casaguy
Senior Member
Even this lover of glass towers agrees: We need more projects like WHC. It's turning out wonderfully.
Even this lover of glass towers agrees: We need more projects like WHC. It's turning out wonderfully.
Urban Shocker
Doyenne
West Harbour City = Bad Quadrangle.
Solaris
Senior Member
it so happens there are some of us out there that find this 'Bad Quadrangle' as good design ~
urbandreamer
recession proof
^That idea alone really makes me sad. Or rather, scared...
CityLover
New Member
Why do you come and torture yourselves?
Urban shocker and other nay sayers...We get it...you don't like it. So I wonder why you spend your precious time looking at something you dislike so much. Waste of your time I would think. You should spend your time more productively and look at things that make you happy...just a thought.
Urban shocker and other nay sayers...We get it...you don't like it. So I wonder why you spend your precious time looking at something you dislike so much. Waste of your time I would think. You should spend your time more productively and look at things that make you happy...just a thought.
Gooner
Active Member
ProjectEnd
Superstar
Obviously anyone can like any style they wish, it just happens that the more one gets involved in something, the more minimal they wish it were. For example, my brother is a chef and is completely absorbed in the profession - he loves it. The other day, we were discussing food (which I know nothing about) in relation to architecture (which he knows nothing about) and found that many parallels exist in these two fields. The most obvious similarity was that what interested us both most was when a talented professional creates something incredible with a rudimentary set of components. He described the way that a chef like Adrià (not his favorite, but a good example) plates mind-numbing dishes with minimal ornament and pizazz so that those consuming these treats will focus on their flavors, rather than their presentation. Likewise, in architecture it is far more impressive when an architect or firm creates a moving building using the bare minimum of what is available to them. People on here generally like aA because without ornamental distractions, they are able to focus on the building itself. It seems to me that aA is a firm which allows the form of their building to emerge from the patterns of usage to which its inhabitants subscribe. For example, people like balconies so why not loop them around the whole building for maximum size, while allowing the balcony itself to inform the shape of the building (CASA).
On the other hand, the architects of buildings like WHC, BSN, Star, Red Hot, Everything in Markham, etc. seem to start with a shape or style in mind and create a building that looks like what is in their head (not all of Quadrangle's stuff is bad - the BMW Showroom, 60 Lofts, and The Morgan all prove that they can get things right). Once that basic form is established, they go about filling in the other parts like the units, amenity spaces, and so forth. To me, this is not architecture since I subscribe to Kahn's notion that 'architecture is the thoughtful making of space.' This quote is so powerful because it nips these problems in the bud. By starting with the spaces rather than the shapes, we create better, more functional buildings which are able to adapt to changing circumstances with greater ease because they were formulated by careful examinations of how people use space, not what historical shapes those inhabitants might desire.
All that said, aside from 'I don't like glass boxes,' I haven't heard a cogent explanation of why these buildings should be justified, or even why I should try to see them in a different light. WHC itself is not that bad, but there are far worse examples out there.
So bring it on Citylover et al: Why should I care?
On the other hand, the architects of buildings like WHC, BSN, Star, Red Hot, Everything in Markham, etc. seem to start with a shape or style in mind and create a building that looks like what is in their head (not all of Quadrangle's stuff is bad - the BMW Showroom, 60 Lofts, and The Morgan all prove that they can get things right). Once that basic form is established, they go about filling in the other parts like the units, amenity spaces, and so forth. To me, this is not architecture since I subscribe to Kahn's notion that 'architecture is the thoughtful making of space.' This quote is so powerful because it nips these problems in the bud. By starting with the spaces rather than the shapes, we create better, more functional buildings which are able to adapt to changing circumstances with greater ease because they were formulated by careful examinations of how people use space, not what historical shapes those inhabitants might desire.
All that said, aside from 'I don't like glass boxes,' I haven't heard a cogent explanation of why these buildings should be justified, or even why I should try to see them in a different light. WHC itself is not that bad, but there are far worse examples out there.
So bring it on Citylover et al: Why should I care?
ProjectEnd
Superstar
-1
urbandreamer
recession proof
Okay, let's put the WHC vs. Casa comparison in plain Engrish:
Casa=ipod
WHC=
Casa=ipod
WHC=
Urban Shocker
Doyenne
Good design as defined by PinkoLucy and the serviette union, methinks:
http://www.roterochs.de/english/napkins/
http://www.roterochs.de/english/napkins/
I don't know why you have brought me into the discussion about design. I didn't comment on the architecture of the building, simply said that I thought there was a decent selection of colours and finishes to choose from. I'm not sure how that managed to make me part of some serviette union, which I expect is your lame attempt at scathing humour.
I'm not an architect, and I don't apologize for that. However, I do like the look of this building because it's different from so much of what is going up. As others have said, if you don't like it, don't look at it. It's good that we all don't like the same thing or life would be pretty bland.
ProjectEnd
Superstar
Would you have said the same thing about the Rwandan Genocide or some equally horrific historical episode? The point is that buildings are big, resource consuming monsters so why make them blights? Shocker's jesting jab bites at the notion that we should imbue normal buildings with only the noblest and most royal of frivolous ornament in our quest for aesthetic 'success.'
Oh please. Genocide vs urban development?
If WHC is such a blight, then so too are all condos and developments. Let's just tear the city down.
If WHC is such a blight, then so too are all condos and developments. Let's just tear the city down.
yyzer
Senior Member
don't take it too personally, PinkLucy, there are plenty of people on the forum who recognize that variety in architecture is a good thing...
West Harbour City is not particularly my cup of tea, but it does bring a welcome change of style to the city's recent glass and steel additions....
and I believe it went through a design panel, so there are at least a few professional architects out there who would give it thumbs up.....
It's a wedding cake, but Toronto needs a wedding cake or two...
West Harbour City is not particularly my cup of tea, but it does bring a welcome change of style to the city's recent glass and steel additions....
and I believe it went through a design panel, so there are at least a few professional architects out there who would give it thumbs up.....
It's a wedding cake, but Toronto needs a wedding cake or two...
I'm not taking it personally. I just get tired of bullies who think their opinions are so much better than anyone else's and who take perverse pleasure in anonymously harassing people on message boards.