Toronto 180 John Street | 30.48m | 7s | Allied | Gensler

[jje1000]

Simplifying the carvings and other decorative elements would result in a building that isn’t indentical to its original design, though; which is the point I was trying to make. It would be very hard to recreate an exact copy of said building; even more so if the building was Old City Hall or University College at U of T. Any remakes would probably come as well as a McMansion tries to mimic older housing styles.

As for the building pertaining to the thread title: the attention to detail is exquisite, but I find the double cornice awkward. It might look better to remove the lower, original one; but I assume it was left in place to distinguish between the old and the new.

Buildings don't need to be identical to their original forms and decorations to carry forward their original meanings- for instance- the Woolworth Building and MetLife Towers have both heavily simplified their external decorations in the years since they were built. Both the Bay Adelaide Centre/ EY Tower reconstructions are acceptable enough despite the changes in floor heights and even the number of floors.

I would say that proportions and unity of style/form/materiality matter more than anything else- things that McMansions fail to do (since this sort of stuff is no longer taught in architecture school).

This site amusingly goes into the details that separate 'New Traditional' from the 'McMansion Style': http://mcmansionhell.com/101

 

[Wilbury Twist]

Buildings don't need to be identical to their original forms and decorations to carry forward their original meanings- for instance- the Woolworth Building and MetLife Towers have both heavily simplified their external decorations. Both the Bay Adelaide Centre/ EY Tower reconstructions are acceptable enough despite the changes in floor heights and even the number of floors.

I would say that proportions and unity of style/form/materiality matter more than anything else- things that McMansions fail to do (since this sort of stuff is no longer taught in architecture school).

This site amusingly goes into the details that separate 'New Traditional' from the 'McMansion Style': http://mcmansionhell.com/101

Yeah, I've seen that site. Some of it is amusing, while some of the commentary is just snobbish.

 

[jje1000]

I think McMansion architecture is ultimately an expression of corporate-vernacular architecture of the late 20th to 21ist centuries that tries to emulate a vision of the past without having the structural constraints that produced said architecture, or knowing the rules that create that sort of architecture- largely due to the fact that universities in the last 70 years have solely taught students how to make modern architecture and how to chase trends, whereas the populace in large still want houses that feel 'traditional'.

McMansion architecture shouldn't be mocked beyond its wastefulness, but architectural students should be educated about traditional architectural proportions and forms to some degree, I think. Not everyone's going be end up being a starchitect- there's always going to be some architects who will end up designing subdivisions!

Regardless, this has turned out to be a great project- I hope that there's more of this spirit of architecture in select locations- largely so that Toronto can at least consolidate its very fragmented urban fabric.

 

[ProjectEnd]

The final result wasn't the initial design intent. This solution was arrived upon through extensive conversations with various commenting divisions. The initial idea was to carry the expressive, modern language of the rear addition to the front.

 

[jje1000]

The final result wasn't the initial design intent. This solution was arrived upon through extensive conversations with various commenting divisions. The initial idea was to carry the expressive, modern language of the rear addition to the front.

Well I'm glad that didn't happen, because we would have ended up with another glass-box-on-warehouse addition