Mike in TO said:
How is it a "cheap-out in the end" when the design hasn't changed from the beginning?
Click to expand...

I guess I mean "cheap out". Period.

Perhaps the sudden debate is due to the fact that no one was expecting this oversized box on top of this sleek, sexy tower.

I'd be curious to hear any thoughts as to why they wouldn't want to keep the clean lines and shape of the building and just continue with a fake facade around the mechanical box. It couldn't be THAT cost-prohibitive.

Also, Mike, why would you compare the city regulating a fast food menu to a monstrous black structure that will be shaping the skyline for decades and decades to come?

And I didn't say anything about the city at all... I'm just perplexed as to why GG wouldn't go that extra little step.

And Marcanadian, personally I don't think a hat would work at all here.
 
Is it really that serious? I don't see anything wrong with the mechanical structure. Heck, when you're standing in front of the building, you don't see it anywyas.
 
JayBee said:
Is it really that serious? I don't see anything wrong with the mechanical structure. Heck, when you're standing in front of the building, you don't see it anywyas.
Click to expand...

99.999 percent of the time 99.9999999 percent of Toronto's population will NOT be directly below this building. Yet we all have to look at it all the time. This is the responsibility to the rest Torontonians that I wish builders would respect. We're stuck looking at their creation for generations.
 
I can't believe the debate about the mech box, its a mechanical box, its a necessary evil, like others posted before, it was part of the original design, I really doubt people will look at the building and even comment on the box.
 
casaguy said:
I guess I mean "cheap out". Period.

Perhaps the sudden debate is due to the fact that no one was expecting this oversized box on top of this sleek, sexy tower.

I'd be curious to hear any thoughts as to why they wouldn't want to keep the clean lines and shape of the building and just continue with a fake facade around the mechanical box. It couldn't be THAT cost-prohibitive.
Click to expand...

Clewes also designed Murano which during construction appeared to have a large two story mech box. Eventually one floor was covered by structural steel with the facade extending upwards... while that isn't a 100% solution, if it's done on X as well, that will help with the perceived problem. There could perhaps be a practical reason for roof access, although that wouldn't prohibit a fake facade being constructed - as far as being cost prohibitive, it's just a cost that gets tacked onto the units.... X2 appears to also have an exposed mech box at the top of the tower.

casaguy said:
Also, Mike, why would you compare the city regulating a fast food menu to a monstrous black structure that will be shaping the skyline for decades and decades to come?
Click to expand...

The constant debate about artistic renderings for sales & marketing purposes completed years in advance of a structure being built is tiring, I may as well complain that my big mac doesn't look exactly like the photo.... the planning department and council approved the "monstrous black structure", as well as every other high-rise where 99% have mechanical features on the roofs. I agree with the previous posts that the box so far is ugly, but not the suggestion that the city needs to step in to regulate the appearance of mechanical boxes or the angles in which artistic renderings are done (the city doesn't have the legislative authority to do so, even if council was crazy enough the decide to regulate the details of how businesses market their products).
 
Last edited:
X's mechanical box makes me feel the same way that the New England Patriots' 2007 season did. They, and X, were perfect all the way until the very end, and it's that sharp contrast that makes something relatively small seem worse.

If the Patriots' hadn't won every regular season game, losing the Superbowl wouldn't have been as big a disappointment. If X had been pretty average until its final floors, the ill-conceived mechanical box wouldn't have been such a big deal.

If you see what I'm trying to say here. Also, I don't even care much for football, but I thought of this as the most apt analogy.
 
Boys, boys, boys ...

While we have been focussing on the Clewesian/Miesian Toronto connection, and the issue of what distinguishes an homage from a faux copy, remember also that this is a residential tower, not an office building like the TD Centre.

And in that light, let's not forget antecedents such as 860-880 Lake Shore Drive - residential towers with two storey rooftop structures ... presumably of a mechanical nature:

http://www.greatbuildings.com/cgi-b..._Drive_Apts.html/cid_1112342806_DSCN0751.html
 
... and the three Mies residential towers in Newark - the Pavilion and Colonnade buildings - also have visible rooftop mechanical thingies.

http://www.flickr.com/photos/paytonc/44832239/

Just as - in a "form follows function" way - the non-office floors that interrupt the midsections of the TD Centre towers aren't exactly hidden, neither are the equivalent aspects to Mies's apartment towers. So if Clewes wants to make such things visible at his Madame X ... why not?
 
Urban Shocker said:
... and the three Mies residential towers in Newark - the Pavilion and Colonnade buildings - also have visible rooftop mechanical thingies.

http://www.flickr.com/photos/paytonc/44832239/

Just as - in a "form follows function" way - the non-office floors that interrupt the midsections of the TD Centre towers aren't exactly hidden, neither are the equivalent aspects to Mies's apartment towers. So if Clewes wants to make such things visible at his Madame X ... why not?
Click to expand...

That's interesting, but what makes the residential towers different than the office towers? Why did Mies hide the mechanical boxes on top of his office towers?
 
If Clewes is following the Miesian aesthetics, he would have to replicate the louvered vents as well - clearly we aren't asking for that level of details. Let's also keep in mind this is a residential project - expecting it to attain a level of aesthetic perfection par a building probably what, 5x the cost is probably not realistic.

As mechanical boxes goes, the one at X looks at this point to be fairly harmless -and if anything, aA is one of the few firms in Toronto that actually handled this aspect well (think Murano, CCBR, Regent Park, etc.) If one wanted real disasters, they should check out something like Rivera instead.

AoD
 
The fact that the mechanical box is clad in black really mitigates the problem. Telus would have looked much better had the mechanical box been clad in purple or something to completement the Telus sign.
 
The one Clewes designed building in Toronto not mentioned so far, in support of the exposed mechanical penthouse is Spire... and that is because it isn't exposed on Spire. If he could design it on Spire (and it is only a residential building as well) then he could have for 'X'.

I don't see cost, commercial versus residential, truly being the sole factor here.
 
JayBee said:
Is it really that serious? I don't see anything wrong with the mechanical structure. Heck, when you're standing in front of the building, you don't see it anywyas.
Click to expand...

Of course it's serious! You don't talk about architecture as "well it's nice when you're up close!" :) That's not good enough is the point.
 
Traynor said:
If he could design it on Spire (and it is only a residential building as well) then he could have for 'X'.
Click to expand...

The point - as mentioned earlier - is that in a residential Mies-homage such as X, there's no reason for the knobby rooftop thingy to be disguised at all ... since Mies didn't hide them on his residential towers either.
 
You must log in or register to post here.

Back
Top