Toronto The One | 328.4m | 91s | Mizrahi Developments | Foster + Partners

Can't wait. I mean, the man has impeccable taste. And as we know well around here, developers never armwrestle great architecture firms to create mediocre product.

cmcchomizrahi0421.jpg


;)

(Just having some fun... I hope I'm wrong.)
 

Attachments

  • cmcchomizrahi0421.jpg
    cmcchomizrahi0421.jpg
    40.2 KB · Views: 1,274
modernizt said:
Can't wait. I mean, the man has impeccable taste. And as we know well around here, developers never armwrestle great architecture firms to create mediocre product.
(Just having some fun... I hope I'm wrong.)
Click to expand...

What is wrong with that building, its not bad at all for a low-rise.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
I don't get all the hate for classical architecture around here. People seem to think that anything borrowing from past styles is tasteless and unsophisticated because it is unoriginal (I don't actually know if this is the reason). On the contrary, if done well, I think an Art Deco building, or a beaux-arts building, etc. built in 2015 could be just as beautiful as one built in the first half of the 20th century. What people seem to forget is that those styles were themselves copies of the past, even at the time they were built (taking influence from real - Greek and Roman - classical architecture).

Modernism turned everyone into snobs when it comes to things like ornamentation and decoration, but I think we can now appreciate that these elements can have a place in beautiful buildings. If this is the case, why can't we continue to build in older styles?

Of course, many styles are easy to do, but difficult to do well. But if done well I think a building designed in a pre-war style (Art Deco for example) could be amazing. In fact, despite what many people think, a properly proportioned classical structure could be more sophisticated than a a fancy shape clad in exciting materials; most people seem to exclusively desire the latter nowadays, and I think this is misguided.

Anyway, I'm certainly excited to see what will be unveiled at this site.

PS. I'm not accusing anyone in particular of being a snob, it just seems to be a fairly common view.

PPS. I am aware of the love for One St. Thomas, but in general this kind of style seems to be frowned upon...idk, maybe I'm imagining things
 
Some people only into modern architecture are indeed snobs. In a city like this, we should have many different variations and colours and materials used. I like Uptown Residences, but that's not popular. I hate River City because we personally know all the crap and cheapness that has come from living in our modern building. Members go gaga over the Ryerson SLC even though it's no comparison to anything new or old in UofT.

I'm actually hoping for something gawdy and over-the-top here. We need more structures that are very different and unique and don't all blend together like in South Core.

This is won't disappoint in that regard ;)
 
TDotTeen said:
I don't get all the hate for classical architecture around here. People seem to think that anything borrowing from past styles is tasteless and unsophisticated because it is unoriginal (I don't actually know if this is the reason).
Click to expand...

That's a topic we've covered over and over again here. I'll try to find a past post of mine about it because I don't want to fill this thread with the same roundabout discussion all over again. To sum up very briefly, the main issue many people in the industry have with attempting to recreate past styles is because technology has changed. Ford doesn't build the Model T anymore for the same reason. It's also difficult to recreate an old-school aesthetic because the craftsmanship is impossible to come by in our age of mass production.

You're entitled to enjoy the aesthetics/feel/experience of older buildings, I for one do! But it's highly problematic to try and recreate those styles in new projects. I think what seems like snobbery on the surface is in fact frustration from designers who understand the issues but are pressured by those who feel we should recreate old styles. When you're in the designer's chair, it's very frustrating.

The irony, however, is that a lot of us here enjoy neo-modernism, which is very much a recreation of modernist buildings. We're not in modernism anymore in 2015, but a handful of Toronto firms apply the aesthetic. I'm willing to admit that my own modernist preferences are stuck in the past. Part of my current education is trying to unlearn my conception of what a building looks like and look to the latest technologies and environmentally sustainable advances in architectural design. Case in point: spandrel glass applied liberally to recent condo projects. Environmental measures dictate that fully-glazed towers are not energy-efficient enough by 2015 standards. Many developers/architecture firms continue to create them despite this, in order to achieve a particular aesthetic/feel, although the new rules mean that instead of fully-glazed towers like in buildings past, spandrel panels have to suffice and detract from the effect. Architecture should change and evolve with the times, technology, and the important design issues of the day. The quest for environmental sustainability is really the current game-changer for architecture, and many local firms are creating nostalgia pieces that harken back to a time before Postmodernism.

I believe in making every attempt to preserve the past in its most true and authentic form so that it can be enjoyed as long as possible in its physical state. I value and cherish heritage architecture. But I also believe that recreating it is almost never successful, not realistic and can never be done as successfully as the original piece while also holding back a modern building from achieving what it needs to achieve.

I hope that makes sense!
 
Last edited:
TDotTeen said:
I don't get all the hate for classical architecture around here. People seem to think that anything borrowing from past styles is tasteless and unsophisticated because it is unoriginal (I don't actually know if this is the reason). On the contrary, if done well, I think an Art Deco building, or a beaux-arts building, etc. built in 2015 could be just as beautiful as one built in the first half of the 20th century. What people seem to forget is that those styles were themselves copies of the past, even at the time they were built (taking influence from real - Greek and Roman - classical architecture).

Modernism turned everyone into snobs when it comes to things like ornamentation and decoration, but I think we can now appreciate that these elements can have a place in beautiful buildings. If this is the case, why can't we continue to build in older styles?

Of course, many styles are easy to do, but difficult to do well. But if done well I think a building designed in a pre-war style (Art Deco for example) could be amazing. In fact, despite what many people think, a properly proportioned classical structure could be more sophisticated than a a fancy shape clad in exciting materials; most people seem to exclusively desire the latter nowadays, and I think this is misguided.

Anyway, I'm certainly excited to see what will be unveiled at this site.

PS. I'm not accusing anyone in particular of being a snob, it just seems to be a fairly common view.

PPS. I am aware of the love for One St. Thomas, but in general this kind of style seems to be frowned upon...idk, maybe I'm imagining things
Click to expand...

I feel more than a few on UT have impossible standards but, I don't feel any favoritism towards modern architecture. The majority of these inspired traditional designs are simply not done all that well. Their modern equivalents are condemned equally. One St Thomas is one of the more ostentatious towers out there but, still earns its respects.

Beaux Arts was the peak of tackiness back in its day. We definitely don't need to revive that movement.
 
Last edited:
modernizt said:
That's a topic we've covered over and over again here. I'll try to find a past post of mine about it because I don't want to fill this thread with the same roundabout discussion all over again. To sum up very briefly, the main issue many people in the industry have with attempting to recreate past styles is because technology has changed. Ford doesn't build the Model T anymore for the same reason. It's also difficult to recreate an old-school aesthetic because the craftsmanship is impossible to come by in our age of mass production.

You're entitled to enjoy the aesthetics/feel/experience of older buildings, I for one do! But it's highly problematic to try and recreate those styles in new projects. I think what seems like snobbery on the surface is in fact frustration from designers who understand the issues but are pressured by those who feel we should recreate old styles. When you're in the designer's chair, it's very frustrating.

The irony, however, is that a lot of us here enjoy neo-modernism, which is very much a recreation of modernist buildings. We're not in modernism anymore in 2015, but a handful of Toronto firms apply the aesthetic. I'm willing to admit that my own modernist preferences are stuck in the past. Part of my current education is trying to unlearn my conception of what a building looks like and look to the latest technologies and environmentally sustainable advances in architectural design. Case in point: spandrel glass applied liberally to recent condo projects. Environmental measures dictate that fully-glazed towers are not energy-efficient enough by 2015 standards. Many developers/architecture firms continue to create them despite this, in order to achieve a particular aesthetic/feel, although the new rules mean that instead of fully-glazed towers like in buildings past, spandrel panels have to suffice and detract from the effect. Architecture should change and evolve with the times, technology, and the important design issues of the day. The quest for environmental sustainability is really the current game-changer for architecture, and many local firms are creating nostalgia pieces that harken back to a time before Postmodernism.

I believe in making every attempt to preserve the past in its most true and authentic form so that it can be enjoyed as long as possible in its physical state. I value and cherish heritage architecture. But I also believe that recreating it is almost never successful, not realistic and can never be done as successfully as the original piece while also holding back a modern building from achieving what it needs to achieve.

I hope that makes sense!
Click to expand...

Well, by your own admission it is highly problematic to build all of these neo-modern buildings...

You sound like a Toronto architect.... I think a lot of architects and firms in Toronto tend to build for themselves and not the public. Oh and most are obsessed with neo-modernism.

I think it's a travesty that despite all of the technological advances our skyline is a sea of buildings with the same colour of glass and massing.

I for one am excited to see what unfolds tomorrow.
 
I look forward to this proposal immensely as well. I look forward to the view from the east from the Danforth where it will be even taller than 1 bloor east I believe.
 
modernizt said:
I believe in making every attempt to preserve the past in its most true and authentic form so that it can be enjoyed as long as possible in its physical state. I value and cherish heritage architecture. But I also believe that recreating it is almost never successful, not realistic and can never be done as successfully as the original piece while also holding back a modern building from achieving what it needs to achieve.
Click to expand...

My issue with this is that many of the buildings that we cherish from the pre-war period are themselves copies of earlier architectural styles. This however does not detract from their quality. People love New York for it's early 20th century skyscrapers, which were steel structures (new technology) hidden underneath classically inspired exteriors (columns, cornices, etc.). For an example here in Toronto look at Union Station. It was built after the Bauhaus (I believe), and yet it is dominated by Greek order columns. The technology, and the precedent, existed to build a modern-looking structure, and yet look what we got. Does that make it fake? Maybe. But it doesn't make it any less beautiful.

In my opinion, quite the opposite of what you describe has happened. Instead of past styles holding architecture back, the constant desire to bring something new to the table has resulted in architecture that no one really likes, but "at least it's modern." Compare Toronto to New York, Paris, or Chigaco. Which is more beautiful? Those built in premodern times (architecturally) seem to me to be obviously more architecturally pleasing. And yet any attempt to build buildings like those that everyone seems to actually like would be immediatly dismissed as "unsophisticated" and "uncultured," simply because it isn't new.

Anyway, that's just how I feel about it. It isn't to say that I don't like modern/postmodern architecture. Rather, I dislike the attitude that has come along with it (or perhaps even gave birth to it), which is a complete rejection of the past as an inferior time. Modern architecture can be beautiful and functional, if it is good architecture. Likewise, classical architecture can also still be beautiful and functional if it is good architecture.
 
You must log in or register to post here.

Back
Top