Toronto Clear Spirit | 131.36m | 40s | Cityscape | a—A

Heres another from last night (didnt even realize it had construction visible in it til this morning)
Sorry HDR haters :p

WYIFI.jpg
 
Captured that sculpture well. Gotta say, whether in meatspace or on-screen, the impression's the same: I find that particular piece rather bizarre and disturbing. Really curious about what the artist might have been thinking. But its perforated 'skin' is very cool.
 
It is very rare for me to hate a building as much as I hate this one. Box point tower with wraparound balconies? The only redeeming features are the alternating balcony cladding and the tiny notches on the balconies. That is just pathetic.

someMidTowner said:
Sorry HDR haters :p
Click to expand...

That normally describes me, but I must say; that is definitely worth picture of the day. Great job.

urbandreamer said:
I think these towers would look fantastic on Vancouver's waterfront. They have a very nautical theme going on, like a sleek speed boat.

It's a shame really that Vancouver never got any quality aA point towers.
Click to expand...

This is an example of a "quality" aA tower? Where's the quality? It's a box with wraparound balconies! How can you justify liking this tower and going on a hate rampage on the Trump, Shangri-La, Aura, and (any other non-aA project) pages? Is it because solely because this was designed by aA? Your bias seems really strange to me.
 
Last edited:
GenericUser said:
This is an example of a "quality" aA tower? Where's the quality? It's a box with wraparound balconies! How can you justify liking this tower and going on a hate rampage on the Trump, Shangri-La, Aura, and (any other non-aA project) pages? Is it because solely because this was designed by aA? Your bias seems really strange to me.
Click to expand...

Quality typically refers to the selection of materials, attention to detail and execution, which Trump and Aura are lacking. It sounds like you're unimpressed with the general form and massing of the tower, but that's a different matter. For example, you might find the over all form and massing of TD Centre bland and boring, but it's the materials, attention to detail and proportionality which make it one of the great classic skyscrapers.
 
Precisely. I am not commenting on the point tower form--to be honest, I'm so over glass point towers (you know when the Kirkor/P+S/G+C of the world are getting into glass point towers in a big way that the trend is passé) although we must keep in mind this project was conceived c.2005 which is dog years ago (no smartphones then remember)--but rather the details. It is like comparing the interior of a Ranger Rover or Rolls Royce to a Suzuki or Lada--aA being more like the former and G+C more like the latter. I sometimes wonder if Peter Clewes is a Virgo--they're known for being obsessed with details (not my thing but it's nice to see ppl that do care.)

Maybe it's just that some ppl don't "see" the artistry in 3D objects?
 
Last edited:
Ramako said:
Quality typically refers to the selection of materials, attention to detail and execution, which Trump and Aura are lacking. It sounds like you're unimpressed with the general form and massing of the tower, but that's a different matter. For example, you might find the over all form and massing of TD Centre bland and boring, but it's the materials, attention to detail and proportionality which make it one of the great classic skyscrapers.
Click to expand...

I quoted "quality aA tower." Therefore, quality in this context refers to the architecture. Had he said quality *builder's name* tower," he would've been referring to the construction/materials chosen.

Either way, I was just curious why urbandreamer is so biased towards aA towers. To say that the architectural quality of this tower, for example, is better than that of Shangri-La is purely biased. Yes, I understand that it is subjective, but I don't think that anyone (aside from urbandreamer) would disagree.

urbandreamer said:
Precisely. I am not commenting on the point tower form--to be honest, I'm so over glass point towers (you know when the Kirkor/P+S/G+C of the world are getting into glass point towers in a big way that the trend is passé) although we must keep in mind this project was conceived c.2005 which is dog years ago (no smartphones then remember)--but rather the details. It is like comparing the interior of a Ranger Rover or Rolls Royce to a Suzuki or Lada--aA being more like the former and G+C more like the latter. I sometimes wonder if Peter Clewes is a Virgo--they're known for being obsessed with details (not my thing but it's nice to see ppl that do care.)

Maybe it's just that some ppl don't "see" the artistry in 3D objects?
Click to expand...

Ramako was defending the fact that you may have been referring to the materials/build quality, but then you go and say that you are over "glass point towers?" Then it stands that your praise of this tower is based on architecture alone. It's a square/rectangle with wraparound balconies! How imaginative of an architect does it take to design that?

urbandreamer said:
It is like comparing the interior of a Ranger Rover or Rolls Royce to a Suzuki or Lada--aA being more like the former and G+C more like the latter.
Click to expand...

Do you really not see how biased you are? I'd be willing to bet that if aA hadn't designed this unimaginative tower, you would hate it.

-- Sorry for being off topic; It was just interesting that you would hate Shangri-La/Trump/Aura and call this a "quality aA tower"
 
GenericUser said:
I quoted "quality aA tower." Therefore, quality in this context refers to the architecture. Had he said quality *builder's name* tower," he would've been referring to the construction/materials chosen.
Click to expand...

The difference is that the good architects, like aA, will typically be responsible for selecting the materials to be used and determining how the finer details of the design are to be executed, not the builder/construction firm. That's why people like aA. It's the mediocre architectural firms that pass off those kinds of finer details to engineers and builders, who typically choose more practical and less aesthetically appealing solutions.
 
You simply don't get it. What separates aA, amongst other quality firms from generic "full house" firms like P+S is they work with the developer to ensure the details work. For example, compare Trump or Aura to this project. In both Trump & Aura you see awkward corners--places where spandrel, cladding etc is just sort of randomly placed on the side of the building. Why? Because it's cheaper to do that than spend the extra money on a firm that wants to get these details right. It's like buying a shirt at Wal-Mart versus Sydney's. It's still roughly the same shape of a shirt/building, but compare the stitching, the cut, the thread count, the "time" put into the item to make it special. If aA/& many more firms are Sydney's than P+S etc are Wal-mart. So where would you rather live--a "designer" building or a "generic" label? The choice is yours.

If you wanna see the kind of stuff I like, check out www.renderpornstar.com (It is a non-profit site so I'm not making any dough from it.) There's hardly any aA on that site.
 
You must log in or register to post here.

Back
Top