HHC
Active Member
Oh lord what the **** are they doing now.
|
|
|
- Thread starter Hypnotoad
- Start date
junctionist
Senior Member
From the moment I heard about the proposed electronic ticker at the top of the tower I felt that something wasn't right about their approach to reusing this attractive stone heritage building.
ponyboy
Active Member
yeah, not clear what the vertical window in the tower adds, and the electronic ticker is just silly. They should be endowing chairs and hiring the best scholars with this money, not adding another space for a department that should be housed in the munk centre. Vanity.
Whenever someone has to pronounce how innovative and path breaking they are on signage outside their building, there usually is not enough of that going on there (Rotman and this new School are good examples of this).
Whenever someone has to pronounce how innovative and path breaking they are on signage outside their building, there usually is not enough of that going on there (Rotman and this new School are good examples of this).
condovo
Senior Member
Natural light
junctionist
Senior Member
It seems like it would have been more appropriate to create a set of windows similar to the old ones with a similar stone design enveloping the windows. This looks like the work of a bunch of hacks taking the easy way out. It's hardly impossible to match that stonework.
ProjectEnd
Superstar
Probably - the natural light it will provide to the meeting rooms within will be invaluable to the spirits of their users.
Renovating.
Not sure what you're on about here. From the article on the previous page:
Sure, but why attempt to replicate the efforts of generations past? The 'easy way out' you speak of smacks of the sort of sophomoric, dumbfoundingly-intransigent pedantry that Charles attempted to make the calling card of his Foundation, but which ironically delegitimized the operation as a whole. As you note, it would be 'hardly impossible' to recreate the stonework, but the broader capitulations that that would imply are hardly worth the effort.
SP!RE
°°°°°°
Speaking like a pretentious boob isn't going to make your points get across. "sophomoric, dumbfoundingly-instransigent pedantry"? Oh Lord.
The vertical window they've sliced into the rounded portion is very unflattering to the building. I think we all know that bigger windows bring more natural light into a building. The issue is how ridiculously misplaced it looks, and it makes no attempt to be remotely seemless.
The vertical window they've sliced into the rounded portion is very unflattering to the building. I think we all know that bigger windows bring more natural light into a building. The issue is how ridiculously misplaced it looks, and it makes no attempt to be remotely seemless.
junctionist
Senior Member
I was thinking of the ticker mentioned in the original article:
If they decided against mounting one of those rounded tickers on the tower, then it's good that they came to their senses.
Why attempt to recreate the efforts of generations past? Because so long as we preserve their buildings, so long as we enjoy their aesthetic and respect their design, we have no reason not to when it comes a building they designed. In fact, how can we not speak their language if we're dealing with their architecture, not just as an addition, but the very facades they put up?
I'd say it's best to leave Prince Charles and his conservative views on new architecture out of this. Judging from your use of "capitulation", it's sounds as though you're thinking along Modernist lines, the design philosophy that was supposed to be revolutionary. Except for all its gains, it was hardly relevant and successful in every context. (We can't even identify with it being modern or the spirit of our generation anymore, for it's coming up on a hundred years since the Bauhaus.) There's no surrender. We've seen that the Modernist cause had it's strengths and weaknesses, and it's alright if few people identify that strongly with it anymore. It doesn't have to mean our buildings will end up looking like Chicago in MCC. What's pedantic is in the 21st century, after Robert Venturi and the like, to peddle a New Modernist aesthetic down to "we won't turn back" revolutionary ethos.
KPMB has brought us the Munk Centre for International Studies, where the additions align beautifully with old building, and brick and granite cladding perfectly matching the old building. Their additions look and feel like a natural extension of the building. With this project, I suspect it's going to look awkward. For an architect to be able to pull off appropriate historical details in the appropriate context and then showcase a great contemporary design shows a truly intellectual approach to design that's hardly pedantic. Past styles were both beautiful and sophisticated; if you want to move on, do so without ignoring them or rejecting them completely. Especially when you're handling a renovation.
SP!RE
°°°°°°
ProjectEnd got told.
androiduk
Senior Member
An awful lot of work to put in this window
urbandreamer
recession proof
^Painful to see them destroy this building.
From henceforth, I'm calling it Munk's Cheese.
From henceforth, I'm calling it Munk's Cheese.
androiduk
Senior Member
All ready for the new window
Dan416
Senior Member
I'm sorry I just don't like it. Why couldn't they just have left it alone?
Big Daddy
Senior Member
Boy, for architecture fans some of you just have no vision. Why can't you wait and comment on the final product? It's blending old with new - just relax and wait.
Towered
Senior Member
Thankfully this disfigurement is on the south side so that I won't be subjected to it when walking by on Bloor.