I mean, I guess it comes down to people's priorities. Some people feel that the functionality/performance issues that tend to arise in Frank Gehry designs are worth it because they are such expressive and fascinating buildings to look at. And that's valid.

I'm just playing devil's advocate because I think many people at UT are more interested in development, or building aesthetics, than the holistic "architecture" of a building. And I think that's a shame because there are so many interesting forces at work in a building's design.

We bitch at the conservative aesthetics of a building like the Four Seasons Centre, but at least that building WORKS. It was a huge success acoustically (especially given that it sits above a subway station), and in terms of budget, and functions well as a complete building. People give so much credence to the way buildings look and forget to give credit for other aspects of a good design.

If people really value the look of Gehry's buildings enough that all other concerns vanish into thin air, fair enough. But I will continue to say that I think it's ridiculous to refer to architecture as "art" or an architect as an "artist". That's simply not what architects do.
 
Last edited:
SPIRE:

Artistry is one aspect of it - so in a sense, you can call architects "artists" since at the end of the day, their output will be judged from that perspective. Take that aspect away, and all you're left with is engineering - solving a problem without aesthetic concerns as a "mandate". Calling an architect an "artist" by no means take away from the practical aspects of their craft.

AoD
 
AlvinofDiaspar said:
SPIRE:
...you can call architects "artists" since at the end of the day, their output will be judged from that perspective.
Click to expand...


Myself and my peers would disagree. But that's getting into a very complex debate. What I am saying is that people are mistaken if they are going to judge buildings solely from an aesthetic/artistic point of view.
 
Last edited:
I wish they would hurry up and release proper renderings instead of these visions. I want to see how this looks at street level and in the skyline etc..
 
SP!RE said:
I'm just playing devil's advocate because I think many people at UT are more interested in development, or building aesthetics, than the holistic "architecture" of a building. And I think that's a shame because there are so many interesting forces at work in a building's design.

We bitch at the conservative aesthetics of a building like the Four Seasons Centre, but at least that building WORKS. It was a huge success acoustically (especially given that it sits above a subway station), and in terms of budget, and functions well as a complete building. People give so much credence to the way buildings look and forget to give credit for other aspects of a good design.
Click to expand...

Correct me if I'm wrong but isn't the hallmark of good design in the excellence of both form and function? One without the other and it isn't good design then, right? If some are bitching about the FSC it's likely to do with the perceived let-down of design, not function, which to them would point to bad design.




greenleaf said:
This is what I was thinking.

I looked at it again, and I saw the billowing white cloud framing the Anderson facade, as if the facade were a portrait in the Mirvish Gallery. It's absurd in a shocking sort of way, but manages to give a nod to the building as art.
Click to expand...

Yes, isn't this what many of us were advocating for? A layering of architecture here, with Gehry's podium connecting the heritage components and towers. The new renderings show even more clearly how this could work.
 
SP!RE said:
Myself and my peers would disagree. But that's getting into a very complex debate.
Click to expand...

Could you then explain to me the difference between an architect and a structural engineer besides the ability to manage/delegate? Honest question if you feel architects possess no artistic inclination.
 
I never said that architects possess "no artistic inclination". There is plenty of creative inclination amongst architects; you can't be one without having an aesthetic sense.

But please don't buy into the schtick of the architect as some sort of grand visionary who is a "sculptor", as if there are no competing interests other than the creation of an art-piece. Architecture is a hybrid of science and art/design, and each informs the other, every step of the design process. They are inseparable in architectural design.
 
Last edited:
Is there any idea as to when proceedings start on acceptance or rejection of this project. By Oct. it will be a year since the initial proposal.
 
Wow, this dog's breakfast just got worse!.... Allow me to explain:

Gehry's appeal to the "fan-boy, teenager, gee-wow how did they do that, that's so cool, neat-o, far-out, sick, wicked!" mentality speaks to the unsophisticated nature of his design aesthetic. LET ME BE CLEAR: The design aesthetic and the overall look of the buildings is unsophisticated, NOT the engineering. The level of advanced engineering and construction to realize these monstrosities, is on the highest order and must be commended. However, just because you can, doesn't mean you should.

Dr. Suess was designing buildings like this 60 years ago and guess who his target market was?

It is childish to swoon over the gee-wow factor, just as much as if these three 80-plus storey towers were in the shape of Darth Vader, Luke Skywalker and C3PO. They would receive the same accolades and marvel at the wonder of how they did that and the same fan-boy mentality would find it appealing. However, they are not the ones that I want my cities designed for.

It's bad enough that ALL Hollywood movies are written directed and acted for the benefit of the 13 year-old boy mentality, do we have to have our cities look like it too?

Oh... And anyone who disagrees with my opinion with a thoughtful, intelligent, well-formed, mature argument is a welcomed opponent for debate AND to anyone who takes my comments personally and is offended, you are a 13 year-old fan-boy and I don't argue with 13 year-olds.
 
Last edited:
gabe said:
I wish they would hurry up and release proper renderings instead of these visions. I want to see how this looks at street level and in the skyline etc..
Click to expand...

So you want them to 'hurry up' and spend $100,000 creating images of a building which has no finalized design, does not have the support of planning staff and who's future is uncertain because of the cooling market? Savvy.
 
Traynor:

One thing I do find it slightly perplexing though - isn't the interest in tall buildings by itself a "fan-boy, teenager, gee-wow how did they do that, that's so cool, neat-o, far-out, sick, wicked!" (to put it uncharitably) response? I mean, most people (particularly on UT and similar forums) get excited not even because of the aesthetics of the building itself - to fault someone of liking "unsophisticated nature of his [sic Gehry's] design aesthetic" misses the mark, I think.

AoD
 
AlvinofDiaspar said:
Traynor:

One thing I do find it slightly perplexing though - isn't the interest in tall buildings by itself a "fan-boy, teenager, gee-wow how did they do that, that's so cool, neat-o, far-out, sick, wicked!" (to put it uncharitably) response? I mean, most people (particularly on UT and similar forums) get excited not even because of the aesthetics of the building itself - to fault someone of liking "unsophisticated nature of his [sic Gehry's] design aesthetic" misses the mark, I think.

AoD
Click to expand...

To answer your question...

Yes

But that is another windmill that I will tilt at another day.

:)
 
Frank Gehry's boldness, and pure imagination astounds me. But what astounds me equally is those builders who are so able to interpret and actually execute the building of these works of living, functioning, art. If this isn't sophisticated architecture? i don't know what building is!
 
You must log in or register to post here.

Back
Top