[rpeters]

huh, you,re joking right

I'll retract that part for the sake of keeping this thread on topic and avoiding debate. the trump and gehry comments I believe are spot on though.

 

[NBGtect]

...I'm afraid I'm gonna have to call you on your claim as the latest anonymous self-appointed chat forum expert on the subject.

He does that a lot. It's beyond tiresome.

 

[yyzer]

If you don't like the towers' aesthetic, perhaps you may want to blame the architects? You know, the team who designed it?

Wow...one of the more twisted and useless posts ever on UT....the "towers' aesthetic" of the original design is what the architect designed....the latest iteration is what was left after the architects' vision was destroyed by local meddlers/politicians...

 

[modernizt]

And if you think bureaucracy is the key to good architecture, then I'm afraid I'm gonna have to call you on your claim as the latest anonymous self-appointed chat forum expert on the subject.

Bureaucracy and politics are things that architecture has to work with and contend with. I never said that bureaucracy makes for better architecture. A great architect can work around the issues that arise and create a project that responds to them. I work in the field; I know the frustrations that come from various directions when a design is under development. It's incredibly frustrating, especially if you fall in love with an idea in your head and feel as though it is unlikely to ever crystallize or become reality. But I maintain that the most interesting architecture is usually that which comes from responding to numerous challenges or restrictions.

A building isn't a sure thing. A vision is just that; a mere vision. It has to move through the planning process and the design is eventually crystallized into something buildable. If you take issue with the form of the towers or the aesthetic of the towers, that's a criticism to direct to the team behind the building, the developers and architects included.

Wow...one of the more twisted and useless posts ever on UT....

Figures one of the most "twisted and useless" comments on UrbanToronto would come from someone who actually works in architecture, eh?

 

[AlvinofDiaspar]

Well, there aren't that many good architects for one thing....and any example of good architecture in this city is not a result of such compromise for another. From Revell and City Hall to Mies and TD Centre.

And if you think bureaucracy is the key to good architecture, then I'm afraid I'm gonna have to call you on your claim as the latest anonymous self-appointed chat forum expert on the subject.

Actually all of said projects still have to live within the planning regulations of the day - and the key to good architecture isn't bureaucracy or the involvement thereof - it is patronage.

AoD

 

[interchange42]

Pictures:

42

 

[AlvinofDiaspar]

Wow...one of the more twisted and useless posts ever on UT....the "towers' aesthetic" of the original design is what the architect designed....the latest iteration is what was left after the architects' vision was destroyed by local meddlers/politicians...

There is absolutely nothing stopping Gehry from applying the same flourishes to these two towers.

AoD

 

[interchange42]

Front page story, and more photos coming up on the next page.

42

 

[Red October]

Well Toronto, you'll now be able to lay claim to the ugliest Trump tower in the world, the ugliest Frank Gehry buildings in the world, and probably the ugliest communications/observation tower in the world. Congrats!

Uhhh....

1.

2. Completely subjective if you like his architecture or not.

3. It's one of the best looking communications/observations towers in the world, especially for its era.
But naw, this is better:

 

[interchange42]

More photos:

42

 

[yyzer]

There is absolutely nothing stopping Gehry from applying the same flourishes to these two towers.

AoD

dunno AoD....this is a completely different project now.....might as well be on different planets...

 

[JasonParis]

While I admittedly liked the original design better, it's important to remember that it was never to be built on a vacuum of surface parking lots. This just feels more right. Better city-building that now includes some context regarding the complex site and the valued cultural venue at its core. Glad to hear the OCADU Gallery space has been saved too. This will still be an utterly transformative project for this city, even if slightly scaled-down. I do hope for a few more Gehry flourishes in the final design, but regardless, our skyline will have a bold new exclamation point going forward that will be known the world over!

 

[freshcutgrass]

A great architect can work around the issues that arise and create a project that responds to them.

Perhaps I need to visually explain this to you.

This is how a great architect responds to those "issues" that arise.....

And that folks...is generally how great architecture happens.

 

[AlvinofDiaspar]

dunno AoD....this is a completely different project now.....might as well be on different planets...

Let's not forget, the second iteration isn't a done deal anyways - and I am quite content to let Gehry do his thing and come to what he'd considering as a satisfactory architectural solution. We can't talk about the architect's vision and dictate that we know better than he does at the same time.

AoD

 

[yyzer]

I do hope that going forward, they let him do his thing.......

edit: and I also hope that he is still interested in seeing this through