Toronto Bay Adelaide Centre | 217.92m | 51s | Brookfield | KPMB

The Architect:

To be fair though, of all the aA/Clewes projects we have seen in the city so far - are any of them similar to one another to such an extent that is any more so than condo/apartment projects by other architects?

AoD
 
Last edited:
Time to resist the Borg box invasion. Start crafting those e-mails to Adam Vaughan, K Wong Tam et al, and get this issue on the radar. Good design should matter but it doesn't have a voice in this city. We gotta get mad, dammit. So open up a window in your glass condo box unit and scream at the top of your lungs, "We're mad as hell and we're not going to take any more of this lacklustre shit!"
 
Irishmonk:

I tend to agree that we as a city should demand good design, but before we do, I think we should ask - what does the building we currently own/live in looks like. Besides, knowing the city's lack of power in this area, shouldn't the howls be directed at Brookfield and their tenants instead?

AoD
 
Last edited:
Irishmonk:

I tend to agree that we as a city should demand good design, but before we do, I think we should ask - what does the building we currently own/live in looks like. Besides, knowing the city's lack of power in this area, shouldn't the howls be directed at Brookfield and their tenants instead?

AoD

Well, I live in an old brick 3 story house, so I feel at liberty to throw the occasional stone. But, as I indicated , for those who do live in a glass house/box, open a window before hurling said projectile. We're too damn timid in this city! If we stay passive then we'll continue to get the architecture we deserve.

As to your second point, at least city councillors are (somewhat) accountable to those who do the howling. Brookfield, or any developer will just redirect the howls to the circular file. Design issues and, specifically, the glass-box syndrome currently plaguing us, needs to gain traction in public office rather than with a firm full of bean counters.
 
Irishmonk:

Well, the problem is that building (and being a tenant in) boring buildings is seen as "good business" - in the absence of governmental powers (which might be best used to prevent the truly awful than the mere banal), the best lever the public has is probably in affecting the public image of said firms/businesses. But of course, if you ask the average Joe out there, they'd probably say it is a fine building.

AoD
 
The Architect:

To be fair though, of all the aA/Clewes projects we have seen in the city so far - are any of them similar to one another to such an extent that is any more so than condo/apartment projects by other architects?

AoD

Nope, everybody in this city likes to copy and paste. The only reason I chose Clewes there was because of the shape/lack of design features.
 
Any chance of them adding floors is demand warrants it?

One interesting thing is that BA I is still not fully occupied. There are two floors I can see from my window in the Canada Permanent somewhere in the single digits that still have no tenants.
 
One interesting thing is that BA I is still not fully occupied. There are two floors I can see from my window in the Canada Permanent somewhere in the single digits that still have no tenants.


That would mean that the building is 90-95% occupied.

Time to move on to the next project.
 
Nope, everybody in this city likes to copy and paste. The only reason I chose Clewes there was because of the shape/lack of design features.

Having just taken a walking tour of downtown on this fine day (nice to afford the time) I cast my eyes on some works of Clewes. I find lots of appeal in his work, and that includes his details. There is a difference between Clewes' buildings and WZMH's BA1. aA (Clewes) know how to spice things up, BA1 and 2 seem to hit a bland wall.

Bay Adelaide cladding seems a bit like an iridescent suit; I don't know how that happened but there you are. I don't like it.
 
Last edited:

Back
Top