Oh, daddy. Do we even have to say a word about this one? Do we have to point out that it's Construx-style design bears precisely zero relation to the neighbourhood surrounding it -- which just happens to be one of the city's most vibrant, Little Italy? Do we really need to mention that the damn thing is near twice the height of anything for blocks? And that it dwarfs poor little Grappa, just to the east? Do we need to spell out for you the bruality of dangling rich people's living rooms next to the windows of multi-unit rooming houses? Not to mention waving the lifestyle of said richies -- units start around $900,000 -- in everyone's face by going floor-to-ceiling glass top to bottom, putting their biz right on the damn street?
They call it, in T.O.-developer marketing-ese, N-BLOX. And if project architects Roland Rom Colthoff and Richard Witt, from Quadrangle -- who specialize in retrofits, not new construction, for cripes' sake -- were going for the alien landing craft look, they nailed it, proper. But if they actually meant to do some damn architecture -- you know, that stuff that is sensitive to scale, texture, and the actual character and make-up of a neighbourhood ingrained in a long-standing urban fabric -- well, this is a big fat fuck up, pure and simple.
On the plus side, as far as we know, the building is yet to gain permit approval from council -- though those pricks at the OMB will fix that in a hurry, no doubt. That's the short term. But in the longer term, you really have to look at this self-satisfying arch-school wank-off and ask yourself: Just what the fuck is it about the concept of context that these clowns don't understand?
The little blurby on Quadrangle's site (see link above) says their work "genuinely enhances the urban environment."
Yeah, maybe that was true for these clowns, before property values went wild and it made more sense to do a spiffy interior remake of the Candy Factory on Queen, say, than tear the damn thing down. It's a nice job. Credit where credit is due.
But when the dollars get big and you push up, up, up, neighbourhood context be damned, fellas, then your "genuine enhancements" aren't for the "urban environment" anymore -- they're for your clients and your own damn pockets. Shame, shame. It's your property, but it's everyone's city. And this junk shows no respect for that at all.
6 comments:
Hmm ... architecturally, although generally I am not a huge fan of modern and postmodern boxes, I like the design here. I had the same questions you did about how it seems to clash with its neighbourhood. I, too, wasn't sure how many people would pay $900,000 to live here, although the units are apparently spacious.
Your blog is interesting. It might contribute to positive debate, though, by imagining how some of these buildings might manage *not* to be bad. What would you change about them?
Yep, yep, we hear that. We're big on the Modern, generally speaking, but in context -- which this monstrousity is not at all. Tucked in amidst the 6-story tenements of lower Manhattan? Go time! On a mixed-use commercial/residential strip where 3 stories is the max, this is just a big middle finger the neighbourhood, to the city planning department, and to anyone else who cares about sensitive design and how that folds into the fabric of urban development. In other words, business as usual.
We're not so big on constructive criticism at the moment, though. We're goign to start by singling out some of the worst, and then maybe we can get some discussions going on it. But first, this junk needs to be called to task. This city has put up with it for too, too long.
Fair enough. But I would still like to know who you are. It would give your (very apt) criticisms more credibility, would give readers and those who comment a sense of where you are coming from, and would also be consistent with your choice not to allow anonymous comments on this blog.
Oops -- we didn't mean to not allow anonymous comments. We'll change that.
We really can't reveal our identities. At least not yet. If we can become something of a destination, we'll consider it. If we fade into oblivion, it just won't matter, will it? We just need some time.
Buildings on Toronto's main east-west streets (King, Queen, College, Bloor) are by-in-large too small to begin with. The tiny neighbouring building is simply the wrong scale for a street of this consequence. This low building typology is undermining Queen street as well from University to Trinity Bellwoods, as each new building that goes up barely clears 3 stories. London (UK) is full of buildings that range around 6 stories without the loss of community - quite the contrary in fact - and this is still a far cry from New York which doesn't deserve the de facto tall-is-bad critique either. And though the design is at least a departure from the usual bland beaver-modernism Toronto local architects subject its citizens to, why is this such a derivative product? Sejima's New Museum in NYC, Herzog & deMeuron's Tate addition in London, Koolhaas's Seattle Library, MVRDV's Liuzhou Housing in China, etc have already put this forward. And though that's not a critique in its own right, will any original ideas ever (be allowed to) emerge here?
This is not a 'bad building'. If anything, it's a promising start. Toronto could again be a place of invention and experiment which this building, despite and because of its design, may support.
Post a Comment