Mongo
Senior Member
If the YMCA building looked like it does in the CASA reflection, it would be a landmark, and I would hate to see it go. However, it does not, so bye-bye YMCA, hello 42 Charles!
If the YMCA building looked like it does in the CASA reflection, it would be a landmark, and I would hate to see it go. However, it does not, so bye-bye YMCA, hello 42 Charles!
mikeytrix
New Member
Nice Pic AndroidUK
I can't wait to see that concrete monstrosity replaced with a glass tower. Toronto continues to grow up and it's aging like a fine wine! Get at 'er boys and let's get Chaz chazzing already.
I can't wait to see that concrete monstrosity replaced with a glass tower. Toronto continues to grow up and it's aging like a fine wine! Get at 'er boys and let's get Chaz chazzing already.
adma
Superstar
http://spacingtoronto.ca/2011/08/12/no-mean-city-macy-duboiss-45-charles-rip/
Now, that ought to go a little farther t/w definitively silencing the naysayers.
Now, that ought to go a little farther t/w definitively silencing the naysayers.
MBS
Active Member
Silencing the naysayers is exactly the attitude that plagues the world of architecture.
An article worshipping a building with arguments like having eight corners and allowing light into the offices is hardly convincing. As if breaking from the 4 corner box is revolutionary. Hardly. It doesn't matter how many times someone tries to write or speak about how "great" an ugly building is - it doesn't change the fact that it is still ugly. A building that needs explaining to be understood or appreciated is not good architecture IMO. Good architecture speaks for itself and should not be designed for a circle of 'elitest' people to grumble about how all the unworthy lesser people will never understand their masterpiece. Good architecture should be designed for the people that use the building, the people that pass it daily; the regular joe. And I think joe finds it hideous.
After all, people are going to seeing it and using it for years and years and years (well, not in this case).
That's my two cents anyways. I think if everything was designed to be beautiful, comfortable and to satisfy the general population's wishes rather than ones ego, the world would be a better place to live in.
btw adma I'm not trying to insult you here at all - I'm just speaking generally.
An article worshipping a building with arguments like having eight corners and allowing light into the offices is hardly convincing. As if breaking from the 4 corner box is revolutionary. Hardly. It doesn't matter how many times someone tries to write or speak about how "great" an ugly building is - it doesn't change the fact that it is still ugly. A building that needs explaining to be understood or appreciated is not good architecture IMO. Good architecture speaks for itself and should not be designed for a circle of 'elitest' people to grumble about how all the unworthy lesser people will never understand their masterpiece. Good architecture should be designed for the people that use the building, the people that pass it daily; the regular joe. And I think joe finds it hideous.
After all, people are going to seeing it and using it for years and years and years (well, not in this case).
That's my two cents anyways. I think if everything was designed to be beautiful, comfortable and to satisfy the general population's wishes rather than ones ego, the world would be a better place to live in.
btw adma I'm not trying to insult you here at all - I'm just speaking generally.
adma
Superstar
Except that the curious thing is: the linked source (Spacing) is *not* "the world of architecture". Indeed, it's a bridge t/w explaining, contextualizing, justifying such work for "the average joe"--no less than being a Doors Open attraction might be.
Essentially, it's the necessary authoritative middleman for such work--"egotism" and all--to be appreciated to whatever extent by a broader public. And that's especially if one acts on the not-altogether-unfounded premise that more "regular joes" are actually more neutral/indifferent, in an "it is what it is" way--and as such, might actually be more "swayable" when confronted with its apparent importance/significance/interest through such a link. Indeed, those like yourself who are prone to sticking to your "it's ugly" guns through thick and thin are probably no more "representative" than, uh, the architectural egos you're decrying.
So...look at it this way. Between a link like I posted which posits a case for the building, and a hypothetical one which posits a case *against* the building, and with respect to the relative tones, voices-of-authority, etc of either...which would, in the end, have the upper hand? I suspect it would be the former. And if it were the latter, it would be through some kind of FordMammoliti-cum-PrinceCharles-ian yahoo populism taking centre stage, instead--as if that were good or anything...
jetsbackincanada
Banned
Wasn't this the project,( Chaz), that had 8 sides to it?? Thus giving people 8 different corners to live in???
isaidso
Senior Member
UrbanFervour
Active Member
Another self-appointed-spokesperson for the world of "regular joe's" thinks this building is ugly. On Planet "Regular Joe" there is accounting for taste and beauty is found squarely outside the eye of the beholder.
Dissenters who choose to consider any other criteria for evaluating this building APART from the edict of the self-appointed-spokesperson-for-the-"regular-joe's":it is objectively UGLY) have been brainwashed into thinking critically and should be mocked and ridiculed for being the detached elitists they are.
We get it. Thanks for your two cents.
Dissenters who choose to consider any other criteria for evaluating this building APART from the edict of the self-appointed-spokesperson-for-the-"regular-joe's":it is objectively UGLY) have been brainwashed into thinking critically and should be mocked and ridiculed for being the detached elitists they are.
We get it. Thanks for your two cents.
Parkdalian
Senior Member
A lot of people think they see the world clearly, and as any Regular Joe would. Unfortunately, most of them disagree on what that is.
The problem with Regular Joes is that they think their ignorance is a blessing. But if a Regular Joe went into an operating room and told the doctor how to cut, he'd be escorted out for being a criminal nuisance. Why Regular Joes think that good design is something they can spot without any education or training is sort of mysterious to me. It reveals a deep-seated arrogance: that designers - who have spent years in their profession doing a very difficult job - do not know anything about proportion, scale and colour perception. Why not listen to the experts to have this explained to you?
The problem with Regular Joes is that they think their ignorance is a blessing. But if a Regular Joe went into an operating room and told the doctor how to cut, he'd be escorted out for being a criminal nuisance. Why Regular Joes think that good design is something they can spot without any education or training is sort of mysterious to me. It reveals a deep-seated arrogance: that designers - who have spent years in their profession doing a very difficult job - do not know anything about proportion, scale and colour perception. Why not listen to the experts to have this explained to you?
Automation Gallery
Superstar
No use sheeding any tears for this Grand Poobah, its pretty well to late and soon will be history.
jje1000
Senior Member
Well, tastes change and I think that the average Joe would have been enamored with this building 30 years ago. This building was built for them, after all.
dt_toronto_geek
Superstar
I think that in 30 years people will be enamored by this building and will regret it's demise when they look back at photographs of it.
adma
Superstar
Though the curious thing is: most of the more recent discussion in this thread has actually accepted its Cinderella-pumpkin fate--even that defending the building's architecture...
dt_toronto_geek
Superstar
I think if 45 Charles had of survived, say, another 20 years there would be a movement to get it designated. Who would have thought even five years ago we'd witness so much destruction of our past. Things have moved remarkably quick to get so many properties in downtown designed, developed, sold and built.
adma
Superstar
Definitely. But as I suggested in light of other examples as well as literature already available (Concrete Toronto, etc), designation or at least listing would've be plausible even now--Kyle Rae wouldn't have objected, neither would Wong-Tam, I suspect. And to be honest, the fact that there isn't any such movement presently may have less to do with the architecture per se, than with the function and context--general-tenant office buildings on a street of freestanding prima donnas don't necessarily garner the "citizen's urban proprietorship" that something like the 596 Church block does.
The fact that the building's still being discussed has less to do with 13th-hour campaigns to save it, than with the "yeah, I'd demolish that ugly concrete POS too, no matter how much information on its 'importance' you wave in my face" mentality that keeps raising its obstinate head.
Look, if you want ugly/dispensible POSes in the nabe, look to something like Toronto Grace instead
Next to that, 45 Charles can at least qualify as "interesting" a la Robarts--so even if you don't like it, you can at least respect it. (Well, of course, one can respect Toronto Grace as well on functional grounds--but that's about the institution, not the premises.)