Station Park | 18, 28, 36, 40, 50 fl | U/C

[nms]

If part of the objection is the poor streetscape, then perhaps the buildings should all be set back to allow for street facing, people-friendly elements (benches, trees etc)... or maybe even just wider sidewalks? The streetscape on either side of the underpass doesn't need to fit the lowest common denominator that it the street width under the underpass.

[dtkvictim]

Heh, I guess I just have a different view of architecture that gets lost on this forum. This is "good architecture" the way mass produced wall art sold at Home Sense is "good art". It's terrible, but in a way that only those of us who have a deeper understanding of the theories of architecture, art, design, philosophy and so on understand. It's simulacrum, nothing more.

Continue your parallel though, and you suggest that architects ought to be focused producing for the elite and wealthy rather than for the masses.

[Rainrider22]

Heh, I guess I just have a different view of architecture that gets lost on this forum. This is "good architecture" the way mass produced wall art sold at Home Sense is "good art". It's terrible, but in a way that only those of us who have a deeper understanding of the theories of architecture, art, design, philosophy and so on understand. It's simulacrum, nothing more.

Continue your parallel though, and you suggest that architects ought to be focused producing for the elite and wealthy rather than for the masses.

I cant speak for ac3r, but to me that statement itself seems to be as vain as the judgement you are casting on ac3r.  Foe me, many of these new buildings look good and I appreciate that they are functional too (but I am no expert by any means).  But I don't disagree with him that it would be nice to have some class leading distinction in our region. I am certainly not an elitist at all....

[ac3r]

Heh, I guess I just have a different view of architecture that gets lost on this forum. This is "good architecture" the way mass produced wall art sold at Home Sense is "good art". It's terrible, but in a way that only those of us who have a deeper understanding of the theories of architecture, art, design, philosophy and so on understand. It's simulacrum, nothing more.

Continue your parallel though, and you suggest that architects ought to be focused producing for the elite and wealthy rather than for the masses.

I think you misunderstood what I meant. I'm not equating good design with elitism, wealth, class or anything like that. That stuff usually has no bearing on whether architecture is good or not (and architecture should strive to appeal to the masses anyway). I was saying that there is a degree of abstract intellectualism involved in architecture that unfortunately (but understandably) gets lost on many people. Not that those of us who design buildings or write/teach architectural theory/history/philosophy/whatever have more valid points of view or anything, but we just see things differently than others.

[dtkvictim]

Continue your parallel though, and you suggest that architects ought to be focused producing for the elite and wealthy rather than for the masses.

I think you misunderstood what I meant. I'm not equating good design with elitism, wealth, class or anything like that. That stuff usually has no bearing on whether architecture is good or not (and architecture should strive to appeal to the masses anyway). I was saying that there is a degree of abstract intellectualism involved in architecture that unfortunately (but understandably) gets lost on many people. Not that those of us who design buildings or write/teach architectural theory/history/philosophy/whatever have more valid points of view or anything, but we just see things differently than others.

Fair enough then, I don't want to twist your words.

The portion I've bolded is how I interpreted what you were saying, and what led me to my conclusion. What you are describing is something that, I think, happens to professionals in any field that deals with "abstract intellectualism" as you've put it. Getting lost in our theory is an important part of what we all do, but it's equally important to not directly apply that out of context, which from my point of view architects seem happy to do from at least an artistic angle. A saying I've seen applied in game development (and I'm going to butcher the phrasing), but I'm sure can apply to basically all fields of design: Users are rarely incorrect in determining that something is wrong, but they are rarely correct in determining what is wrong. The latter half is where we apply our expertise, not the former.

I know many will disagree with me, but I personally find the most grotesque and offensive art (including architecture) is produced when the artists are creating for themselves, or for wealthy individuals who give them freedom. Given the choice of decorating my home with the art collection of your average museum vs the art collection of the average billionaire, I would definitely take the museum. I don't need art hanging in my home that makes me feel cold and psychologically attacked, that makes me feel like it's trying to develop a mental illness inside of me, much like I don't need buildings like the ROM, Antwerp Port Authority Building, or Graz Art Museum doing the same.

I agree with Bravado

I think "ground breaking" architecture is exactly the wrong kind heh... give me normal, common designs that fit the history and nature of the place they are in any day!

Give me comforting, local, something that says "you're culturally home". For you, who is in a different headspace and community, that might be what others find provocative and groundbreaking.

Feel free to read this post knowing my bias is near complete contempt for modern architecture, and maybe I'm just looking to argue (and ramble) with someone in the field for no good reason.

Edit: I should add since I don't think it was clear, the "elite" in my original comment in part refers to architects as experts in their fields detached from the public. It's not the right word to use, but whatever.

[Lebronj23]

Article on Urban Toronto regarding Station Park :

https://urbantoronto.ca/news/2023/09/50-...-hub.53891

[ac3r]

Huh...so that house was only made in 1959? I thought it was way older.

[panamaniac]

Huh...so that house was only made in 1959? I thought it was way older.

The UT piece confuses the Kaufman mansion(1897) with the Kaufman estate (1959) in Westmount, which was featured in the media as a mid-century time capsule when it sold a few years back.

https://retrorenovation.com/2017/01/12/s...d-zeidler/

[Square]

Article on Urban Toronto regarding Station Park :

https://urbantoronto.ca/news/2023/09/50-...-hub.53891

The article mentions both buildings C and D are under construction.  Do we know if that's true?  When I look at where the piles are for shoring, looks like only for Tower C.

[ac3r]

They're doing both but have only began on the one area for now. Still lots of work to do and this will take a couple years. We won't even see the 50 floor skyscraper underway until like 2027 at the earliest so there's no rush.

[CP42]

Construction update from VanMar’s instagram page:

[ac3r]

FYI if you load the post in a computer web browser and add "media?size=l" at the end of the URL (keeping the /) you can get the full size photos if you want! The quality is still pretty bad unfortunately, since Meta compresses the hell out of content, but it's a bit better than screenshots.

[CP42]

From a few days ago:

[CP42]

Construction update:

[ac3r]

Cool. I'm always amazed watching this part of construction because I can watch those countless, sleepless nights I spent awake designing something in CAD software being interpreted and turned into a real object/building by a bunch of dudes just twist-tieing rebar together, pouring concrete and tightening bolts.

Also I take it they never bothered to clean this building yet? Because those white panels are absolutely full of random smears and finger prints haha. In fact one of them isn't even sitting right so I guess it's already falling apart. Go figure.