Canada's Tallest U/C #11 - #30

[koops65]

I agree that Karma turned out quite nice, and it's a shame that YC will block it's presence.

Also, let's all remember that ugliness (and it's opposite, beauty) is in the eye of the beholder.

Perhaps the 2 combined will be known in the future as "Beauty and the Beast"...

[WhipperSnapper]

Originally Posted by koops65

Also, let's all remember that ugliness (and it's opposite, beauty) is in the eye of the beholder.

That's for complex living things. Architecture is only skin deep. That's just an excuse for the acceptance of a real estate speculator's indifference or, much worse, someone's acceptance of the poor execution of the design with YC.

[Franco401]

Originally Posted by WhipperSnapper

That's for complex living things. Architecture is only skin deep. That's just an excuse for the acceptance of a real estate speculator's indifference or, much worse, someone's acceptance of the poor execution of the design with YC.

You're not an architect, are you? Architecture, like any art form, is far from skin deep.

[WhipperSnapper]

Context. It's a literal reference to the cladding used on YC. There's absolutely nothing good to be found in it.

[yaletown_fella]

YC would look goofy even if it was entirely clad in curtainwall

[GeneralLeeTPHLS]

The guys behind E Condos are just about done on the pool level that sticks out....here's a pic I took yesterday of the rental tower (Left of this pic is the site of 150 Redpath....38 floors of condos..sheesh):
[IMG]Rentals by Josh Kenn Photographics, on Flickr[/IMG]

[caltrane74]

More from E Condos - 194 meters

[dleung]

Originally Posted by koops65

It's not just YC Condos... I've said many times over the years that more people should step back and wait for the U/C building to be finished before saying how horrible it looks...

LOL. The same fanboys will be saying "it's too late to complain" by that time. How convenient

[koops65]

Not sure what you're insinuating there...

I'll condense a number of previous posts to make things easier for everyone to understand. I like YC Condos, unlike the vast majority here. I don't think it will be such a disaster, like almost everyone else seems to believe. I think it will be a positive addition to the skyline, even though nobody else has said so.

After having thrown out my opinion on this matter, I still say that far too many people here state their opinion about how various towers look (and also how they WILL LOOK WHEN THEY HAVE BEEN COMPLETED) when the tower is only partially constructed...

I just did it myself now. That is why I dislike saying how good or bad a tower under construction really looks... the end result is still just a guess at that point...

[TorontoDrew]

Originally Posted by koops65

I dislike saying how good or bad a tower under construction really looks... the end result is still just a guess at that point...

You and me both. Much like there were many people on here including myself who didn't think Harbour Plaza was going to look good until it started coming together well into it's construction. I love how some on here continue to push their sentiments of what looks good or not in their mind as a factual statement about how a buildings aesthetics should be perceived by everyone. Personally I liked the design of YC, it may turn out awful and I may change my opinion on it. That's all it is though, my own personal opinion, nobody else should care and I'm not going to try to convince others how they should perceive what is good or bad architecture. Too bad some here can't figure that out. ^^^^^ LOL

[WhipperSnapper]

This is still going on? Why are you guys having such a hard time accepting that others don't need more to make a determination on YC's execution on a design they find lousy at best?

You like the design. fine.
You want to give it the benefit of the doubt . fine

Just accept others don't need more time or like the design. This is also exclusive to YC. I knew exactly how Burano would turn out a stone throw away from YC with even less window wall installed.

[TorontoDrew]

How awesome for you. Just accept others don't need to be told how to feel about designs by you or others on here.

[caltrane74]

Wellesley on the Park - 194 meters

Still not really that tall yet.

[mistercorporate]

^^
Au contraire mon frere, she looks at least 5'8"...

Wait, you weren't talking about legs??

[WhipperSnapper]

Originally Posted by TorontoDrew

How awesome for you. Just accept others don't need to be told how to feel about designs by you or others on here.

Are you ever fucking stubborn.

It's not me. It's you. You're the nutjob that sees something contrary to your opinion as a personal attack against you.

I post my opinions and that's it. It's others that feel the need to step in to defend something I find too tall, too dense, or too ugly. I'm not one to step away from reasoning that makes absolutely no sense. (ex. NIMBY planners are why everything ends up at the OMB usually resulting in a lower height. Nothing to do with developers proposal too much with full intent of taking it to the OMB and seeing what they can get out of it.)

[caltrane74]

Yonge and College Condo

198 meters

[Wolf13]

Originally Posted by christmas

^ Ya. YC should go in the Ugly Canada thread. Ugh.

Lol, YC condos are unique and gorgeous.

[WhipperSnapper]

LOL @ You. There's absolutely nothing unique with YC. It's just another balcony play. The theme of the play has been used before in Toronto too.


Of course, being unique shouldn't matter as much as it does on these forums.

[Wolf13]

Originally Posted by WhipperSnapper

LOL @ You. There's absolutely nothing unique with YC. It's just another balcony play. The theme of the play has been used before in Toronto too.


Of course, being unique shouldn't matter as much as it does on these forums.

Almost everyone has balconies and thus almost everyone has some degree of balcony play

Now don't get me wrong, I like a tall glass tower... but the variarion, colours f YC certainly look more unique (not that it's uniqueness alone that matters) than most towers going up, whether the Kingsett proposal at Yonge and Gerrard, or the Aura a block down.

If you want unique, the waves on one bloor should suit that bill but the curves on the balconies there will look outdated in a year, and The Chelsea hotel proposal has gone through many iterations of "wtf" despite the designer's cache.

So maybe your post count accredits you the confidence to "lol", but to redeem that, show me a nice balcony play that contrasts black an white as interestingly as YC in Toronto.

Lol

[WhipperSnapper]

In case you didn't already know, I really dislike the series of contrasting black and white colour blocks put forth by Graziani & Corrazza all across Toronto and beyond . There's nothing "interesting" about it. It's just tacky. However, for similar projects look no further than Lago on the Waterfront or, predecessors to the black n white series, DNA3 or Waterscapes.

I haven't yet seen one design for the Chelsea that I could say WTF to in the same light of YC. G+C is proving that it is a fine line between whimsical and tacky. They are only proving aA criticism for playing it easy by continuing with inspired patterned balcony plays is unwarranted. It's harder than it looks. One key is obviously aA is able to convince some of the cheapest developers to spend a little more or consider the exterior facade deserves attention instead of an afterthought to the interior design/layout.

I agree One Bloor will date quickly but, so will YC's black and white staggered blocks. One doesn't look like a spandrel and mullion mess.