Toronto Casa II Condos | 184.09m | 56s | Cresford | a—A

junctionist said:
Paris would get criticism for the repetition of its 19th century blocks; however, the beauty is in the vistas which showcase individual landmarks, and the comfortable proportions of its streets with superlative refinement and design of the public realm. The repetitive blocks become a harmonious background to the city's grand achievements in architecture and planning. If the repetitive blocks were all there was to Paris, it would be rather unremarkable architecturally. You're right that repetition can be very effective in terms of architecture, but there has to be some evident purpose to it. Advancing a 'vision' of basic wraparound balcony and curtainwall isn't going to cut it.
Click to expand...



To borrow from your own argument then why not choose to view the growing collection of aA buildings as analagous to the repetitious Haussmann form of Paris... which is to say the more understated yet essential and iconic fabric of a city? This doesn't preclude the possibility of a singular and more razzle-dazzle icon here and there but do you really want such novelty to define the overall built form? Not every building should be vying for novelty or else we risk evolving into Vegas or Dubai or many an asian boom-burg.

The aA approach increasingly convinces me of how successful it is at reiterating itself, morphing itself just enough, to blend into varying contexts throughout the city yet still manage to affirm a broader consistency of aesthetic and vision. I for one feel we should be grateful for this, and celebrating it.
 
^^My original comment was not directed at aA per se, but junctionist's original comment about repetition being cheap and banal, which struck me as a general comment and not only one directed at aA. But I agree with Tewder -- sure, aA is not creating Paris on Bay, but I think it's noticeable that there is far more similarity among aA buildings on Bay and surrounding area then there is with aA buildings elsewhere around the city. By my count there are 13 aA towers up or going up between Bay and Church/College and just north of Bloor (Murano (2), Burano, 1000Bay, U (2), 4S (2), karma, Casa, Casa 2, 501 Yonge (2)). 7 of these are over 50 storeys. Given that the area is already a hodgepodge of styles, my view is that the area benefits from a new core of well executed minimalist towers in the same material. If this was not a vision, why not use some of the different styles/materials he has used elsewhere?

As for Paris, I simply disagree. The repetitive building blocks are the fabric of the city and if you think those are open for criticism then we clearly like different things.
 
Is that fritted glass on the balconies? As much as I hate twinning (just lazy/greedy and makes for a monotonous looking city) if they had an interesting pattern on the balcony glass as opposed to its transparent sister, and it was noticeable from the street and a distance this could turn out quite nice. Difference in height will add to the intrigue. And of course if I had to pick something to have two of it would be Casa.

(Jesus.. Did I just agree with ProjectEnd? *shudder*)
 
ProjectEnd said:
Giving residents a functional layout with more outdoor space isn't a vision? These things aren't just pinups on the skyline, they're people's homes. If the result of 'a basic wraparound balcony and curtainwall' is giving someone a more livable space, who really cares if the resulting building is a little 'boring?'
Click to expand...
No, I don't consider that a vision; I consider that the duty of every good architect. Addressing the need for living or work space is why we construct buildings in the first place, no matter what the era. It was done in Renaissance manors and Gothic skyscrapers, and many people are satisfied to this very day with those spaces. To simply praise that living space needs were addressed with the maximum amount of space theoretically possible is to miss the possible beauty in architecture. An exterior curve or angle does not have to compromise living space one bit if furniture is seldom placed against a curtain wall anyway. To satisfy the need for the living space of a group of people and to achieve good design for the rest of the city's enjoyment is part of the importance of architecture. In physical space, the beauty must be physical to be appreciated by a wide range of people, not just a functional ideal.

Tewder said:
To borrow from your own argument then why not choose to view the growing collection of aA buildings as analagous to the repetitious Haussmann form of Paris... which is to say the more understated yet essential and iconic fabric of a city? This doesn't preclude the possibility of a singular and more razzle-dazzle icon here and there but do you really want such novelty to define the overall built form? Not every building should be vying for novelty or else we risk evolving into Vegas or Dubai or many an asian boom-burg.

The aA approach increasingly convinces me of how successful it is at reiterating itself, morphing itself just enough, to blend into varying contexts throughout the city yet still manage to affirm a broader consistency of aesthetic and vision. I for one feel we should be grateful for this, and celebrating it.
Click to expand...

I was thinking about that when I was writing that response, but I feel that there's no way that aA could achieve the saturation that Haussmann did in Paris. (And we're no worse off for it having a more diverse cityscape with multiple fabrics; it's just different and still potentially beautiful.) I have emphasized variation in aA buildings above, but it is indeed apparent that there is an aesthetic vision evident in the firm's work of more urbane and respectful Modernism using a minimalist framework. This New Modernism advanced by aA is better rooted in the traditional form of the city in how it interacts with the street than 1960s Modernism. Variation happens within this design vision that's more than just about satisfying the need for living space.

I would not disagree with your observation that the "aA approach increasingly convinces me of how successful it is at reiterating itself, morphing itself just enough, to blend into varying contexts throughout the city yet still manage to affirm a broader consistency of aesthetic and vision". But because they will not achieve anything close to becoming the distinctive fabric of the city like the Haussmann block in Paris, aesthetic variation is a must. If it all fits into one vision with consistent themes, then it's admirable. Copying and pasting is not commendable, and generally, I don't think that you can characterize their work in this derogatory way. Similarities between buildings stem from the vision, but variation is a meaningful part of what they do, too. Pure Spirit is pure aA, but there's no podium in their portfolio that's a copy of it.

Grimace said:
^^My original comment was not directed at aA per se, but junctionist's original comment about repetition being cheap and banal, which struck me as a general comment and not only one directed at aA. But I agree with Tewder -- sure, aA is not creating Paris on Bay, but I think it's noticeable that there is far more similarity among aA buildings on Bay and surrounding area then there is with aA buildings elsewhere around the city. By my count there are 13 aA towers up or going up between Bay and Church/College and just north of Bloor (Murano (2), Burano, 1000Bay, U (2), 4S (2), karma, Casa, Casa 2, 501 Yonge (2)). 7 of these are over 50 storeys. Given that the area is already a hodgepodge of styles, my view is that the area benefits from a new core of well executed minimalist towers in the same material. If this was not a vision, why not use some of the different styles/materials he has used elsewhere?

As for Paris, I simply disagree. The repetitive building blocks are the fabric of the city and if you think those are open for criticism then we clearly like different things.
Click to expand...

I like the Haussmann block-fabric of Paris, too, but on the premise of the harmonious cityscape, not as the sole component. Therein lies a justification for why one design could be repeated so many times when more is possible. But if I noted that aA could not produce enough to become the sole fabric of the city, hence the need for variation even within the framework of a vision, Bay Street is a localized exception. The fact is that areas in Toronto exist like Bay Street where aA could produce the fabric of the area (just not the entire city for circumstances obviously beyond their control). Here, they are free to adopt a more repetitive Haussmann-style approach, but with the responsibility of repeating something outstanding.
 
I like the Haussmann block-fabric of Paris, too, but on the premise of the harmonious cityscape, not as the sole component. Therein lies a justification for why one design could be repeated so many times when more is possible. But if I noted that aA could not produce enough to become the sole fabric of the city, hence the need for variation even within the framework of a vision, Bay Street is a localized exception. The fact is that areas in Toronto exist like Bay Street where aA could produce the fabric of the area (just not the entire city for circumstances obviously beyond their control). Here, they are free to adopt a more repetitive Haussmann-style approach, but with the responsibility of repeating something outstanding.
Click to expand...

The difference is that in the Bay corridor and surrounding area aA is creating more of a fabric in the air than a fabric on the ground. So the concentration required is less. On the ground, there is considerable variation in the aA buildings, even in this area. Some are better some are worse. Even with 8 towers going up Bay, the street, while hopefully improved, will still be a moderately unpleasant hodgepodge of styles. I don't think there's much aA could do about that. But looking up the corridor I think it will look great because the consistency of the simple modernist aA buildings will dominate the view, though of course there are some stinkers (looking at you, ROCP) that screw it up a bit.
 
@renderporn loves

8193161_20.jpeg


11519f9_20.jpeg
 
Last edited:
The sidewalk at the corner says "Bloor Yorkville" that's probably where they're getting this idea that Charles Street is Yorkville.

At least me and you know better.

I still don't understand why they put the Yorkville signs on Charles, it's so poor.
 
It's the Yorkville BIA. And it's like 3 small streets south of the village of Yorkville, so... I don't actually mind it. Marketers do a lot worse B.S. than calling Charles Street "Yorkville".
 
You must log in or register to post here.

Back
Top