egotrippin
Senior Member
Me!Except I'd hire aA to do the job.
Wait a minute, not, y'know, S+P? The ones you mentioned yesterday?
Wait a minute, not, y'know, S+P? The ones you mentioned yesterday?
Redroom Studios
Senior Member
Me!
ok... we all know that you pleasure yourself to a photo of Peter Clewes beside your desk!
Last edited:
Rowe
Active Member
Its the only way we can stay on this forum!
I don't enjoy concrete buildings.. like some on here who think glass is bland, I feel concrete is even more bland. There are come concrete buildings that are gems.. but mostly I feel they are just too cold. But on the upside concrete buildings are some of the easiest buildings to reclad.
Redroom Studios
Senior Member
not sure why you are replying to me? but regardless of pesonal tastes, there are empty lots nearby that should be developed before tearing down a working building. And then to wedge it right up beside Casa... I just dont get it. luckily I dont live there.
urbandreamer
recession proof
^It's not suburbia RR. It's Yorkhattan.
Most of aA's stuff isn't designed by PC. I know some pretty cute girls that work for that firm.
Most of aA's stuff isn't designed by PC. I know some pretty cute girls that work for that firm.
Rowe
Active Member
Aw I'm sorry.. I wasn't directing the comment to you, I was replying to the comment in general.
Since aA and Peter are pretty well liked on this forum.
adma
Superstar
Me!
In which case, I'd gladly grab you by the ankles and smash your head open on Macy DuBois' concrete.
Parkdalian
Senior Member
Well, a few posts up he said he was sorry to see the concrete DuBois go, so I think this is just UD trying to cause a stir.
urbandreamer
recession proof
While I like the DuBois building, I have a belief that if something must go, it must be replaced by even better architecture. That isn't happening here...yet.
Aaron
Active Member
The DuBois building is atrocious. I'd simply say I don't like it, but the fact adma's been yammering on and on about it, compels me to be a little more direct with my chosen adjective. It's a poorly designed, even more poorly executed pile of bland, concrete crap. I think it's cute, adma, that you have your little Concrete Toronto book and you're waving it around like some buffoon with a sickening superiority complex (ever thought about getting that checked out? Maybe some therapy?). You really are something to behold.
ganjavih
Senior Member
Yeah, I find it hard to get excited about that DuBois Building. It's OK to admit that not everything architects experimented with in the past worked well... and a lot of brutalism just doesn't work, especially in an urban environment. The scale, the disregard for surroundings, the disregard for the street level... these are all anti-urban ideals. And, man, the grey! Toronto is grey enough already, especially in the winter. No need to promote Seasonal Affective Disorder with added dreary greyness.
I'm with Prince Chuck on this one. Much of England's modern architecture has a soul-crushing quality to it. Dreary, depressing, downright suicide-inducing. The odd interesting concrete brutalist building/monument is fine, but please, keep it in low doses...
I'm with Prince Chuck on this one. Much of England's modern architecture has a soul-crushing quality to it. Dreary, depressing, downright suicide-inducing. The odd interesting concrete brutalist building/monument is fine, but please, keep it in low doses...
Mike in TO
Senior Member
Hi Redroom,
I too am concerned about the lack of respect for some of Toronto's better brutalist concrete heritage. The existing building certainly isn't the best example, but is an interesting and unique building nonetheless. Although regarding your specific suggestion that empty lots nearby should be developed first - in a city where property ownership were not an issue (and there are many examples around the world - not that Toronto should aspire to those examples) city planning and development sequencing would yield different results. However the development proponent happens to own this particular property rather then any nearby empty lots and for whatever reason the owners of said empty lots are not currently advancing redevelopment plans. You can't build on what you don't own - hence the seemingly random sequence of proponents advancing plans for their properties while others remain content with current uses.
dt_toronto_geek
Superstar
Yeah, I find it hard to get excited about that DuBois Building. It's OK to admit that not everything architects experimented with in the past worked well... and a lot of brutalism just doesn't work, especially in an urban environment. The scale, the disregard for surroundings, the disregard for the street level... these are all anti-urban ideals. And, man, the grey! Toronto is grey enough already, especially in the winter. No need to promote Seasonal Affective Disorder with added dreary greyness.
I'm with Prince Chuck on this one. Much of England's modern architecture has a soul-crushing quality to it. Dreary, depressing, downright suicide-inducing. The odd interesting concrete brutalist building/monument is fine, but please, keep it in low doses...
I do like the DuBois building however Ganjavih, you get my vote for the most entertaining post on Brutalism this year!
adma
Superstar
I love the way you say "your". As if the taste authority Concrete Toronto reflects is a figment of my imagination. Yeah, I know. Said superiority-complexers try to tell you that brutalism is "sexy", and you look at them like they're Roman Polanski or something.
Look: sure, this is a democratic urban-discussion message board where armchair amateurs have their say; but such is democracy that said armchair amateurs are free to be "called out" and bludgeoned for their ignorance. You Quayle, me Bentsen, in other words.
Though admittedly, there is a cramped and fed-up anger to your tone, which may be the heritage equivalent of Rob Ford's political support--like, to further the Polanski metaphor, they're the poor saps who've been "molested" by the political establishment, or heritage establishment, they're mad as hell and cannot take it anymore...
Parkdalian
Senior Member
I generally like Brutalist buildings. If you look at a building and feel that it is "ugly" it is usually because it is telling you something that you don't want to hear. Which probably makes its message more important than the one we get from "beautiful" buildings - since they are telling us things we already know.
And this mania for meeting-the-street and contextualism (which the DuBois building does fine) is not Gospel for good architecture. The Acropolis doesn't meet the street, and it's pretty okay. Getting people to walk up a lot of steps and ignoring your surroundings is fine - as long as what you are building is worth climbing a few steps for.
And this mania for meeting-the-street and contextualism (which the DuBois building does fine) is not Gospel for good architecture. The Acropolis doesn't meet the street, and it's pretty okay. Getting people to walk up a lot of steps and ignoring your surroundings is fine - as long as what you are building is worth climbing a few steps for.
Last edited: