Skyscraper City Forum banner
1 - 20 of 24 Posts

·
Registered
Joined
·
4,288 Posts
Discussion Starter · #1 ·
Anyone else in love with this building, and want to see another similar building constructed at the 900 foot range???

 

·
Olde Guard
Joined
·
1,806 Posts
It's everything Uptown isn't. Lovely building.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
4,288 Posts
Discussion Starter · #5 · (Edited)
Forgot about Uptown, another fav of mine, and yes, not as refined as One St. Thomas!!!

I see many people are dismayed by the designs of skyscrapers being constructed in the city. I would love to see more of the above two mentioned art-deco inspired towers grace TO's skyline, in particular around Cityplace!!!

The Wells Fargo tower in Minnie would look great in TO as well...

 

·
Registered User
Joined
·
2,714 Posts
True, but it also had a much, much bigger budget than the Uptown as they were marketed to completely different income levels.
Right. Also significantly higher maintenance fees; $14,000/year on 1 bedrooms, $30,000/year for the largest 2 bedrooms and townhomes (~1/sqft/month). Uptown fees are about 60 cents/sqft/month but with much more energy dense configuration (more kitchens/bathrooms/people per sqft).

77 Charles which is across the street also seems to have similar price ranges but about 10% lower maintenance fees (90 cents/sqft/month).
 

·
Moderator
Joined
·
39,578 Posts
One St. Thomas looks fabulous in the skyline, but when you walk up to it the quality is just not there. I knew this building was high end so the shoddiness of the stone and some of the detailing was a huge shock. The entrance was done well, but the quality goes down markedly when you look just 2 floor up.

This photo illustrates my point. The white stone looks cheap, the windows look even cheaper, and those black bay windows don't help one little bit. Compare that to the entrance which looks amazing and what the rest of the tower should have looked like.



Btw, Wells Fargo is one of my favourite buildings in the US.
 

·
Premium Member
Joined
·
79,203 Posts
Really? I don't think it looks cheap up close. It is not a building from the '20's and is built with modern materials. We, nor any other city is ever going to get a skyscraper made in the same way the Chrysler Tower was; those days are long gone. Contemporary materials are here to stay, for better or worse. :dunno:
 

·
misanthropic humanitarian
Joined
·
686 Posts
This photo illustrates my point. The white stone looks cheap, the windows look even cheaper, and those black bay windows don't help one little bit. Compare that to the entrance which looks amazing and what the rest of the tower should have looked like.
What are you talking about? How does the photo illustrate your point? It's simply your opinion and we know your fondness for complaining, which you've already admitted to in another thread.
 

·
Moderator
Joined
·
39,578 Posts
What are you talking about? How does the photo illustrate your point? It's simply your opinion and we know your fondness for complaining, which you've already admitted to in another thread.
Practically everything posted on SSC is someone's opinion. Isn't that a given?

That photo is flattering. Inspecting the building in person it becomes clear that the quality and detail work is just not there. I loved photos of this building, but was disappointed when I went in person. Without any prompting at all, others I know have had the exact same reaction as I. My friends are predominantly visual people: industrial design, architecture, art, film, dance, etc. These people earn a living paying attention to things like this.

I take no enjoyment in criticizing. I'm a stickler for details and doing things right. If I see something that's not, I'll say so. Am I supposed to pretend it's an A1 job when I know it's not?
 

·
Moderator
Joined
·
39,578 Posts
Really? I don't think it looks cheap up close. It is not a building from the '20's and is built with modern materials. We, nor any other city is ever going to get a skyscraper made in the same way the Chrysler Tower was; those days are long gone. Contemporary materials are here to stay, for better or worse. :dunno:
They did a substantially better job than that disaster downtown they call 'the French Quarter', but you're wrong when you argue that it's not possible to create similar quality today.

Cities all over the world are recreating past architecture with results that would fool 99% of people. There's even a thread devoted to it many many pages long. Canadians seem to be alone in their conviction that it's not possible. That has more to do with our unsuccessful flirtation with it than anything else.

And if it were ridiculously expensive, there would only be a few successful examples around the world. There are literally thousands of examples. I bet you've stood right next to a lot of them thinking they were built in the 1920s when it reality they went up 10 years ago. There are whole sections of Amsterdam that look like they are 200 years old, but went up in the 80s. Same goes for Chicago, Berlin, New York, London, and 100s of other cities.

We're just lazy, use materials that look similar, and then expect an authentic result. That's not how it's done elsewhere. If you 're going to do recreation architecture, it requires one to search out materials that will replicate it almost perfectly. If you can tell it's new, you didn't do it right.
 

·
Moderator
Joined
·
39,578 Posts
Those interested in that thread about recreating past architecture: http://forum.skyscraperpage.com/showthread.php?t=176535

This building in Germany is brand new. You'd be shocked at how many 'old' buildings around the world actually went up post 1980. People don't realize, because the quality of the re-production is spot on.



A good 70% of the buildings posted are done so well you wouldn't know they're new. Some are obviously compromised, but you can tell immediately. One St. Thomas would fall into that category.
 

·
Premium Member
Joined
·
79,203 Posts
^^ But that is Europe, and not us.. all I can do is repost what I just posted in another thread:

Its a different situation though. Of course some European cities replaced (with varying degrees of success) buildings of three or four storeys after World War II (half a century ago, when there were still more stone masons around and people gladly worked for peanuts). These town centres were integral to the very soul of European cities and they wanted them to look the same after the war as they had before.
We are not old European cities and we do not have the same historical mindset. We are part of the New World that looks to the future for new inspiration, not trying to recreate what existed in the past. Our forefathers left places like Europe hoping to leave it behind and start up our own hybrid societies here. They were much more open to moving with the times and evolving.
But most importantly, "recreating" a three or four storey building is no where close to the concept of "recreating" 103 storey towers like the Empire State Building. Mies van der Rhoe and some other architects of the Bauhaus movement were instrumental in convincing society that modern "skyscrapers" should be modern and not try to mimic long ago styles like Gothic, Egyptian, etc... In their opinion it was dishonest to dress up a modern tower as if it were something built in the 1300's. Not to mention that the proportions of a skyscraper are completely different to a small building.
I'm very much in favour of hanging on to what we have of our past, and I even like the odd tall building that is reminiscent of the past. But I have no desire to start building "skyscrapers" the way they did in the 1920's, and frankly I doubt if they could even if they tried. It would be prohibitively expensive and we lack the same technicians that were common back then.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
4,497 Posts
Yeah but Taller, why are we putting restrictions on ourselves? There is no law saying we can only produce modern, glass buildings and if there were, I'd say, defy that law. We should be free to build beautiful buildings of any style.

I much prefer older styled buildings like Art Deco. I think Toronto needs more old style deco buildings. I want to see art and decoration brought back into architecture. Flat glass walls just don't do much for me. I need some sculptural qualities and a mix of quality materials.

I don't expect it to happen in Toronto but if/when it does, I'll be cheering. I await the day that grey spandrel is a dirty word in this city. (and banned forever)
 

·
Toronto and Athens
ΜΟΛΩΝ ΛΑΒΕ
Joined
·
5,719 Posts
Yeah but Taller, why are we putting restrictions on ourselves? There is no law saying we can only produce modern, glass buildings and if there were, I'd say, defy that law. We should be free to build beautiful buildings of any style.

I much prefer older styled buildings like Art Deco. I think Toronto needs more old style deco buildings. I want to see art and decoration brought back into architecture. Flat glass walls just don't do much for me. I need some sculptural qualities and a mix of quality materials.

I don't expect it to happen in Toronto but if/when it does, I'll be cheering. I await the day that grey spandrel is a dirty word in this city. (and banned forever)
My God! We don't agree on most things but when I read this it was if I was saying it myself! Well said! Agreed 100%! :cheers:
 

·
Premium Member
Joined
·
79,203 Posts
We are all just exchanging our own opinions here; no one is saying that there is no law that anything cannot be done. This is just a theoretical discussion of opinions and nothing more. If anyone wants to build an exact replica of the Chrysler building they are more than welcome to. I get it; this is the internet and there is no such thing as money or budget to bother considering about, so the sky is the limit for our proposals.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
4,288 Posts
Discussion Starter · #19 ·
The sea of glass towers needs to be punctuated with more modern art-deco towers IMO! The area around ice and city place is in desperate need of some handsome towers such as one St Thomas, though much taller!! So many of the buildings are becoming lost in eachother!
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
4,288 Posts
Discussion Starter · #20 ·
Those interested in that thread about recreating past architecture: http://forum.skyscraperpage.com/showthread.php?t=176535

This building in Germany is brand new. You'd be shocked at how many 'old' buildings around the world actually went up post 1980. People don't realize, because the quality of the re-production is spot on.



A good 70% of the buildings posted are done so well you wouldn't know they're new. Some are obviously compromised, but you can tell immediately. One St. Thomas would fall into that category.
If these stunning buildings can be built in Germany, surely we can appreciate them enough to build them here!!!
 
1 - 20 of 24 Posts
Top