Toronto 88 Scott Street | 203.9m | 58s | Concert | P + S / IBI

It's sad that Urban Shocker has to bring the Nazis into this discussion. Clearly the old girl is off her rocker. In a world of curves and novel shapes she just can't cope.
 
Total newbie here, raised in Toronto but now living in Vancouver. I have had dealings with three BC based developers, one of them Concert. Concert is the best of the three, by far. I have fairly detailed knowledge of a Concert project that will commence construction in early 2012. I don't see skimping on material or design and ihave dealt closely with the architecht they have employed on a companion building.

I recognize that there is little reason to accept the word of a brand new poster but, FWIW, I would give Concert the benefit of the doubt with respect to quality of materials and construction. In my experience, they are good folks to deal with.
 
Parkdalian said:
But I do think you have to have *some* taste. And what I mean by that, is that you have to have some reason to like a building *beyond* the fact that it is "not a box" or it is "different." If you are defining your preference for something based on negative qualities - how it is not like something else - than you are not actually expressing a preference for something. You are simply expressing your distaste for this thing you don't like - in this case, what you think aA's designs consist of.
Click to expand...

The minimalistic boxes that abound in Toronto is a very straight forward geometrical form, just because someone doesn't find that form to be very interesting does not mean they are lacking in taste. Personally I generally don't find the form very interesting per se, but that doesn't mean I paint all such buildings with the same brush. Imo, some of the most beautiful buildings in the world are boxes - The 4 Seasons and the Trump World Tower in NYC being two prominent examples that I personally admire greatly.

When it comes to 88 Scott, I don't find it interesting because its not a straight forward box, I like it because I find the massing interesting. It is true that the chances I'd favor it would be much lower if it were a simple box, but it wouldn't automatically preclude that fact.

If I look at an aA building, say Murano, I can talk about how the asymmetry of the window frames creates tension in its facade.
Click to expand...

But that's not something that 'we're missing'. Its one of aA patented design details. However the effect doesn't 'work' for everyone(or for every building). We're not just going to be bowled over by a window pattern even if it is a novel concept by Toronto standards because it does not somehow overwhelm the other design aspects of the building which may or may not appeal to our individual tastes.

Or when viewed in combination with them, the totality of the building can be seen as underwhelming, as is the case for me.

Or how the curves in Market Wharf subtly interplay with one another without being too flashy. Or how the rippling Clear Spirit balconies create changing silhouettes for the building as your eye moves up it. The buildings create new emotions in me - emotions that are not created by other buildings.
Click to expand...

I do indeed see the effect that the balconies on Clear spirits are creating, in fact I most likely have the opportunity to see it and take it in far more often than you do as I pass by the building several times a day by train. But it does not stir those same emotions in me. I respect that such a feature was incorporated into the building but ultimately it doesn't change the way I 'read' the building because its other design aspects are far more pronounced.

Market Wharf however, yet another building that I pass several times a day, does stir those kinds of emotions in me. The curves aren't as you say too flashy but they create a dynamic that interplays well with its other intriguing and well exucuted design features.

Really I'd have to say that the biggest difference between you (and the other aA proponents for that matter) and me would seems to be that I don't automatically discriminate against none aA designed buildings.

But if someone can give me a reason to like 88 Scott that does not involve it being "different" or "not a box," - something positive - I could be convinced to change my mind on it.
Click to expand...

To ask for others to justify or bring to light the aspects of a buildings design is strange way to approach the matter, imo. To be honest, while I find it interesting to hear the opinions of others, I can't say with any certainty that I've ever been swayed as such. I have changed my own opinion on many buildings as they have gone through the construction process, such the aforementioned Market Wharf, but by no means was this because I have 'opened up my eyes and begun to see it'. (and really, you all should stop with that nonsense because it only serves to reinforce how we see you all).
It turns out it simply adhered to my preferences more closely than I could tell from the render.


Urban Shocker said:
( Incidentally, I've never argued that all tastes should converge, merely that the amount of design talent put into creating something will be visible for those with eyes to appreciate it ).
Click to expand...

Anyone else see the contradiction here? The only way that we would appreciate the same buildings that you do is if in fact our tastes converged.
 
Building looks good. Loving that top.... looks awesome and much needed in Toronto. You can be a box and still have some nice flair to it, but you have to be scared for the precast parts... they could turn out well or totally take over the whole design and just destroy it.
 
vegeta_skyline said:
Anyone else see the contradiction here? The only way that we would appreciate the same buildings that you do is if in fact our tastes converged.
Click to expand...

Again, you're expressing the common misconception that there's something wrong if you don't "get it". Lots of people like lots of different buildings, as this forum demonstrates. In all aspects of the creative arts ( including the aesthetic appeal and design of buildings ) there are different levels of talent involved in the creation of works, and therefore different results, as well as different levels of appreciation of those creative works. This thread's one example of how some of us find that the design talent put into creating the building under discussion has resulted in a weak, cluttered and unsatisfactory solution. We "get it" in the sense that we understand why it falls short.

A bored, suburban housewife from Burlington, say, with subscriptions to Canadian Living and Architectural Digest might be over the moon with joy at 88 Scott ( perhaps one is ... ), so clearly not all tastes will converge, but that's not the point. The point is about standards of design. Some prefer to use the word "taste" instead, but taste is about received opinions and is subject to the whims of fashion and some avoid using it.
 
US: Sorry, didn't mean to put words in your mouth. And yes, I'm not using "taste" in a very rigorous sense. I'm just using it as a short-hand for "having an aesthetic reaction" to a building.

Vegeta: you completely missed my point. I'm not saying my taste is better. But that I have an opinion. And that I'm expressing it. The fact that you are on this board and writing posts means that you have opinions too, and that you hope that your posts will open others to the ideas you have. So it seems strange that you don't let other people influence you. ("To be honest, while I find it interesting to hear the opinions of others, I can't say with any certainty that I've ever been swayed as such").

I want people to express their ideas and their very personal feelings about architecture. I love when people provide their own aesthetic reactions to work! And I like certain buildings and I can tell you why I like them. I'm just asking the people who like 88 Scott to provide more concrete reasons why they like this building. Something beyond "interesting" and "different" and "epic" - these are good in a crunch, but I'm pushing some people to be a bit more verbal about what exactly they like. You spent a lot of words misreading my post and critiquing it, without providing any real content about why you like 88 Scott. I find this baffling. Don't people care more about architecture than proving someone else wrong?
 
vegeta_skyline said:
Anyone else see the contradiction here? The only way that we would appreciate the same buildings that you do is if in fact our tastes converged.
Click to expand...

Agreed vegeta. Only a megalomaniac off her medication could be at such a loss for objectivity. Imagine, the constant drooling effort to force square boxes into round holes all day! To be pitied really.
 
The_Architect said:
My god this site can be pretentious.
Click to expand...

Isaac Asimov:

There is a cult of ignorance in the United States, and there has always been. The strain of anti-intellectualism has been a constant thread winding its way through our political and cultural life, nurtured by the false notion that democracy means that “my ignorance is just as good as your knowledgeâ€.
Click to expand...

Applies to Canada now too.

Everyone here speaks whatever language they speak. Don't we all just express ourselves through the vocabulary available to us? I hear that SSC and SSP are a bit more dumbed-down if you'd prefer that.
 
^Exactly what I am talking about. I am not "anti-intellectual".. There is a difference between an intelligent post and a pretentious post.

People like you are unnecessarily condescending. THAT is what I am talking about. You make this site less welcoming and less enjoyable because anyone who differs from your opinion is dubbed an "inferior being".

Jesus if you want to create a pretentious aA circlejerk website, by all means do it. But this is a site for people of all kinds of tastes who are interested in Toronto development. Don't make it a poisonous experience just because you were bullied in elementary school and have to make yourself feel better by acting superior behind a profile on the internet.
 
Last edited:
The_Architect said:
^Exactly what I am talking about. I am not "anti-intellectual".. There is a difference between an intelligent post and a pretentious post.

People like you are unnecessarily condescending. THAT is what I am talking about. You make this site less welcoming and less enjoyable because anyone who differs from your opinion is dubbed an "inferior being".

Jesus if you want to create a pretentious aA circlejerk website, by all means do it. But this is a site for people of all kinds of tastes who are interested in Toronto development. Don't make it a poisonous experience just because you were bullied in elementary school and have to make yourself feel better by acting superior behind a profile on the internet.
Click to expand...

Even you must see the irony in making condescending remarks about ones' past while huffing and puffing about a lack of acceptance on this forum.
 
You must log in or register to post here.

Back
Top