151 Front St W | On Hold | 36 st | 173 m | Downtown - Page 8

metroboi_nay · October 25th, 2007, 02:14 AM

It could be worse, its ok, the original was better tho.

monkeyronin · October 25th, 2007, 02:26 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Dream Brother

People seriously need to start standing up and demanding more out of this city's architecture. The first rendering was awesome and could have worked in any other city but Toronto is so bloody passive when it comes to making bold statements with architecture. When Toronto tries to be bold it fails. eg. Rom, OCAD.

Mmm, at it again already, I see. Its not like "Toronto" is at fault for the mediocre design of this building (nor is it responsible for any building save municipal ones). And aside from this, most contemporary architecture here is quite elegant and stylish, even if it doesn't meet your kitschy tastes.

And uh, ROM & OCAD...failures? Hahaha.

ScrapeTheSky · October 25th, 2007, 03:00 AM

You know, the fact that it looks like Simcoe Place is a big plus for me!

Dream Brother · October 25th, 2007, 05:52 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by ScrapeTheSky

You know, the fact that it looks like Simcoe Place is a big plus for me!

That just shows how unoriginal it became.

urban 2.0 · October 26th, 2007, 04:42 AM

who knew Front Street West would become the next Bay and King?! -- albeit with not as spectacular buildings

ggaleazz · October 29th, 2007, 02:54 AM

I don't know the 2 renderings look very similar in it's modernist/po-mo style. IMHO the podium in the second rendering is far superior to the first one. The only difference I see in the tower is the treatment/design of the windows. And I doubt that the treatment in the first rendering was anything near reality anyway.

The whole let's do odd angles and wierd shapes is being overplayed in most architecture anyway. That kind of stuff works best in institustions where they make a big impact. Putting them in general buildings makes them look cheesy.

And how can you say the ROM is a failure and like the first design at the same time?

Dream Brother · October 29th, 2007, 03:16 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by ggaleazz

I don't know the 2 renderings look very similar in it's modernist/po-mo style. IMHO the podium in the second rendering is far superior to the first one. The only difference I see in the tower is the treatment/design of the windows. And I doubt that the treatment in the first rendering was anything near reality anyway.

The whole let's do odd angles and wierd shapes is being overplayed in most architecture anyway. That kind of stuff works best in institustions where they make a big impact. Putting them in general buildings makes them look cheesy.

And how can you say the ROM is a failure and like the first design at the same time?

Because the ROM is a mess. The metal sheets aren't even the same colour. It looks like total disarray. This just looked way cooler than the ROM. The metal with the light blue windows was a nice juxtaposition.

KGB · October 29th, 2007, 04:20 AM

Quote:

Because the ROM is a mess. The metal sheets aren't even the same colour. It looks like total disarray.

What do you mean "even"...you make it sound like that's only one of many faults with it or something. That's the only excuse I keep hearing...and that's not even a problem in the first place.

It's not that I couldn't entertain a critique involving ROM, but it would have to be from someone with a way more qualified opinion than yours.

KGB

Regan4000 · October 29th, 2007, 02:42 PM

The ROM in my opinion is a great (terrible) example of a buikding changing for the worse as it slowly downgrades considerably from rendering to finished product.

Why are the discoloured metal sheets NOT an issue? I assume they had planned for them to all be the same colour. And if they didn't, and had planned some here and there to be different hues of grey, then the designer should be shot.

It was a good idea when it was proposed as a giant 'crystal' jutting out of the ROM. It looks like a ripped up, discoloured pop can that someone jammed into the side of the ROM because they couldn't find a recycling bin.

I know it's only my opinion, and KGB's expert analysis is always 'daunting', but it really just looks terrible, and is certainly not attracting the attention they were planning for it to attract.

Jackhammer · October 29th, 2007, 04:58 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by regan

The ROM in my opinion is a great (terrible) example of a buikding changing for the worse as it slowly downgrades considerably from rendering to finished product.

Why are the discoloured metal sheets NOT an issue? I assume they had planned for them to all be the same colour. And if they didn't, and had planned some here and there to be different hues of grey, then the designer should be shot.

It was a good idea when it was proposed as a giant 'crystal' jutting out of the ROM. It looks like a ripped up, discoloured pop can that someone jammed into the side of the ROM because they couldn't find a recycling bin.

I know it's only my opinion, and KGB's expert analysis is always 'daunting', but it really just looks terrible, and is certainly not attracting the attention they were planning for it to attract.

Actually, I find it to be a happy accident. The sheets were intended to be the same colour, but the manufacturer screwed them up. I am a surprised there is no recourse, perhaps they can not guarantee between dye lots.

That said, the design is meant to look like a crystal, which due to reflection and refraction of light often appears as being shaded in the structure. Hence, the design is true to form.

I think it looks great and looks intended. I only feel it looks bad to those that know the shading was not intended.

***Taller, Better*** · October 29th, 2007, 07:39 PM

I find it strange when people obsess about a slight discolouration in some slats and tend to dismiss the entire structure because of that. I think that is a trifle narrow approach to architectural criticism. To me, the variation in the tone provides a playful sensation of "light and dark"...adding a bit of life to the structure. For the same reason you do not stand with your nose three inches away from an Impressionistic painting and complain that all the little daubs are not exactly the same colour, you must stand back and examine the architectural impression as a whole.

"and is certainly not attracting the attention they were planning for it to attract"

Could that be perhaps because the doors to the extension are locked, and will not open to the public til the galleries are installed in the Spring? Just a guess, mind you.

Regan4000 · October 29th, 2007, 09:07 PM

I'd say miscoloured panels to be quite a large mistake.

It looks terrible, in many people's opinion. How many other crystals have so many critics?

Considering the enormous scale and price, and buzz of this project, it really hasn't garnered much public reception.

I understand that people here actually LIKE and find this extension to be GOOD ARCHITECTURE, I just find it hard to even look at. Especially considering what the original plan made it out to be.

Steel panel siding has never been a classy, aesthetically pleasing way of finishing a building, let alone mismatched panels. It looks like a warehouse on acid. A WAREHOUSE, not some awe-inspiring, life changing, piece of art.

I know people like KGB and Taller, Better really like this addition. I just don't see it, personally.

Dream Brother · October 29th, 2007, 09:57 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by KGB

What do you mean "even"...you make it sound like that's only one of many faults with it or something. That's the only excuse I keep hearing...and that's not even a problem in the first place.

It's not that I couldn't entertain a critique involving ROM, but it would have to be from someone with a way more qualified opinion than yours.

KGB

Ya, because clearly I'm under your level. I think your Ushanka is on too tight and hindering the flow of Ragu to your head.

Dream Brother · October 29th, 2007, 10:00 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by regan

The ROM in my opinion is a great (terrible) example of a buikding changing for the worse as it slowly downgrades considerably from rendering to finished product.

Why are the discoloured metal sheets NOT an issue? I assume they had planned for them to all be the same colour. And if they didn't, and had planned some here and there to be different hues of grey, then the designer should be shot.

It was a good idea when it was proposed as a giant 'crystal' jutting out of the ROM. It looks like a ripped up, discoloured pop can that someone jammed into the side of the ROM because they couldn't find a recycling bin.

I know it's only my opinion, and KGB's expert analysis is always 'daunting', but it really just looks terrible, and is certainly not attracting the attention they were planning for it to attract.

Tru Dat Chow Yun Phat. Exactly what I was thinking. Btw, you wouldn't happen to be Regan Burns from the game show people don't even know they're on..."Oblivious?"

Dream Brother · October 29th, 2007, 10:05 PM

Why are you complacent with something that is so mismatched in colour? Perhaps the different hues of gray are supposed to represent multiculturalism. Yep, that's it.

Regan4000 · October 29th, 2007, 11:57 PM

No, I am not that guy, although, he is quite the hilarious prankster.

Plus I pronounce my name Reagan. Don't ask me why.

ggaleazz · October 30th, 2007, 12:00 AM

Yet another thread gone haywire.

I might add that the error in the shading of the panels is more a mistake on the part of the construction contractor and the builder more than the architect. I doubt the architect spent much time around this project after the design.

So it's not the design that was flawed, but the execution of the design that feel short of his vision.

monkeyronin · October 30th, 2007, 12:24 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by regan

Considering the enormous scale and price, and buzz of this project, it really hasn't garnered much public reception.

Did you not see the "opening party" or the weekend when the interior was being previewed? If not, check through TB's photothread.

Regan4000 · October 30th, 2007, 01:05 AM

Oh, I did. But everything has an opening party. There was a lot of buzz around this project, I'm not denying that in the slightest.

Ultimately, I know there are people out there who like the way the crystal turned out. In the interest of saving this thread, I don't like it, but who cares what I think.

KGB · October 30th, 2007, 01:56 AM

Quote:

I don't like it, but who cares what I think.

Well, sometimes I DO care what people think....otherwise, i would let them just wallow in their ignorance (which most of the time I do). But this is a site that encapsulates architecture as one of its mainstays, so I make an effort to encourage other people to make an effort.

Look...I'll try and just make it simple...if you are boiling a Libeskind building down to shading on some cladding, then you are obviously missing something important about the architecture. And, when you define something by what it isn't, rather than what it is, you are also making a fundemental flaw....all highly artistic buildings, especially when they also involve cutting edge engineering, never remain the same from concept to reality.

KGB

October 29th, 2007, 07:39 PM	#151
*Taller, Better* Administrator Join Date: Aug 2005 Location: Toronto Posts: 52,788 Likes (Received): 401	I find it strange when people obsess about a slight discolouration in some slats and tend to dismiss the entire structure because of that. I think that is a trifle narrow approach to architectural criticism. To me, the variation in the tone provides a playful sensation of "light and dark"...adding a bit of life to the structure. For the same reason you do not stand with your nose three inches away from an Impressionistic painting and complain that all the little daubs are not exactly the same colour, you must stand back and examine the architectural impression as a whole. "and is certainly not attracting the attention they were planning for it to attract" Could that be perhaps because the doors to the extension are locked, and will not open to the public til the galleries are installed in the Spring? Just a guess, mind you. __________________ Please visit my photoblog! Montréal \| Mexico \| Niagara-on-the-Lake \| Brazil \| Hamilton aka "The Hammer"! "Fine words butter no parsnips"-17th Century proverb. Last edited by Taller, Better; October 29th, 2007 at 07:58 PM.

Thread Tools
Show Printable Version Email this Page
Display Modes
Linear Mode Switch to Hybrid Mode Switch to Threaded Mode

October 25th, 2007, 02:14 AM	#141
metroboi_nay Registered User Join Date: Oct 2004 Location: Toronto, Canada Posts: 694 Likes (Received): 0	It could be worse, its ok, the original was better tho.

October 25th, 2007, 03:00 AM	#143
ScrapeTheSky Coruscanti Cognoscente Join Date: Mar 2006 Location: Mississauga Posts: 1,333 Likes (Received): 0	You know, the fact that it looks like Simcoe Place is a big plus for me!

October 26th, 2007, 04:42 AM	#145
urban 2.0 Registered User Join Date: Nov 2003 Location: Torontopia Posts: 3,040 Likes (Received): 0	who knew Front Street West would become the next Bay and King?! -- albeit with not as spectacular buildings

October 29th, 2007, 02:54 AM	#146
ggaleazz Registered User Join Date: Aug 2005 Posts: 703 Likes (Received): 0	I don't know the 2 renderings look very similar in it's modernist/po-mo style. IMHO the podium in the second rendering is far superior to the first one. The only difference I see in the tower is the treatment/design of the windows. And I doubt that the treatment in the first rendering was anything near reality anyway. The whole let's do odd angles and wierd shapes is being overplayed in most architecture anyway. That kind of stuff works best in institustions where they make a big impact. Putting them in general buildings makes them look cheesy. And how can you say the ROM is a failure and like the first design at the same time?

October 29th, 2007, 02:42 PM	#149
Regan4000 BANNED Join Date: Apr 2005 Posts: 585 Likes (Received): 0	The ROM in my opinion is a great (terrible) example of a buikding changing for the worse as it slowly downgrades considerably from rendering to finished product. Why are the discoloured metal sheets NOT an issue? I assume they had planned for them to all be the same colour. And if they didn't, and had planned some here and there to be different hues of grey, then the designer should be shot. It was a good idea when it was proposed as a giant 'crystal' jutting out of the ROM. It looks like a ripped up, discoloured pop can that someone jammed into the side of the ROM because they couldn't find a recycling bin. I know it's only my opinion, and KGB's expert analysis is always 'daunting', but it really just looks terrible, and is certainly not attracting the attention they were planning for it to attract.

October 29th, 2007, 09:07 PM	#152
Regan4000 BANNED Join Date: Apr 2005 Posts: 585 Likes (Received): 0	I'd say miscoloured panels to be quite a large mistake. It looks terrible, in many people's opinion. How many other crystals have so many critics? Considering the enormous scale and price, and buzz of this project, it really hasn't garnered much public reception. I understand that people here actually LIKE and find this extension to be GOOD ARCHITECTURE, I just find it hard to even look at. Especially considering what the original plan made it out to be. Steel panel siding has never been a classy, aesthetically pleasing way of finishing a building, let alone mismatched panels. It looks like a warehouse on acid. A WAREHOUSE, not some awe-inspiring, life changing, piece of art. I know people like KGB and Taller, Better really like this addition. I just don't see it, personally.

October 29th, 2007, 10:05 PM	#155
Dream Brother BANNED Join Date: Dec 2005 Location: Toronto Posts: 744 Likes (Received): 0	Why are you complacent with something that is so mismatched in colour? Perhaps the different hues of gray are supposed to represent multiculturalism. Yep, that's it.

October 29th, 2007, 11:57 PM	#156
Regan4000 BANNED Join Date: Apr 2005 Posts: 585 Likes (Received): 0	No, I am not that guy, although, he is quite the hilarious prankster. Plus I pronounce my name Reagan. Don't ask me why.

October 30th, 2007, 12:00 AM	#157
ggaleazz Registered User Join Date: Aug 2005 Posts: 703 Likes (Received): 0	Yet another thread gone haywire. I might add that the error in the shading of the panels is more a mistake on the part of the construction contractor and the builder more than the architect. I doubt the architect spent much time around this project after the design. So it's not the design that was flawed, but the execution of the design that feel short of his vision.

October 30th, 2007, 01:05 AM	#159
Regan4000 BANNED Join Date: Apr 2005 Posts: 585 Likes (Received): 0	Oh, I did. But everything has an opening party. There was a lot of buzz around this project, I'm not denying that in the slightest. Ultimately, I know there are people out there who like the way the crystal turned out. In the interest of saving this thread, I don't like it, but who cares what I think.