Armour
Senior Member
Hopefully the crisis-cross pattern will still be added to the mechanical box. That will provide some much needed texture and visual interest.
- Thread starter carturo15
- Start date
It's not good looking because it's shiny and new, it's the beauty of the utter simplicity of this building which many on UT appreciate. Obviously it does not register for everyone.
42
junctionist
Senior Member
I'm sure if it didn't have shiny glass cladding, it would be about as appreciated as a run-of-the-mill 1970s apartment tower in Scarborough.
The quality of the materials is important too, of course, and in this case that's all a part of the simple beauty of this design.
42
42
ProjectEnd
Superstar
Subtle, highly-refined detailing and excellent materials aren't enough to achieve 'appreciation'? It has to do backflips to be 'interesting'?
someMidTowner
¯\_(ツ)_/¯
junctionist
Senior Member
I don't see the "highly-refined detailing". The developer needed to cover the concrete frame to shelter the units, so they applied a standard curtain wall product. They wanted balconies, so the architects added on some straight slabs and used standard translucent railings.
By contrast, nearby towers like Shangri-La and Theatre Park have distinctive details that are architectural--design features beyond the basic cladding.
TheKingEast
Senior Member
But it's aA.
maestro
Senior Member
More than 350 residential towers built in the past ten years and I can count the number using SSG curtainwall on one hand. There is nothing "standard" with the cladding. There's more to design than architectural embellishments.
junctionist
Senior Member
The cladding is merely a product used to achieve the building's practical purpose. The architects don't design it. It's like saying you want a red brick house and going to a few brickyards to find the right kind of brick. (You might order from somewhere else or custom make the brick if you can't find anything suitable.) That's rudimentary design, but you're hardly creating something architectural on that work alone.
WiddleBittyKitty
Felis catus
With every post in this thread, you reveal greater depths of ignorance of architecture.
ProjectEnd
Superstar
While you are correct in stating that cladding is (sadly) merely a 'product,' what I (and others) are referring to in terms of 'detailing' is the method by which the architect does design "it", in the way that the window system (the 'product') is physically attached to the concrete slab (often referred to as a 'standard detail'). What I praise is aA's confident ability to perfect these 'standard details' so that they consistently minimize the less attractive elements of those systems (spandrel, capped mullions, etc) while maximizing their etherial, transparent, effect.
What's also important is that all (or most) of the floorplans resolve themselves in such a way that their outward projection on the building face matches the aesthetic intent of the parti. If these elements must extend to the exterior, as is sometimes the case, they should at least be applied in a manner that compliments the aesthetic of the building (Woodsworth College Residence's use of spandrel, for example, among many others) rather than simply covering space. Put simply, if, for example, one has a projecting piece of window wall (whatever the quality) that defines, say, a corner, it should be emphasized as 'clear' and not be marred by opaque elements demanded by the units within.
While I understand some members' potential frustration with aA's 'consistency' (and, likely, my praise of it), I would urge them to look closer and consider their 'standard detailing' and the collection of construction systems that make the firm among the best. These details can also be observed on non-aA buildings such as Tableau and RCMI, to name a few.
All that said, I would much appreciate the voicing of diverging opinions and encourage anyone who disagrees with the above to speak up!
Last edited:
junctionist
Senior Member
If I'm ignorant, then educate me. Otherwise, you're just cutting me down for no reason, and I don't appreciate that. ProjectEnd posted an interesting response that accepts my point about cladding but points to important subtleties in aA designs that make them noteworthy.
Architecture shouldn't be lost in small subtleties, ideas and esoteric details. Everyone should be able to look at a building and see more than just cladding and balconies--no matter what their background is. Try telling a person on the street or your boss what you told me if they complain about buildings like this one. They'd look at you like you were some jackass.
Architecture is about form and function. A good building is one that impresses the public on both fronts.
Last edited:
Miscreant
Senior Member
That post is, in content and form, an excellent take down.
Evaluating architecture entirely in terms of esoterica misses the crucial point that architecture is the very furniture of public space. It's an exciting art form precisely because it can never be exclusive.
Evaluating architecture entirely in terms of esoterica misses the crucial point that architecture is the very furniture of public space. It's an exciting art form precisely because it can never be exclusive.
arvelomcquaig
Active Member
I agree with junctionist; I, too, don’t understand why everyone heaps praise on this one. I appreciate good materials, but is that enough to make a good building? Architectural merit is about much more than material detail; if the overall form amounts to yet another glistening glass box from afar—which at this point is mind-numbingly boring–then I think no quality of glass can preclude its mediocrity.