ProjectEnd said:
It's depressing how much better all three of those buildings are than this...

I mean:
51213974723_56e7ec82f6_b.jpg

Link
Click to expand...

True, but we should be thanking our lucky stars we didn't get the WZMH version of this. What's truly depressing is how we consider what is simply competent as extraordinary in this town.

AoD
 
Last edited:
Very nice grid, proportions, details, etc. It's an excellent facade for an institutional building but it's basically another grey box, which I dare say we have more than enough of in Toronto. Even though it would probably not be appropriate for a courthouse I prefer the whimsy and color of the hoardings.
 
I've seen it in person and in photos. It looks like a background building, and it's odd that we get such big-name firms to design such buildings. There seems to be no sensibility at the provincial level of government of how to build a landmark.
 
junctionist said:
I've seen it in person and in photos. It looks like a background building, and it's odd that we get such big-name firms to design such buildings. There seems to be no sensibility at the provincial level of government of how to build a landmark.
Click to expand...

The government really isn't out to build a landmark - in fact it is probably a liability for any P3 proponent wanting to take (design and financial) risks to go that route. Can you imagine the provincial government accepting any proposal that would truly make this a "palais de justice"? I mean put it another way - would any current government at any level take the risks like Toronto did with New City Hall in the current climate?

AoD
 
Last edited:
^It's really a sad state of affairs, considering the 100+ other ways the government pisses away money.

We'll plough X billions of dollars to tunnel things in order to save trees and 10 people's backyards, but then turn around a value engineer important infrastructure to save a quick buck. Not to say this project was value engineered, because it wasnt.
 
AlvinofDiaspar said:
The government really isn't out to build a landmark - in fact it is probably a liability for any P3 proponent wanting to take (design and financial) risks to go that route. Can you imagine the provincial government accepting any proposal that would truly make this a "palais de justice"? I mean put it another way - would any current government at any level take the risks like Toronto did with New City Hall in the current climate?

AoD
Click to expand...

The current climate isn't that relevant in my opinion. This project was conceived of and funded years ago in a different climate. I think the fears are overblown. Sure, they'll be some critics in the legislature. There are always are, no matter what you do.

As long as the design isn't one with costs that spiral out of control, people would like it. Architecture can be a kind of populism, one with intellectual credibility too. There are many ways of designing a landmark that don't involve that much risk. Just create an interesting profile against open sky, and you're halfway there.
 
junctionist said:
The current climate isn't that relevant in my opinion. This project was conceived of and funded years ago in a different climate. I think the fears are overblown. Sure, they'll be some critics in the legislature. There are always are, no matter what you do.

As long as the design isn't one with costs that spiral out of control, people would like it. Architecture can be a kind of populism, one with intellectual credibility too. There are many ways of designing a landmark that don't involve that much risk. Just create an interesting profile against open sky, and you're halfway there.
Click to expand...

This particular project is conceived very much in the same climate - it (and other public projects) are delivered via P3 for a reason -cost control (if not at least the optics of it). As to designing a landmark just because "people like it" - you end up with situations like Aura, where sure, you created an interesting profile against open sky, but did you create durable, timeless quality architecture? At the risk of sounding elitist - be careful who you are pleasing.

AoD
 
AlvinofDiaspar said:
This particular project is conceived very much in the same climate - it (and other public projects) are delivered via P3 for a reason -cost control (if not at least the optics of it). As to designing a landmark just because "people like it" - you end up with situations like Aura, where sure, you created an interesting profile against open sky, but did you create durable, timeless quality architecture? At the risk of sounding elitist - be careful who you are pleasing.

AoD
Click to expand...

Aura is an interesting and memorable design held back by cladding and a low-end underground mall. With the right cladding, it could have the presence of Detroit's Renaissance Center. It can always be reclad. In fact, it's almost certain that it will be reclad over the decades as part of regular maintainance. It's not that hard to avoid the bottom of the barrel in terms of finishes.

interchange42 said:
Part of the brief here was to provide high quality backdrop for Toronto City Hall, and to not compete architecturally with it. That said, that mandate was informed by the restraint applied to civic buildings these days.

42
Click to expand...

This sort of "don't compete" mantra to architecture makes the city duller in my opinion. It's more interesting and accomplished to have multiple landmarks harmonize with each other through massing and design details. For instance, at U of T, in a 5-10 minute walk you'll see Robarts Library, University College, Convocation Hall, and the provincial legislature.

It's one landmark after the other, in styles ranging from Gothic Revival to Romanesque Revival to Brutalism. It's one of the most beautiful and architecturally distinguished parts of the city.

Similarly, King and Bay has impressive landmarks at all 4 corners. We'd probably be fine with the Miesian splendour of the TD Centre, but it's actually a lot more interesting having First Canadian Place, Scotia Plaza, Commerce Court, and Brookfield Place across the street.

They're all competing with each other yet are quite harmonious. It's like the competition of a trial in court with two esteemed professionals respectfully competing to achieve their clients' desired outcomes before the decision maker. It's also like athletes competing aggressively but respectfully for supremacy at the Olympics or a world championship.

The competition itself is not offensive but rather quite engaging and satisfying to watch. It's contingent on an element of respect among the participants and an element of order to the process.
 
You must log in or register to post here.

Back
Top