"Filler" buildings

[dleung]

What does the word mean to you? It sure isn't "infill" lol

Originally Posted by GeneralLee(Toronto )

Nice office filler

Originally Posted by WhipperSnapper

there are always those that define a movement and then filler that is inspired by those that define it. I find Mississauga City Hall falls more in the former

Originally Posted by DrNest

As density filler, I don't dislike this one, but it's nothing great to look at.

Originally Posted by caltrane74

It ain't no Telus Sky, but it will make good filler in the Entertainment District.

Originally Posted by yaletown_fella

Pretty decent filler if you ask me.

Originally Posted by O-tacular

Anything that gets built here, let alone a decently tall hotel tower, is a massive improvement. To me it's good filler. It's not a focal point of the skyline...

Originally Posted by Chadillaccc

...I mean I don't think it's great but it's not bad at all. Very good skyline filler

Originally Posted by Beedok

Bland featureless filler makes the landmarks look that much better.

Originally Posted by esquire

You think it's that bad? I don't know, looks like an OK filler building to me. It could be a lot worse than that.

Is it the architectural equivalent of explaining away a terrible meal at a restaurant with "at least it's food", or explaining away catching gonorrhea with "at least it's sex"

[esquire]

^ I don't think filler buildings are necessarily terrible, it's just that they don't stand out. It means different things in different contexts... for instance, in Winnipeg you might see a filler office tower (say, a plain jane 12 storey 70s thing that no one can identify by name because they don't even notice it), a filler condo building (a nondescript lowrise that just blends into the architectural background) or a filler local building (a three storey walkup on a block with plenty of businesses).

Even great cities like Paris have their share of buildings that will never be featured in a magazine... they're just sort of there.

Winnipeg filler, office version:


winnipegarchitecture.ca

Condo:


villagejunction.ca

[caltrane74]

First of all let me start out by stating, this is a ridiculous idea for a thread, and dlueng is basically getting his troll balls off here.

Answer the question.

Filler is not a bad word, we not excusing anything or taking any merit from any particular building, it just happens that in the case if larger cities like Toronto, any tower that goes up will have a harder and harder time standing out. There is no problem with that, because as long as the building is a solid quality, materials , design and meets the street well, its a net positive for the community. Of course not all buildings will meet said criteria and that is when you have a fail.

Let me explain

In the suburban areas around the GTA you have endless rows upon rows of slab apartment blocks, so if something of average quality and height goes up in the suburbs you have a landmark tower - ie. - Eau Du Soliel, Lago, Hullmark Center or Emerald Park Condo. If those same towers go up in downtown Toronto surrounded by 150-m-200-m-250m towers they will not stand out in anyway and will become filler, not because they are not quality designs just because they are so many towers downtown and they are so tall to have a true landmark the tower has to be a) large footprint over 250 meters and/or b) groundbreaking or landmark design. No one will ever call the CN Tower, Financial District Towers, Aura and One Bloor East filler. They are massive and dominate their surroundings. True Landmark Towers, Not filler

Another Example

In Vancouver, you have Shangri-la and Trump Vancouver, which are between 180 and 197 meters tall. In Vancouver these towers are "landmark towers" primarily because of their height, if those towers were 100 meters tall, they would not be landmarks, just filler. Or if you took those towers and dropped them into Toronto they would disappear and become some kind of a background noise. Same thing.

[milomilo]

^^^ this. But I will also say that it is good that most buildings are filler - if every building is trying hard to standout then you just get a mismatched mess of a skyline. London (UK) is becoming like this.

[esquire]

Originally Posted by milomilo

^^^ this. But I will also say that it is good that most buildings are filler - if every building is trying hard to standout then you just get a mismatched mess of a skyline. London (UK) is becoming like this.

Further to that line of thought, Hong Kong is mostly nondescript filler buildings once you get away from the harbour area, yet the city is spectacular.

[Metro-One]

I think it is a fair question.

Also I find it interesting that Caltrane associates the term with height alone. I suspected this would become the case.

Some of the tallest buildings in a city can be "filler" (non descriptive structures IMO). Hong Kong and various other Asian cities are good examples of this. At the same time, short / stout structures can be centerpieces. Many of Vancouver's most beautiful buildings are well under 100 meters (which would place them as "filler" for some it seems).

i also notice that filler is also used on this forum at times to simply justify the poor design of a building.

[Beedok]

Visit Ottawa. The whole city CBD is filler.

There can be good quality filler or bad quality filler, but whatever the quality it's not a landmark. It just sort of blends in. Basically to me filler is a building with a conservative design ethos.

Landmarks can be good or bad too though, and an ugly landmark is worse than ugly filler.

[Chadillaccc]

This is by far my favorite of filler projects that I know of going on right now. Calgary's 124 meter 707 Fifth Avenue...




http://www.707fifth.com/building/gallery/

[Mrs Sauga]

Originally Posted by caltrane74

First of all let me start out by stating, this is a ridiculous idea for a thread, and dlueng is basically getting his troll balls off here.

This post wins this thread

[SignalHillHiker]

Originally Posted by Beedok

Visit Ottawa. The whole city CBD is filler.

There can be good quality filler or bad quality filler, but whatever the quality it's not a landmark. It just sort of blends in. Basically to me filler is a building with a conservative design ethos.

Landmarks can be good or bad too though, and an ugly landmark is worse than ugly filler.

Agreed.

The Rooms = Ugly landmark.

An ugly filler probably doesn't even have a widely-known name.

Filler is just average for that city. It does no harm, often has excellent street interaction, but it's just unremarkable in design. It's urban background noise. It's the Civic on the highway. Contributes to the overall feel the way infill does, but nothing more.

It's definitely a positive, unless it occupies a place that would've been perfect for a landmark building. But it's better than a parking lot or a break in urbanity.

[SignalHillHiker]

For us...

Typical filler, the key factor being that it's unremarkable:



Good (by our standards) infill:

[esquire]

707 5th Avenue looks too distinctive to be filler... the oval shape stands out. Filler buildings are the plain jane ones that are hard to remember.

[Ramako]

Originally Posted by Chadillaccc

This is by far my favorite of filler projects that I know of going on right now. Calgary's 124 meter 707 Fifth Avenue...

I wouldn't call that project filler. It could really standout as a landmark if it's executed well.

[DrNest]

Fair question, although I do love Cal's initial line.
To me filler is a building of reasonable height, but not significant height, that adds to the bulk and density of the skyline but doesn't stand out as a key feature.

[MolsonExport]

filler is the skyline version of Miller Lite. Tastes great (not), less filling.

[Beedok]

Originally Posted by Chadillaccc

This is by far my favorite of filler projects that I know of going on right now. Calgary's 124 meter 707 Fifth Avenue...




http://www.707fifth.com/building/gallery/

That's not filler. It might not be super tall, but at street level it will be memorable. People will probably use it as a place to meet up (even if they don't know the name and just call it 'the round glassy building with the big square in front'). It's like the World Exchange Plaza in Ottawa, not really tall, but still memorable.

[MolsonExport]

It's a different type of filler. Goes by the name of Wooty Filler, or Can-do filler.

[Chadillaccc]

Originally Posted by Beedok

That's not filler. It might not be super tall, but at street level it will be memorable. People will probably use it as a place to meet up (even if they don't know the name and just call it 'the round glassy building with the big square in front'). It's like the World Exchange Plaza in Ottawa, not really tall, but still memorable.

Originally Posted by Ramako

I wouldn't call that project filler. It could really standout as a landmark if it's executed well.

I just consider it filler because it won't stand out in the skyline from any viewpoint, it's not even in our 35 tallest built/uc.

[WhipperSnapper]

Originally Posted by Ramako

I wouldn't call that project filler. It could really standout as a landmark if it's executed well.

It's a very nice design however, there's nothing that really stands out about it. It's not equivalent to 30 St Mary Axe. It's just an office building and not a particularly tall one at that. Height defines private buildings as landmarks more than anything else . Neither does it offer anything at grade to become that suggested meeting place. It's across from Courthouse Park so it will serve its place in the background. Filler does apply.

[Ramako]

Originally Posted by WhipperSnapper

It's a very nice design however, there's nothing that really stands out about it. It's not equivalent to 30 St Mary Axe. It's just an office building and not a particularly tall one at that. Height defines private buildings as landmarks more than anything else . Neither does it offer anything at grade to become that suggested meeting place. It's across from Courthouse Park so it will serve its place in the background. Filler does apply.

I'm not suggesting that it will be iconic, but simply that it's a building that locals will readily be able to recognize and associate with its location. It's got a distinct character that no other towers nearby really replicate.