The Uptown | T/O | 48 st | 158 m | Bloor-Yorkville

[Coral Builder]

Not only that, but those NY office towers are owned by none other than Brookfield, a Canadian company based in the Bay-Wellington Tower in Downtown Toronto. A nice Thomas Crown smile to you!

[dleung]

Ah the confusion, I was talking about the architect who designed the buildings, you were talking about the guys who manage the buildings. Technically we can say Jameson house was done by a Vancouver architect... Walter Francl Architects did the window details, Foster did the rest.

Originally Posted by isaidso

I have no interest in belittling accomplishments made by Vancouver.

I do it all the time. Anyway, since when did u become cheerleader central? I always thought you were above vague assurances like "oh it'll look better when completed" on the trump thread

...the last few weeks of commentary...

It's just bad timing, honestly. I'm consistently critical ["hateful" in booster dictionary]

[isaidso]

Originally Posted by dleung

I do it all the time. Anyway, since when did u become cheerleader central? I always thought you were above vague assurances like "oh it'll look better when completed" on the trump thread

It's just bad timing, honestly. I'm consistently critical ["hateful" in booster dictionary]

I'm trying to be diplomatic. I love that era in architecture (1920s-1930s). I understand the limits and problems with historical recreation, but am willing to accept a degree of imperfection in order to get a few more buildings like this.

I know many hate it, so this was my feeble attempt at encouraging patience. If they still hate it once it's done fine, but this type of building will be hard to judge till it's done.

And don't knock cheerleading!

[Nouvellecosse]

Originally Posted by isaidso

I'm surprised how many people don't like Trump. I've been waiting 20 years for Toronto to get a building that looks like that. Do we really need everything to look like Bay-Adelaide?

Uptown falls into the same category as Trump, the ROM Crystal, Umbra store, and L Tower. They're all a departure from the cookie cutter mold. Different doesn't always mean good, but these are good. Good doesn't mean that buildings all have to follow some rigid aesthetic.

What? BA is boring as shit! I may have criticized Trump for being a touch tacky with poor attention to detail, but it's much better than BA (I only hope BA's design doesn't get twinned or tripled). Trump may be turning out to be a let down compared to all the hype/high hopes, but it is still good.

Originally Posted by dleung

I never liked faux-historicism, which is why as much as I like uptown's proportions, it doesn't do anything for me.

I've never really gotten the whole idea behind people not liking things because of "faux-historicism." How can a person criticize ALL the varying architectural styles that were developed before the last ~50 years? Are ALL of the styles developed throughout history until the last half century complete garbage? I understand that when styles are created outside their era of peak popularity that they aren't always executed properly, but if the developer does a great job, and the building is as high in quality as its predecessors, then what is the difference?

[isaidso]

Originally Posted by Nouvellecosse

What? BA is boring as shit! I may have criticized Trump for being a touch tacky with poor attention to detail, but it's much better than BA (I only hope the design doesn't get twinned or tripled). Trump may have be turning out to be a let down compared to all the hype/high hopes, but it is still good.

So we agree then.

[dleung]

Originally Posted by Nouvellecosse

I've never really gotten the whole idea behind people not liking things because of "faux-historicism." How can a person criticize ALL the varying architectural styles that were developed before the last ~50 years? Are ALL of the styles developed throughout history until the last half century complete garbage? I understand that when styles are created outside their era of peak popularity that they aren't always executed properly, but if the developer does a great job, and the building is as high in quality as its predecessors, then what is the difference?

It doesn't even matter if the replica is done perfectly or well (which never happens), because it has no meaning. Art deco wasn't a "style" back in the 30's, it was the standard, a testament to the spirit of the period and available technology. It's only because society is so pessimistic about the future that we turn back to the comfort of "traditional" architecture. Another low point in architectural history IMO is neo-classicism.

[Elkhanan1]

Originally Posted by dleung

Another low point in architectural history IMO is neo-classicism.

Are you kidding me? Such a blanket statement shows that you know nothing about the history of art and architecture. I suppose you'd write off Neo-Gothic and Neo-Romanesque as architectural low-points too.

BTW, Art Deco is very much a 'style,' some would say the essence and apex of style in the purest sense of the word, that takes its influence from a myriad of sources, including Neoclassicism.

Nothing springs out of the blue. Everything is a byproduct of that which comes before, including Classicism, let alone Neoclassicism, which, in fact, was a progressive movement, not a reactionary one. In that sense, Neoclassicism is a high-point in architecture.

Read a book or two before you start mouthing off.

[Nouvellecosse]

Originally Posted by dleung

It doesn't even matter if the replica is done perfectly or well (which never happens), because it has no meaning. Art deco wasn't a "style" back in the 30's, it was the standard, a testament to the spirit of the period and available technology. It's only because society is so pessimistic about the future that we turn back to the comfort of "traditional" architecture. Another low point in architectural history IMO is neo-classicism.

There are many other important considerations in the design of a building besides having it adhere to "The spirit of the era." It should also fit well with the street, neighbourhood, city, country, climate, budget, occupants, function, etc. In other words, if we want to arrive at the best final outcome, we should be carefully examining the situation and choosing out of ALL available styles and possibilities rather than stifling the design process for the sake of ideology (which happens all too often unfortunately, which is of course why there are so many new, non faux-historical buildings that are totally unappealing).

For every building to have a contemporary style isn't a sign of confidence in the future as much as it is a sign that we're so fickle that we cast aside centuries worth of beauty and innovation because we're obsessed with following the latest fad. After all. most contemporary buildings have designs that are just jumping on the bandwagon of the latest trend rather then leading it. Those type of buildings are more concerned about being seen as fashionable rather than having a carefully designed, timeless style. I'm not suggesting all buildings should have older styles, of course. Just that whatever the chosen style, the focus should be on doing it well rather than on adhering to the current fancy.

[Mollywood]

Originally Posted by dleung

It doesn't even matter if the replica is done perfectly or well (which never happens), because it has no meaning. Art deco wasn't a "style" back in the 30's, it was the standard, a testament to the spirit of the period and available technology. It's only because society is so pessimistic about the future that we turn back to the comfort of "traditional" architecture. Another low point in architectural history IMO is neo-classicism.

And what about beauty? Is it surprising that most people consider most of the newer buildings much less attractive, then older buildings? I'll take a replica of an old, beautiful building, over an ugly, boring, modern building "of it's time". Most new buildings are not attractive, innovative or original, so why defend them.

[Grey Towers]

Originally Posted by Mollywood

I'll take a replica of an old, beautiful building, over an ugly, boring, modern building "of it's time". Most new buildings are not attractive, innovative or original, so why defend them.

[dleung]

I'm not defending modern buildings, nor am I attacking old buildings. I'm attacking cheap replicas of old buildings... seriously can anyone bring up an example that is done properly? Whereas with new architectures, at least occasionally there's something to be proud of.

[HipHopCanada]

Starting to look a little chalk-y, we'll see how the final product turns out though. If it was easier on the eye like Commerce Court I would be pissing my pants right now in excitement.

[AndrewJM3D]

Originally Posted by dleung

It's only because society is so pessimistic about the future that we turn back to the comfort of "traditional" architecture. Another low point in architectural history IMO is neo-classicism.

It's really sad that's how you see things. Deco is a style that has stood the test of time as a style that people like. It's no surprise from time to time we'll see developments like this. In Canadian cities where we missed out on a lot of tall deco builds these are a welcome addition. In 30 years people won't look at this design and say what were they thinking, unlike a a lot of what's being designed these days. I doubt they chose this design because purchasers in Toronto are pessimistic about our future. This city is on the up and up.

This will be my last response to a post by dleung, it's so hard to read his crap and not respond for as long as I've done. His constant bashing of Toronto's construction and his clockwork like trolling in the Toronto forum leads me to believe he's secretly in love with Toronto or is just plain jeleous of our insane amount of highrises on the go.

image hosted on flickr

[AndrewJM3D]

Originally Posted by dleung

I'm not defending modern buildings, nor am I attacking old buildings. I'm attacking cheap replicas of old buildings... seriously can anyone bring up an example that is done properly? Whereas with new architectures, at least occasionally there's something to be proud of.

Easy.

image hosted on flickr



And yes we all know the blueprints where made decades before they built it but they still stuck with the deco design. I guesse the people of Toronto were depressed about the future back in 1951. Or they were just so out of touch with what was cool they missed the deco boat by a full 11 years. Who else is pissed off they built this? Me and Dleung are. What an eyesore. F"&cking cheap knock off.

Side note, this building is is only 15 years older then the TD Tower.
image hosted on flickr

[isaidso]

One of my favourite buildings in the city: grand, elegant, solid, urbane, beautiful, high quality, and timeless. It looks as good today as the day it was completed. I wish we had 100 buildings that looked like that. I often go down there just to look at it. There aren't very many buildings I go out of my way to admire.

Uptown isn't as good as this one, but it's not a bad recreation. It's nod to the 1930s is welcome and hopefully will one day be admired in the same way that the originals are.

[Nouvellecosse]

Yes, I like buildings in that style as well, and I'm sure I'd like it even if it were new, as long as it was well made and didn't look cheap.

[Taller, Better]

I'll take good repro over most fanciful PoMo any day of the week. Reproductions have their limitations, however, and if you cannot do it decently, don't do it at all.

I went to a very Bauhausian school and had it drilled into me that "inspiration" of past Architectural design styles was a Bad Thing. Neo Anything was definitely a no-no.
Almost all Victorian architecture was summarily dismissed for having been merely derivative. It wasn't till I graduated from University and started to think for myself
that I set aside that inculcation, and learned to appreciate more architectural styles than those my professors adhered religiously to. Also, travelling to cities that had
far more varied architectural styles than the cities I grew up in helped to open my eyes. In Western Canada I was mostly used to seeing architecture that was either brand
new, or mostly built within living memory.

[dleung]

1 St Thomas is better than most comparable replicas, but ask any student in the field, and they'll all say it contributes nothing to architectural progress. Deco is my favorite style within the last 200 years, but the last thing I want is a charicature or pastiche. If there were to do it today, it only has value or meaning if there is an improvement or design development, like Neo-suchandsuch was to whatever preceded it. Even then the development wasn't always a good thing (actually rarely). Gothic had a "high" period for a reason.

Hope no one gave any weight to Andrew's personal attacks, otherwise I'll hv to once again point out that i'm not out-to-get T-dot; he'll ignore me, and the cycle will repeat in a few weeks' time...

[AndrewJM3D]

People don't need to read into what I have to say about you dleung, all of your posts are all the proof that we need.

But he's right people,everybody rush out now and ask all the architecture students you can find and they will back up what he has to say. From now on don't form your own opinion when dleung can tell us what all architectural students have to say about a project. Then and only then should you form an opinion on whether or not you like a structure. I wish I had a group of architectural students to call up and poll whenever I wanted to knbow how to feel about a design like you do dleung.

Also dleung, I don't ignore you, I just block you. Not seeing your posts is like opening the news paper and not seeing any ads, or opening my email and not receiving any spam.

Qoutes about one St Thomas -

Author and U of T philosophy prof Mark Kingwell has called it “the one building going up right now that I’d actually like to live in.”

Child and Toronto basher dleung says says "ask any student in the field, and they'll all say it contributes nothing to architectural progress".

Take your pick people or continue doing what I do and form your own opinions

[Nouvellecosse]

OMG! Would you two just freakin DO IT already and get it over with?!?! This elaborate, drawn-out courtship ritual might give you guys some type of enjoyment, but the rest of us just find it tedious.

Originally Posted by dleung

1 St Thomas is better than most comparable replicas, but ask any student in the field, and they'll all say it contributes nothing to architectural progress. Deco is my favorite style within the last 200 years, but the last thing I want is a charicature or pastiche. If there were to do it today, it only has value or meaning if there is an improvement or design development, like Neo-suchandsuch was to whatever preceded it. Even then the development wasn't always a good thing (actually rarely). Gothic had a "high" period for a reason.

You still don't get it. A building doesn't need to contribute to "architectural progress" in order to be considered good, it only needs to fulfill its intended role or purposes as well as possible, ie contribute positively to the aesthetics of its setting, provide a comfortable and functional space for its occupants, and be built as well as possible, with quality workmanship, materials, and attention to detail. Remember, buildings don't exist for the sake of architecture, the architectural fields exists for the sake of creating buildings. So for the architecture field to be successful it has to create good buildings, but for a building to be successful, it does not have to advance architecture.

As far as this notion of using older styles being a caricature, that would be the case if the building was built with the intent of making it look old using various treatments and techniques to add wear and patina to the exterior, but for buildings that make no attempt to alter perception of their age and simply use a style that best suits the setting/purposes despite not current being widely utilized by others, there is nothing dishonest about that. And a replica would be an exact copy of another building, not just a building using a style that's no longer prevalent. Buildings really need to be judged on an individual basis. It's great to study architectural history and learn about landmark developments, but just because a building will never appear in some text book marking an advancement doesn't detract from its merits.