Toronto Corus Quay | ?m | 8s | Waterfront Toronto | Diamond Schmitt

Darkstar416 said:
Someone should e-mail this thread to Diamond (or must I always do these things!).
Click to expand...

We should all do it.

But then what would be the point? He'll probably just tell us that 'we don't get it'.

The design review panel might be a better choice.
 
Great idea, Darkstar. After all, surely at this point credit for the design must be shared equally with Kuwabara's design review panel?

Images of the design as it has evolved have been posted on this forum over the months, and the changes made under the generous tutelage of the panel reflected in them. Kuwabara's team has approved changes they like, and sometimes they've rejected changes because they don't like them. Most recently they have released half of the money earmarked for elements that fit their definition of design excellence - an angular roof and more potential public access included. The members of the design review panel have spoken publicly about the importance of good design on the waterfront - they simply adored the big egg thingy in an earlier design, for instance, and were quite verklempt when they didn't see it in a later version which they then rejected - and some of the articles posted here contain those quotes.
 
Re an earlier comment of mine...
Commerce%20Court%2023.jpg
Commerce%20Court%2025.jpg

...are *these* nothing more than bland, unworthy boxes?

Not to me...
 
how about something like this. with a little bit more sunshine of course. ;)

Hamburg-Science-Center_1_la.jpg


Hamburg-Science-Center_2_la.jpg
 
adma said:
Re an earlier comment of mine...
Commerce%20Court%2023.jpg
Commerce%20Court%2025.jpg

...are *these* nothing more than bland, unworthy boxes?

Not to me...
Click to expand...


That's not the point. I would not be happy to see those buildings on the waterfront. In another context, sure...

Diamond and his fan club here all seem stuck on the idea that a building must either be practical/functional/utilitarian or frivolous/hollow spectacle. The fact that they cannot perceive of a building that achieves both is part of the problem with Diamond's approach to design and architecture, which is more than a little worrisome given all the important commissions he is getting. To go back to Admas's point above, Diamond is fine for certain contexts but his level of vision or competence seems sorely lacking for other contexts where anything other than 'ordinary' is called for.
 
Tewder sees designs that are "frivolous/hollow spectacle" as desirable add-ons, but thank goodness Jack Diamond creates buildings that are "practical/functional/utilitarian" and beautiful instead.

A few years from now we'll have work by Diamond, Clewes, and Daoust within a few blocks, creating a new context on the waterfront and taking full advantage of the possibilities that large sites offer. Given their previous work, we have every reason to expect that this new context won't reflect the values Tewder wants Diamond to graft onto his core values.
 
Urban Shocker said:
Tewder sees designs that are "frivolous/hollow spectacle" as desirable add-ons, but thank goodness Jack Diamond creates buildings that are "practical/functional/utilitarian" and beautiful instead.

A few years from now we'll have work by Diamond, Clewes, and Daoust within a few blocks, creating a new context on the waterfront and taking full advantage of the possibilities that large sites offer. Given their previous work, we have every reason to expect that this new context won't reflect the values Tewder wants Diamond to graft onto his core values.
Click to expand...

That isn't what he said. He's talking about getting a design that achieves both. You may find this building to be beautiful, but that isn't the general consensus.
 
Tewder says, "Diamond and his fan club here all seem stuck on the idea that a building must either be practical/functional/utilitarian or frivolous/hollow spectacle. The fact that they cannot perceive of a building that achieves both is part of the problem with Diamond's approach to design ..."

So, quite clearly, Tewder sees frivolous/hollow spectacle as a desirable add-on.

Fortunately, Diamond never has.
 
I am not so obsessed about this particular building since it only a rather tiny component of EBF. The only thing I am annoyed by Diamond et. al. so far is not the design, but the cheap out bait-n-switch (e.g. precast vs. black granite, elimination of the chrome egg, etc).

AoD
 
You must log in or register to post here.

Back
Top