Toronto Peter Street Condominiums | 129.84m | 40s | CentreCourt | a—A

Well, not to far away is the Hyatt. That's no clone of anything in the Entertainment District.
 
Lost In The Wilds said:
I find that most Torontonians (especially on UT) that are really passionate about architecture are cut from the same cloth. They all seem to think that the international style is the greatest style of architecture and that everything must adhere to minimalist aesthetics. They've been conditioned to believe this, in my opinion. They have no mind(s) of their own. I do like modernist architecture quite a bit but, this city has more than enough of it. I don't know why so many are so reluctant to accept fresh, contemporary, eclectic ideas. Modernism died over 40 years ago; let's move on.
Click to expand...

What an utterly self-important, arrogant, ignorant thing to say.

So you have it right, and anyone who thinks differently than you has "no mind of their own"? Hilariously immature, narcissistic pseudo-intellectual twaddle of the highest degree. If your analysis merited me caring about what you thought about anything I might be insulted, but you've just demonstrated that there's no reason whatsoever to give your jabber a further moment's notice. Grow up kiddie.

Kitty
 
WiddleBittyKitty said:
What an utterly self-important, arrogant, ignorant thing to say.

So you have it right, and anyone who thinks differently than you has "no mind of their own"? Hilariously immature, narcissistic pseudo-intellectual twaddle of the highest degree. If your analysis merited me caring about what you thought about anything I might be insulted, but you've just demonstrated that there's no reason whatsoever to give your jabber a further moment's notice. Grow up kiddie.

Kitty
Click to expand...

WiddleBittyKitty said:
What an utterly self-important, arrogant, ignorant thing to say.

So you have it right, and anyone who thinks differently than you has "no mind of their own"? Hilariously immature, narcissistic pseudo-intellectual twaddle of the highest degree. If your analysis merited me caring about what you thought about anything I might be insulted, but you've just demonstrated that there's no reason whatsoever to give your jabber a further moment's notice. Grow up kiddie.

Kitty
Click to expand...

That's the way I see it. Most people on this forum have their tongues so far up Mies' and Peter Clewes' buttholes for instance. The latter produces very high quality work (arguably the best in Toronto), but it is so monotonous; like most contemporary architecture in this city (which is largely influenced by modernism). Any time something a little funky is suggested, forumers are lambasted. It's evident that most people here like nothing but crisp, clean lines (or at least they're happy with that everytime a new building is proposed) -- which is fine -- but to me that suggests indoctrination and a very narrow scope of appeal. Look at how many people on this forum think the TD Centre is the greatest skyscraper in the city. Why is there such a lack of variety in opinions? You don't think they're shaped by professors, literature, art aficionados, cliques, etc.? I almost want to hear a highly knowledgeable person say they think the TD Centre sucks; just for the refreshment. I find it odd how so many of you agree on what looks good.

Everything I've said is based on my own observations (is it really necessary to preface everything one writes with, 'In my opinion?). They're not objective truths, but what I have witnessed and believe to be true. I'm not trying to be self-important and I'm no intellectual (thank goodness; why would I want to be?).

"If your analysis merited me caring about what you thought about anything I might be insulted" Evidently you cared enough that I got a response from you.

"Hilariously immature"

"Grow up kiddie"

Username: WiddleBittyKitty

Pretty ironic stuff.

So why is it that most people here love modernism above all? What makes them so inclined towards it, and why are those that wish for more, or something different, derided?
 
I wish people here would stop pretending that aesthetics are the only aspect to architecture; less immature name-calling (which reflects poorly only on the name-caller) would also be great!

Modernism introduced a ton of highly clever and interesting streamlining of design issues, and introduced an aesthetic that can be inherently functional and useable. A lot of the appreciation comes from this idea, however accurate or inaccurate it is depending on the building in question.

That said, we need to remember that in fact we have moved past modernism. Some would say we're in postmodernism (or supermodernism, etc. etc.). Though in many ways its ideas survive, it can become a sort of neo-classical architecture in a way if it's not taken past the old ideas.

I won't ramble on; but I would suggest that if people look only at aesthetics, they'll never understand why architecture is the way it is. And a lot of the neo-modernist or "boxy" architecture (or whatever forumers want to call it) in this city is that way for very good reasons. (Reasons relating to mass production, functionality of spaces, efficiency of design, cost, flexibility, and yes, clean aesthetic.)
 
Lost In The Wilds said:
I find that most Torontonians (especially on UT) that are really passionate about architecture are cut from the same cloth. They all seem to think that the international style is the greatest style of architecture and that everything must adhere to minimalist aesthetics. They've been conditioned to believe this, in my opinion. They have no mind(s) of their own. I do like modernist architecture quite a bit but, this city has more than enough of it. I don't know why so many are so reluctant to accept fresh, contemporary, eclectic ideas. Modernism died over 40 years ago; let's move on.
Click to expand...

I don't think you have it quite right. Modernism is definitely appreciated by many on this board, but the deciding factor for most posters typically comes down to execution, attention to detail and how the design responds to its context. People wouldn't love Clewes' work if it was awkward, sloppy and used cheap materials, whether or not it was a modernist box. On the other hand, people don't dislike Trump, not because it's not a modernist design, but because it's awkward, sloppy and used cheap materials. 1 St. Thomas is one of the most highly regarded designs on UT from this recent boom, and it's as far away from modern is it gets, but unlike Trump, it was executed very well.

Things like curtain wall vs. window wall, spandral glass vs. vision glass, precast vs. stone, the spacing of floor heights, and the integration of mechanical equipment, vents, transfer slabs and structural components are all things that are important factors beyond the basic massing of the tower.
 
MvmmfBP.jpg
 
^Think of it this way: The podium is Admiral Road; the rest of the tower is just the rest of the middle class semis they put up in the Annex suburb.

One more shot from yesterday, taken moments before the crane broke my heaArt: a worker secures the final connection
b2igdE8.jpg


Btw, I saw the badass crane removal crew arriving a bit earlier--turning at Bathurst and Richmond around 6:30am--one day I wanna drive one of those huge Grove mobile crane trucks :) This crane was brand new--looked better than a new Mercedes S-class!
 
From the evening of the 4th:

P1410938.jpg


And from a friend, taken on the 6th:

IMG_20140906_154814.jpg


42
 

Attachments

  • IMG_20140906_154814.jpg
    IMG_20140906_154814.jpg
    93.7 KB · Views: 954
  • P1410938.jpg
    P1410938.jpg
    90.3 KB · Views: 953
You must log in or register to post here.

Back
Top