Things look incredibly forced when everything is pristine and attention grabbing. Cities are still functional entities and not showpieces to stand back and admire. You wouldn't wear a $2000 suit to go to the local bakery either.
 
ProjectEnd said:
Who's to say that this isn't all of those things? Given the discourse in this (and most other) thread(s), I'm surely not putting any faith in the unwashed masses to decide whose aesthetic prevails.
Click to expand...

Isn't elitism amazing? You are clearly superior in judging what looks good due to some unspecified background, let us inferior "unwashed masses" bow down to our our master of design, ProjectEnd.

This sort of attitude prevails in the architectural profession unlike almost anywhere else, and I really don't know where it comes from. It's something that is unprofessional and simply in poor taste.
 
Last edited:
maestro said:
Things look incredibly forced when everything is pristine and attention grabbing. Cities are still functional entities and not showpieces to stand back and admire. You wouldn't wear a $2000 suit to go to the local bakery either.
Click to expand...

Yes, I guess that's why everyone hates London and Paris. People just can't deal with that level of beauty, style and charm. It would be like dating a supermodel, so exhausting. (and attention getting)
 
London and Paris both have tons of grunge. Here, there, everywhere. Anyone who comes back from either of those wonderful cities and thinks that everything was pristine was wearing blinkers while they were there.

42
 
innsertnamehere said:
Isn't elitism amazing? You are clearly superior in judging what looks good due to some unspecified background, let us inferior "unwashed masses" bow down to our our master of design, ProjectEnd.

This sort of attitude prevails in the architectural profession unlike almost anywhere else, and I really don't know where it comes from. It's something that is unprofessional and simply in poor taste.
Click to expand...

Agreed.

The level of pretentiousness displayed by some in this section of UT is nauseating. By and large the only reason I even check out the projects section anymore is to see building updates rather than carry on any prolonged discourse with pompous elitists like PE. I'd much rather spend my time in the transportation section where people don't try to present their opinions as facts.
 
I will agree that the way people present their opinions on UT can become very biting and pretentious. But I also think it is a good point that is worth repeating here; buildings look the way they do largely based on their function. So while it's easy for people to hold the opinion that buildings should always look flashy or stand out or look different from the last, it's not easily put into practice, and it's impractical, because the building first and foremost is a vessel for living in. Its design expression is a function of physics, structure, functionality, comfort, environmental concerns, budget, and the force of gravity, among other things. I think that people on UT get far too caught up in the appearance of a building and take a very low interest in the other factors, such as the actual design of the spaces. The shell of a building is just a small part. I wish people here would get excited about the building as a whole entity.

That said, it's easy to act like a pretentious _ _ _ _ (insert choice word) through a message board and it happens too often, usually repeat offenders. Lots of people do it here and I'll admit there have been times where I've gotten frustrated and talked down to people, and I usually regret that. And it's counterproductive when people are rude about it because it doesn't educate, but rather turns people away from potentially learning something new or taking a more informed perspective.
 
Last edited:
modernizt said:
Have you been to London or Paris?
Click to expand...

Yeah, I spent almost a year living there when I was younger and have been back a number of times. Those are my favourite cities in the world. Even the worst parts of central Paris are beautiful. I'll take their decrepit buildings anytime, although that was not the point of my comment. There are streets in Paris where a whole block is filled with beautiful buildings and most people appreciate having all that beauty in one place. I never suggested that every single street in Paris is lined with beautiful buildings, although I've never seen any areas of Paris that I would consider ugly. I've never been to the outskirts of Paris, where I've heard the worst parts are.

I don't think Toronto will ever be plagued by having streets with too much beauty. In fact, it's quite the opposite. We have very few architectural masterpieces. Most people I know, are underwhelmed by our boring architecture. We need all the help we can get, when it comes to beautiful buildings.
 
I think you put down our colonial roots--an insult to our ancestors who designed and built many great institutions brick by brick ... It was the awful c.1960s-80s developers that wrecked some of our great building stock, and in fact many of them are doing this today--from appalling teardowns of classic Mimico bungalows (replacing them with faux stone & EIFS monstrosities) to destruction of many great churches and retail strips. If the wealthy elite in Toronto today got over their obsession with building vulgar private homes in the city, suburbs and Caledon/cottage country/etc and instead focused on commissioning beautiful modern public buildings or modern homes above retail strips like they did 100+ years ago, we'd be in a rather different situation.

Re: KCC. You must never confuse style with good design. KCC is built in the minimalist glass and concrete style and is a great-looking example. Cinema Tower OTOH, is an appalling example of this style.
Ji3DLCK.jpg


cYbv9Ei.jpg


I appreciate many different styles of architecture, but bad design will always be a failure.
 
Torontovibe said:
Yeah, I spent almost a year living there when I was younger and have been back a number of times. Those are my favourite cities in the world. Even the worst parts of central Paris are beautiful. I'll take their decrepit buildings anytime, although that was not the point of my comment. There are streets in Paris where a whole block is filled with beautiful buildings and most people appreciate having all that beauty in one place. I never suggested that every single street in Paris is lined with beautiful buildings, although I've never seen any areas of Paris that I would consider ugly. I've never been to the outskirts of Paris, where I've heard the worst parts are.

I don't think Toronto will ever be plagued by having streets with too much beauty. In fact, it's quite the opposite. We have very few architectural masterpieces. Most people I know, are underwhelmed by our boring architecture. We need all the help we can get, when it comes to beautiful buildings.
Click to expand...

I'm sure the areas you bring up have effectively looked the same for 50 years with any intensification hidden behind heritage facades. Toronto is not at the stage where it can afford that luxury with development pressure over the past decade that few cities are experiencing. Think you definitely favour prewar over modernism too. Of course, both Paris and London are also striving to put sculptural glass monoliths that are functionally deficient and overall creating some goofy looking skyline. With buildings, I prefer that function proceeds artistic flair.

I'm not surprised at all that people you know find our architecture boring however, that is a very different impression I get from people I know and have met. Most are intrigued and eventually come to the conclusion that they really like it.
 
You must log in or register to post here.

Back
Top