Toronto CHAZ | 150.87m | 47s | 45 Charles Ltd | P + S / IBI

[ProjectEnd]

It no doubt is a formula but just as in chemistry, it's one that is one that can be altered and refined so that the resulting brew is increasingly more potent. The portfolio of standard details that aA have been developing over the years are now some of the best in the industry. Since the firm's 'aesthetic' is the result of these details, although 'vastly superior' may indeed be a strong a term to describe their 'architecture' (developer-driven multi-unit residential generally does not lend itself well to experimentation), within that typology it certainly is 'vastly superior.'

 

[modernizt]

OK, I'll accept that. Detailing is pretty damn important and makes a big difference. As much as people complain that Toronto's architecture is "boring", "boxy" or "restrained", we have a number of firms that know how to design outstanding details. Hariri Pontarini and aA being two of my favourites in that regard.

 

[ProjectEnd]

No argument here!

 

[Benito]

 

[junctionist]

Yes, and it's too bad they put the "club" on such a low floor. When a new condo goes up just south of them, that "club" will have no view at all, fall into disuse and end up being used for storage. Why did they stop putting observation decks on the top floors? Yes, yes, I know, the CN tower came along and put and end to all those decks in the downtown area, but this "club" looks more like a barnacle on the hull of a ship than anything else. No, a proper rooftop deck (indoor/outdoor) would have been far superior, and I would imagine much cheaper to construct. Just look at the gymnastics they had to perform to get this barnacle thingy to cling to the side of the building.

Units on the top floors make developers a lot of money. However, I think we should see more uses of upper levels that are accessible to the public like restaurants. I'd love to see a library on the top floor of a tall building so that anyone could go up for some free spectacular views. The city could secure such a space as a section 37 benefit for approving additional density.

 

[Ayan]

Units on the top floors make developers a lot of money. However, I think we should see more uses of upper levels that are accessible to the public like restaurants. I'd love to see a library on the top floor of a tall building so that anyone could go up for some free spectacular views. The city could secure such a space as a section 37 benefit for approving additional density.

I would like that too (I think YC Condos will have rooftop amenities) though it will really depend on what society collectively considers as important. Having separate entrances for residents in the same building based on income levels might become more common in the future, for example.

 

[egotrippin]

It no doubt is a formula but just as in chemistry, it's one that is one that can be altered and refined so that the resulting brew is increasingly more potent. The portfolio of standard details that aA have been developing over the years are now some of the best in the industry. Since the firm's 'aesthetic' is the result of these details, although 'vastly superior' may indeed be a strong a term to describe their 'architecture' (developer-driven multi-unit residential generally does not lend itself well to experimentation), within that typology it certainly is 'vastly superior.'

Yet ironically it's Wallman's X2 that got the roof right, whereas aA's X1 is a bit of a failure in that regard. Now it could've been entirely the developer, but regardless that mech box will always stick out and ruin the effect of phase 1 for me.

 

[kris]

Yet ironically it's Wallman's X2 that got the roof right, whereas aA's X1 is a bit of a failure in that regard. Now it could've been entirely the developer, but regardless that mech box will always stick out and ruin the effect of phase 1 for me.

The thing is, if aa x1 and couture had the same roof like x2 then they would all look too uniform. So in a way its good to see some variation even though from an aesthetic standpoint x2s roof is better.

 

[interchange42]

It's probably worth reminding people, here in the CHAZ thread, that the original plan for X was to have a full X2 type top for X. The plan was cut back when the massive penthouse priced at around $1000 per square foot at X failed to sell, and the floor was split up into units that were priced around $500 or so per square foot, eliminating a fair bit of revenue. With the loss of revenue, they cut back on the expenditure up top.

42

 

[modernizt]

It's probably worth reminding people, here in the CHAZ thread, that the original plan for X was to have a full X2 type top for X. The plan was cut back when the massive penthouse priced at around $1000 per square foot at X failed to sell, and the floor was split up into units that were priced around $500 or so per square foot, eliminating a fair bit of revenue. With the loss of revenue, they cut back on the expenditure up top.

42

Which is a really sad thought since Great Gulf pulls in massive profits and could easily have made that expenditure.

That said, I actually really like the no-nonsense top of X.

 

[urbandreamer]

It fits like a

 

[ProjectEnd]

Yet ironically it's Wallman's X2 that got the roof right, whereas aA's X1 is a bit of a failure in that regard. Now it could've been entirely the developer, but regardless that mech box will always stick out and ruin the effect of phase 1 for me.

I think 'for me' is the key part of your post. I'm inclined to agree with kris' post above - the two roofs play off of each other well, creating a dialogue that would be absent if they were the same. Interchange's reminder about construction economics is also salient as it's often to a greater degree what determines how a building is finished rather than the 'skill' of of the office involved. This, of course, does not apply to bargain basement firms like Kirkor or G+C where getting the most for the least rather than delivering an excellent building is the ultimate objective.

 

[egotrippin]

I think 'for me' is the key part of your post. I'm inclined to agree with kris' post above - the two roofs play off of each other well, creating a dialogue that would be absent if they were the same. Interchange's reminder about construction economics is also salient as it's often to a greater degree what determines how a building is finished rather than the 'skill' of of the office involved. This, of course, does not apply to bargain basement firms like Kirkor or G+C where getting the most for the least rather than delivering an excellent building is the ultimate objective.

I think they could've used the compromised roof to this effect, except I find it feels like a compromise since it wasn't the intended design. Additionally the key inspiration for its design terminates with a perfectly flat roof, you'd never see a box like that sticking out of a Mies building. Had X1 been finished as originally planned, even with some sort of elongated fin as opposed to a fully enclosed roof, I still think there'd be interplay between X1 and 2 through the different shapes of each structure.

I usually agree with you, but this time I think it's a stretch to defend phase 1. I'm sure GG could've rummaged through the couch for a bit of change to finish the roof properly; relative to the total development dollars in this project it really shouldn't have broken the bank.

 

[Ramako]

I think they could've used the compromised roof to this effect, except I find it feels like a compromise since it wasn't the intended design. Additionally the key inspiration for its design terminates with a perfectly flat roof, you'd never see a box like that sticking out of a Mies building. Had X1 been finished as originally planned, even with some sort of elongated fin as opposed to a fully enclosed roof, I still think there'd be interplay between X1 and 2 through the different shapes of each structure.

I usually agree with you, but this time I think it's a stretch to defend phase 1. I'm sure GG could've rummaged through the couch for a bit of change to finish the roof properly; relative to the total development dollars in this project it really shouldn't have broken the bank.

I agree that a flat roof on X would have worked better with X2, but I would be remiss to point out that not all of Mies's roofs were flat. See 860–880 Lake Shore Drive:

http://www.gopixpic.com/1024/archit...mblr*com|tumblr_mbj3izTSiW1riwjz5o1_1280*png/

 

[WiddleBittyKitty]

Those are both ruined for me now.

Or they would be if I were an unstable mess.