DasilvaS17
New Member
I don't think the building looks bad... nor is it a great looking building. Its "ight".
but lets wait to see how the end result will look like
but lets wait to see how the end result will look like
- Thread starter voxpopulicosmicum
- Start date
isaidso
Senior Member
Gawd, if Toronto looked like that photo above I'd move. What a depressingly sterile view that is. Holy YUCK!
DtTO
Active Member
^ That's ridiculous! Personally, I base where I live on how the stars align at the time.
salsa
Senior Member
Look at all the lovely gems in that photo. You have the disaster that is 300 Front, then this mediocre building under construction, the "success" tower (Lol), and the Pinnacle on Adelaide. Which one would you like to live in?
someMidTowner
¯\_(ツ)_/¯
The Success Tower is not in that photo
salsa
Senior Member
My bad. It's actually the TIFF Bell glass box
maestro
Senior Member
Best to move if a cross section photo of some mid market condo towers bothers you.
4grand
Active Member
I'm with you. Take a look at XCondos and Couture, the futuristic factory right to the north of it. Same idea. Just blandness.
Having said that, there are lots of new, glass condos going up that are quite attractive. Unfortunately, there will always be builders and architects who have no clue what aesthetics is, nor do they have any sense of foresight. They just know "what looks futuristic, right now".
isaidso
Senior Member
Did they ever look futuristic? Sometimes bland is just bland and they're bad the second they go up. We've made numerous architectural blunders in this city. Thankfully, areas void of architectural interest are the exception. I suppose some of these mistakes will be re-clad 20, 30, 40 years down the road. We'll just have to squint till then.
Last edited:
Thanos
Active Member
The Pinnacle on Adelaide is a very nice building.
I'd like to see more buildings in Toronto use yellow brick.
Thanos
Active Member
I meant in general for the yellow bricks. I much prefer yellow bricks over red or grey bricks.
4grand
Active Member
Hey, you're right.
And yes, I think a lot of architects make their buildings look "what is futuristic in that certain year". And by that I mean, if they design a building in 2006, they design it in accordance with what the future looked like in 2006 to them. Unfortunately, that is only trendy for a short period, and by the next year or so, something else completely different looks futuristic.
Am I saying they actually look futuristic, I don't think so. I'm just trying to say that that was the motif.
I know people will disagree with me, but I feel that Brutalism, back 30-40 years ago, seemed futuristic and new. Unfortunately, that idea of the modern-future, looks absolutely dystopic, drab, and depressing today.
York University campus is a perfect example, at least to me, of this concept. Every few years they build some showy new building which looks futuristic in that year, but after a few decades, the campus looks like a mish-mash of terrible, old styles that came and went within a few years. Styles change, and that's okay if it's clothing. But if you are going to build a building which will sit in place for a minimum of 100 years, you don't want it to look like what they thought the future was in 1995, or 2003, or 2014.
Also, a strange comparison, but look at the original Star Wars. They thought clunky push buttons looked futuristic on Darth Vader's chest, to make him look somewhat robotic. Today, we chuckle because push-buttons are a sign of old-school technology. Anything that advanced would need a changeable screen interface with the ability to do a variety of tasks, like any tablet or smart phone. In the 70s, push-buttons on some guy's chest was very futuristic. Today, while cool to see what the past looked like on film, it's quite laughable.
It takes skill to design buildings that will represent their era, but at the same time, outlast any temporal stylish aesthetic of that specific date.
So 4grand, for those architects who aren't trying to make their buildings look "what is futuristic in that certain year", how are they trying to make them look?
42
42
modernizt
Senior Member
I think it's funny that people are talking about architects designing a building to "look" a certain way. We're far more concerned with the aesthetic response to a set of functionalities.
And in that sense, an architect is generally designing very much for the "here and now" (apart from some gimmicky architects like Zaha Hadid). Using the current ideas on spacemaking, building technologies, and packaging them into a building with a resultant aesthetic.
And in that sense, an architect is generally designing very much for the "here and now" (apart from some gimmicky architects like Zaha Hadid). Using the current ideas on spacemaking, building technologies, and packaging them into a building with a resultant aesthetic.