Toronto Sugar Wharf Condominiums (Phase 2) | 283.6m | 85s | Menkes | a—A

aA certainly has an easily recognizable house style. It emphasizes simplicity and the vertical, which appeals to my own aesthetic preferences. And yes, there are usually lots of balconies! (I’m in the minority here that likes balconies.) When I first found this website there was a veteran poster, whose handle I have forgotten, who loved aA and usually called the firm’s Peter Clewes, “the Great Man.” I definitely wouldn’t go that far but I prefer the aA look to the conglomeration of frames, protrusions and meaningless “features“ of a number of other firms. At least aA usually gets the massing right in their projects, IMO.

All that being said, a house style can easily slip across the line from recognizable to repetitious and that may well be the case here. Perhaps it comes from the sheer numbers of similar towers in close proximity. Maybe the house style suits only pairs of towers at most and an aA neighbourhood is just, well, awfully Amplified. We’ll know more when we see more detailed renders.
 
Lenser said:
A clutch of tall buildings almost entirely devoid of character - that would be quite the feat.
Click to expand...

It's a feat Toronto manages to realize often. One doesn't have to go far to see it: Front Street West between John and Spadina. It's utterly abysmal.
 
67Cup said:
aA certainly has an easily recognizable house style. It emphasizes simplicity and the vertical, which appeals to my own aesthetic preferences. And yes, there are usually lots of balconies! (I’m in the minority here that likes balconies.) When I first found this website there was a veteran poster, whose handle I have forgotten, who loved aA and usually called the firm’s Peter Clewes, “the Great Man.” I definitely wouldn’t go that far but I prefer the aA look to the conglomeration of frames, protrusions and meaningless “features“ of a number of other firms. At least aA usually gets the massing right in their projects, IMO.

All that being said, a house style can easily slip across the line from recognizable to repetitious and that may well be the case here. Perhaps it comes from the sheer numbers of similar towers in close proximity. Maybe the house style suits only pairs of towers at most and an aA neighbourhood is just, well, awfully Amplified. We’ll know more when we see more detailed renders.
Click to expand...
I do wish Urban Shocker would buy a computer and return to us...
 
kotsy said:
1.01 metres under super tall status ?
Click to expand...
And not the only proposed building in the city just shy of the mark either. Is there a particular reason for this? Is there extra hoops to jump in order to get a supertall approved?

If not I find it quite disappointing that they wouldn't tack on another 4 feet to the structure in order to make it qualify. wouldnt be hard to do.
 
Bjays92 said:
If not I find it quite disappointing that they wouldn't tack on another 4 feet to the structure in order to make it qualify. wouldnt be hard to do.
Click to expand...

Because why would they do that? Hardly anyone cares about that status - if they are going to spend that money, spend it on better materials.

AoD
 
Yup, no one save 'scraper geeks cares about this sort of thing. Sometimes it's hard to see that when you're hanging out in here.
 
Does the CN Tower have anything to do with this perceived height limit? I assume the communication folks don’t want their signals blocked with higher and higher towers. I guess they have to draw the line somewhere.
 
Automation Gallery said:
Such BS and poor response, you must be living under a rock?
Click to expand...

I work at a large architecture office and not one person I've encountered is aware of or gives any attention to the arbitrary criteria of "supertall" status, let alone the public. 299m or 300m - it doesn't matter. We design according to a range of planning and design criteria that we are constantly working with and balancing - not arbitrary criteria.

So is the entire industry and public living under a rock, or would that be you, the armchair critic? Just a rhetorical question.
 
You must log in or register to post here.

Back
Top