Worthiness of "The Box"

[adma]

By the way, Toronto has some awful boxes. Like FCP and the TD buildings, to name a few. But they still add substance to the CBD. Which I like."

I think it's the "awful" qualifier re TD that's leaving people Tex Avery-jawed around here. Thus, my "Miles Van Der Rohe" comment...

 

[Urban Shocker]

I had a similar nightmare, urbandreamer. I kept hearing Peter Clewes quoting himself from that interview he gave to John Bentley Mays a couple of years ago:

" There's the rise of the middle class and the importance of the individual. If you go to the "Marilyn" towers, you see they come from the desire of the middle class to be recognized as important, with something that has an individualized expression. You see that in Manhattan now. They're hiring rock-star architects to do one-off residential buildings - Herzog & de Meuron on Bond Street, Jean Nouvel in Soho. Are we prepared to go as far as "Marilyn"? It's been a big debate in my mind. The city needs all types of buildings."

Then a whole bunch of UT forum members rushed in shouting, "No! Don't do it! We've got you pegged as the dogma dude! How will we cope?"

 

[E.B.]

I think it's the "awful" qualifier re TD that's leaving people Tex Avery-jawed around here. Thus, my "Miles Van Der Rohe" comment...

I wrote that quickly, without thinking about it.

I was just trying to point out to those that are saying 1BE is just a box, that there are other buildings that fit the category as well. I just got carried away.

Sorry about that.

P.S. I can handle criticism. I'm not withering flower.

 

[yyzhyd]

I think it's the "awful" qualifier re TD that's leaving people Tex Avery-jawed around here. Thus, my "Miles Van Der Rohe" comment...

Not sure if the "Miles... " was intentional... because I assume you know that it's Mies van der Rohe.

 

[golodhendil]

Not sure if the "Miles... " was intentional... because I assume you know that it's Mies van der Rohe.

I think that's exactly his point..

 

[Urban Shocker]

You keep quoting me on this line US. I think you misunderstood the point that I was trying to express. When I said "completely different" I wasn't referring to the Toronto context, but rather to the aesthetic sensibilities that pervade this forum. My point is that just because one subscribes to the school of thought that Clewes boxes are excellent, which I do, that does not mean that one cannot also allow oneself to appreciate a design that such a dogma would automatically demand be renounced because it is post-modern or has "bits stuck on it." In other words, there's nothing wrong with appreciating something completely different from what one might otherwise dogmatically allow themselves to appreciate.

For example, you speak about Clewes' boxes with the highest of reverence, yet when you speak about One Bloor, you speak with indignant disdain for it and those whom might appreciate it. Thus, to me it is apparent that in your mind these designs are on opposite sides of the spectrum. Hence, One Bloor is something completely different from the kinds of designs that you would typically appreciate. That one could totally dismiss an otherwise decent design by virtue of the simple fact that it has "bits stuck on it" seems overly dogmatic to me. What I find pretentious though, is derision of those whom like the design of One Bloor despite the fact that, by your own admission, it is not significantly dissimilar to aA's glorious grey boxes.

The "aesthetic sensibilities" on this forum aren't "pervasive" though - they range from Cheddingtonista to neo-Modernist to Big Hair Starchitecture ... and beyond. Within that spectrum, HP's building has a fan base. aA have designed non-rectilinear buildings, and your idea that there's some sort of dogma at work that automatically puts shapes or colours or textures or heights or massing or any other design element out of bounds is illogical. What counts is how effective a design is, and criticism of this particular building has been for what it is, not for what it isn't. If a reading of the building suggests that it's a box with bits stuck on it to disguise the fact that it's a box ( and the plans indicate that's the case ) that's a logical critique to make.

 

[adma]

I think that's exactly his point..

Yeah, like referring to "Adams" (i.e. Adam) furniture.

 

[Tewder]

Generally speaking, those who knock the TD as mere boxes are likely the sort to refer to "Miles Van Der Rohe"

... as those who blindly worship the established design elites are likely the sort to annoyingly pronounce the 'h' in which or whom.

For all your attempts to insert aA into the equation, Tewder, criticism of HP's building has been for what it is, not for what it isn't.

... and for all your attempts to distance yourself from your own veneration of aA (Clewes, the 'brilliant one' isn't it?), your criticisms can only be viewed in this light. And if ever there was a false dichotomy proffered on UT it is of the tired 'Lemmings for One Bloor/enlightened for Clewes' ilk.

 

[Urban Shocker]

I never try to distance myself from The Great Man and all his works - be they rectilinear or curvaceous.

As Aubrey Beardsley said, "I may claim to have some command of line. I try to get as much as possible out of a single curve ... or straight line."