Toronto Vü Condos | 83.51m | 24s | Aspen Ridge | Hariri Pontarini

detroitbootybass said:
I don't mind the building and it fits in well with it's neighbors. It isn't the most attractive structure(s), but it is far, far better than what was there previously. Is it as nice as the original renders? No, but what Toronto building is... none. The city slathers each project with a big heaping of 'bland'. That's why the Absolute World towers could never be done in present-day Toronto.
Click to expand...

Plenty of buildings end up as nice as the original renderings. In the end, I think some developers are more competent than others. There are the chimps who call generic brick townhouses "brownstones", those who build awkward buildings at unique and prominent locations, and those who consistently hire the best architects and who have consistently deliver well designed projects. Why couldn't the Absolute towers be built in Toronto? The same developer is building the L-Tower, an impressive starchitect-designed tower. We've seen plenty of great projects.
 
urbandreamer said:
I used to live in the Bathurst-Lawrence riding. HP is in the mcmansion business, or at least used to be. Vu looks very mcmansion-ish to me--ie multiple treatments of different facades, inappropriate blank spaces facing the street corners, huge front "garage" etc. Perhaps the only thing missing is the copper flashing. :p My mcmansion exposure has mostly been in the B-L area. I'm certain it exists elsewhere, be it with the Amish, Iranians, or whatever background families....

One of the common reasons why the B-L newbies buy these mcmanions is "more room for a large family" and "status." I prefer the old original stylish bungalows==much classier. Vu reminds me more of a mcmansion than a classic modest bungalow design--perhaps the nearby East meets that aesthetic better?
Click to expand...

In that case, what condo design *isn't* McMansion-ish? Methinks the metaphor's lost in translation--esp. when one considers how McMansion-bashers might be more prone to equate this condo example a stone's throw to the NW...

french-quarter-lg.jpg
 
Vu reminds me of the sort of design ( using the word in a general sense - it could equally be applied to any sort of product of the creative imagination - a graphic layout, or a website, or a piece of furniture etc. ) where they got it to a certain point with it and then, rather than pare it down for a more direct and effective statement, they started fussing over it, adding bits on, dithering around and equivocating. As a result things started to go off the rails a bit, the result isn't as handsome as it could be, and the potential isn't achieved.

When I look at the building it seems generally rather overwrought, and I find myself questioning the need for such complexity rather than admiring it as a coherent whole. It's like being at a concert that could be performed better - you're aware of the technical faults, time starts to drag, and you think "oh well, maybe next time ..." HP, for all their success with designing beautiful smaller projects, come across as the poor man's aA when they go big. That thing they designed for Yonge and Bloor that looks like a box with curvy bits stuck on, compared to the aesthetic that Yansong Ma's fabulous "Marilyn" building expresses, is another example of their falling short in this way.
 
... also, the tower doesn't work as well as it ought to as a view terminus since it is comparatively wide and lacks the "release" of sky around it that made a structure such as Old City Hall's campanile stand out so well when viewed from a distance.
 
Well, actually, in a Vu-type location, an Absolute design *might* be a little too much, esp. this close to the old Town of York, St Lawrence, etc. You need a spot where a little prima-donnaness makes more sense...
 
adma said:
In that case, what condo design *isn't* McMansion-ish? Methinks the metaphor's lost in translation--esp. when one considers how McMansion-bashers might be more prone to equate this condo example a stone's throw to the NW...

french-quarter-lg.jpg
Click to expand...


NO !!! not the French Quarter ...... yuck !
 
looking back to renders, I noticed that the large cylindrical concrete column in the front open area was not there. Did they have to add that for structural reasons after consulting with civil engineers? Could they have omitted that column with other added supports? Maybe it is being picky, but for me that column somewhat compromises the cleaner design theme. Perhaps in the future they can bring the glass out so the column becomes an interior element.
 
Last edited:
ponyboy said:
looking back to renders, I noticed that the large cylindrical concrete column in the front open area was not there. Did they have to add that for structural reasons after consulting with civil engineers? Could they have omitted that column with other added supports? Maybe it is being picky, but for me that column somewhat compromises the cleaner design theme. Perhaps in the future they can bring the glass out so the column becomes an interior element.
Click to expand...


i wonder if the column is for safety reasons since adelaide street east could turn into a 1-way speedway after the bars close.
 
I have no problem with VU other than it being somewhat dumbed-down from the renders/models. It forms a reasonable view-terminus and fits in well within the existing neighbourhood fabric. What does bother me is the unsightly street clutter of ugly light standards, utility poles, overhead wires, etc. that can be seen in Redroom's first pic in particular. Why oh why is Toronto so far behind other cities in dealing with this? It's inexcusable.
 
You must log in or register to post here.

Back
Top