Toronto 241 Redpath | 148.6m | 43s | Carttera | a—A

You’d think after so many years, that aA could come up with something more original. They have the ability; I just don’t know why they don’t expand their design aesthetic more often. Are clients really saying, “I want a building that looks like the one you did in 2010?”
 
I just find it uninspired and, to be frank, lazy. But if that’s really what the client wanted, then aA certainly delivered. I just think they are capable of so much more, as they have proven.

I remember when someone complained back in the 2010 era that aA kept designing slightly different versions of the same building over and over and Urban Shocker’s reply was ‘Toronto would be lucky if every building was designed by aA’. I do not hold that opinion. This city would be incredibly bland if Urban Shocker’s wish had come true. It’s not a coincidence that some of the most interesting buildings, at least for me, in the city post 2000 have been designed by non-Toronto based architects, including Studio Gang (One Delisle), Bjarke Ingels Group (King Toronto), WilkinsonEyre (CIBC), Skidmore, Owings & Merrill with Santiago Calatrava (161 Bay), Frank Gehry (Forma), Snohetta (TMU student building), Foster (One Bloor), Daniel Libeskind (L tower and the ROM addition), MAD (Absolute World), 3XN (Aqualuna), and Will Alsop (OCAD). I long for the glory days of WZMH. Hariri Pontarini and Moriyama Architects (especially Limberlost Place) are my favorite local firms now and have been designing buildings that are not copies of towers they’ve been building for 20 years.There’s a reason Philip Johnson moved away from the design limitations he saw in modernism and its adherence to strict minimalist expressions. Clewes is a neo-modernist and eschews contextualism. Personally, I’m a fan of diversity in architectural design. And we ARE seeing local firms upping their game. Just my humble opinion.
 
Last edited:
Crane went up here today, looks like.


Photo via Instagram/Gabriellicraneco

IMG_3725.jpeg
 

Back
Top