it has little place in modern buildings.

Good for you. There are as many terrible architects as there are good ones, so whether you went to school and learned it is peripheral at this point.

Did they teach you pretension too? Which Architecture School did you go to?

 

[ProjectEnd]

Good God.

First of all, no offense, but I believe you mean "you're". I'm a linguistics major, so don't take it personally.

Secondly, I never said that every building must be symmetrical for it to be worthwhile, nor did I ever say that unsymmetrical buildings are always unattractive.

Empire State Building, Chrysler Building, Rockefeller Centre. I just wish buildings like Couture could take inspiration from classics like those, as opposed to some demented idea of what futuristic factories will look like.

There is a reason London, Paris, NYC, Chicago, Boston, Amsterdam, Prague, and Rome all have such classic and warm feelings associated with them. They aren't all basic, square designs, made out of glass and cold, grey steel.

edit: I'm sitting in the new addition to the reference library at Yonge/Bloor as I type this. The cold, grey steel and boxy glass that lines this new addition, is so cheap looking that I avert my eyes from it. It is this same, cold, grey steel and glass motif that has become ubiquitous in Toronto, and in my opinion, is ruining and cheapening the city.

How anyone could compliment Couture is beyond me. It looks like a 5-year old drew a square and then two rectangles on either side. He shortened one rectangle to add some kind of basic, tacky design element and felt that he had actually designed a building, worthy of standing erected in a city. He drew the podium in about 3 minutes after drawing shapes on awkward angles, and then added a giant, hideous box on top to house the mechanics of the building. By this point, his favourite cartoon had just started on TV and he decided he didn't care enough to try to incorporate the box on top into the design at all. He then scribbled down what materials he would use, and built it out of the cheapest and tackiest materials possible.

Maybe not in those words but this certainly seems to imply something along those lines:

I'm sorry, I'm going to have to outright disagree with you on that. Symmetry is the ultimate beauty and perfect proportion.

Symmetry (from Greek συμμετρεῖν symmetreín "to measure together") has two meanings. The first is a vague sense of harmonious and beautiful proportion and balance.[1][2] The second is an exact mathematical "patterned self-similarity" that can be demonstrated with the rules of a formal system, such as geometry or physics. (wikipedia)

Some of the words most amazing buildings are symmetrical. Some of the worlds most amazing churches and monuments are symmetrical. Some of the most awkward and depressing buildings to look at are not...

You're really splitting hairs here - it's fine to like symmetry but as Junctionist said above, to believe that it alone can create better buildings limits one's creativity to a far more finite set of expressions.

So let me offer this: Do I like Couture? Nope. Would it have been better had G+C made it symmetrical? Nope.