Future Canadian Skylines

[MonkeyRonin]

Originally Posted by dleung

Forumers here should go visit Europe sometime.

Ah yes, dleung is the only worldly traveler among us, who has visited the far-away mythical land of Europe.

[dleung]

Why so hostile? I think it's a safe assumption here given the amount of parochial idolization of 1930's New York and Chicago, and the even more absurd desire to recreate it in 2012.

[suburbanite]

Well it is a forum for skyscrapers, which perhaps explains the preference for 1930's art deco, which lends itself to tall buildings much better than older European architecture.

[MonkeyRonin]

Originally Posted by dleung

Why so hostile?

Because your usual pompous, bratty attitude is tiresome? Europe is an incredibly popular tourist destination (not to mention the birthplace of millions of Canadians). And you're on a forum for people who like cities, architecture, and geography - its not hard to find other people who have "discovered" Europe in the most backwards of places - here of all places it should be pretty obvious that most people here have been there.

Anyway, if you're wondering why "Europe" doesn't build faux-historic buildings (which they actually do, but we'll just pretend they don't for now), it's because most of their cities are already filled with a extensive stock of actual beautiful, historic buildings - of which modern North American cities have little to none of.

[isaidso]

Originally Posted by dleung

Why so hostile? I think it's a safe assumption here given the amount of parochial idolization of 1930's New York and Chicago, and the even more absurd desire to recreate it in 2012.

I agree with Suburbantie. Art deco lends itself to skyscrapers far better than European architecture. Besides, we're north Americans so is it that surprising that we adhere to north American design aesthetics? This has nothing to do with provincialism and every thing to do with New York and Chicago being the alpha cities of our culture. Those 2 cities are what our cities would have looked like if they were the same size. In fact, Canadian cities did build exactly the same architecture just on a smaller scale because they were (and still are) smaller cities.

We don't look to Paris or London because we're not Europeans and don't want to be. Likewise, we don't look to Hong Kong or Dubai because their design aesthetic speaks to their own culture, not ours. We might be influenced by it, but that's another matter altogether.

[The_Architect]

Originally Posted by isaidso

I agree with Suburbantie. Art deco lends itself to skyscrapers far better than European architecture. Besides, we're north Americans so is it that surprising that we adhere to north American design aesthetics? This has nothing to do with provincialism and every thing to do with New York and Chicago being the alpha cities of our culture. Those 2 cities are what our cities would have looked like if they were the same size. In fact, Canadian cities did build exactly the same architecture just on a smaller scale because they were (and still are) smaller cities.

We don't look to Paris or London because we're not Europeans and don't want to be. Likewise, we don't look to Hong Kong or Dubai because their design aesthetic speaks to their own culture, not ours. We might be influenced by it, but that's another matter altogether.

Exactly. Apples and Oranges wouldn't be doing the ridiculous comparison justice.

Originally Posted by MonkeyRonin

Ah yes, dleung is the only worldly traveler among us, who has visited the far-away mythical land of Europe.

dleung is the perfect example of a "grass is greener" mentality on this site.

[dleung]

Obviously European cities are guilty of faux-historicism to some lesser degree, but it's always in the suburbs, to obscure the use of cheap materials, and all that proves is there are pretentious and tasteless people everywhere in the world.

Originally Posted by Isaidso

agree with Suburbantie. Art deco lends itself to skyscrapers far better than European architecture. Besides, we're north Americans so is it that surprising that we adhere to north American design aesthetics? This has nothing to do with provincialism and every thing to do with New York and Chicago being the alpha cities of our culture. Those 2 cities are what our cities would have looked like if they were the same size. In fact, Canadian cities did build exactly the same architecture just on a smaller scale because they were (and still are) smaller cities.

We don't look to Paris or London because we're not Europeans and don't want to be. Likewise, we don't look to Hong Kong or Dubai because their design aesthetic speaks to their own culture, not ours. We might be influenced by it, but that's another matter altogether.

That doesn't explain the desire to recreate a 1930's aesthetic made obsolete by contemporary construction methods.

[someone123]

Originally Posted by dleung

Obviously European cities are guilty of faux-historicism to some lesser degree, but it's always in the suburbs, to obscure the use of cheap materials, and all that proves is there are pretentious and tasteless people everywhere in the world.

All architecture in cities is derivative, and many common architectural styles going back hundreds of years in Europe were deliberate attempts to recreate older classical or medieval styles. Many famous castles like Neuschwanstein for example were romantic recreations of earlier, more utilitarian, and typically now less famous buildings. Palladian architecture was popular in Georgian England and was directly based off of the work of a Renaissance-era architect who deliberately tried to recreate elements of classical architecture. Many of these buildings are great. We have some in North America too. The railway hotels in Canada are the most obvious example.

I don't think historicism is inherently bad. The faux chateau-style buildings or art deco highrises in the 905 belt aren't bad architecture because they're historical recreations, they're bad because they're poorly executed. The styles are sloppily interpreted, inappropriate materials are used, and the buildings make little or no attempt to fit in with their surroundings in a reasonable way.

[RyeJay]

Originally Posted by isaidso

I agree with Suburbantie. Art deco lends itself to skyscrapers far better than European architecture. Besides, we're north Americans so is it that surprising that we adhere to north American design aesthetics? This has nothing to do with provincialism and every thing to do with New York and Chicago being the alpha cities of our culture. Those 2 cities are what our cities would have looked like if they were the same size. In fact, Canadian cities did build exactly the same architecture just on a smaller scale because they were (and still are) smaller cities.

We don't look to Paris or London because we're not Europeans and don't want to be. Likewise, we don't look to Hong Kong or Dubai because their design aesthetic speaks to their own culture, not ours. We might be influenced by it, but that's another matter altogether.

Wait. What? --

We should be looking anywhere and everywhere for innovations and ideas, including Paris and London, including Hong Kong and Dubai.

I would consider L.A. to qualify more as an 'alpha city' in North America; but regardless of that, our region would be doing itself a favour by extending itself beyond any apparent 'regional norms' in architecture, of which you are advocating we strictly maintain, and instead be open to adopting some of the modern architectural forms from any city, of any culture.

We don't want to be Europeans? They are our ancestors. What you're saying is akin to a child denying any resemblance to parentage.

People need to analyse ubran centres more rationally than through the narrow lense of cultural stereotypes and realise that beauty is found in all architecture forms for different reasons.

If someone believes the historical buildings throughout Europe look better than most of the buildings in North America: let them. Many people find beauty in fragility, which is what older European architecture is compared to ours. I, personally, find beauty in the grand magnitute of our tall towers.

Instead of so much focus on beauty, which can be somewhat subjective, objective concerns of efficiency, quality, and longevity require our stern attention and that is of a higher priority.

[Nouvellecosse]

Originally Posted by someone123

All architecture in cities is derivative, and many common architectural styles going back hundreds of years in Europe were deliberate attempts to recreate older classical or medieval styles. Many famous castles like Neuschwanstein for example were romantic recreations of earlier, more utilitarian, and typically now less famous buildings. Palladian architecture was popular in Georgian England and was directly based off of the work of a Renaissance-era architect who deliberately tried to recreate elements of classical architecture. Many of these buildings are great. We have some in North America too. The railway hotels in Canada are the most obvious example.

I don't think historicism is inherently bad. The faux chateau-style buildings or art deco highrises in the 905 belt aren't bad architecture because they're historical recreations, they're bad because they're poorly executed. The styles are sloppily interpreted, inappropriate materials are used, and the buildings make little or no attempt to fit in with their surroundings in a reasonable way.

Honestly, I wouldn't waste my breath. I've been telling him that for literally years over on SSC and he just doesn't accept it. I remember one exchange lasted about 2 pages and I though I finally got through only for him to be making the same suggestions a year or so later.

[Andrewjm3D]

Originally Posted by Nouvellecosse

Honestly, I wouldn't waste my breath. I've been telling him that for literally years over on SSC and he just doesn't accept it. I remember one exchange lasted about 2 pages and I though I finally got through only for him to be making the same suggestions a year or so later.

We've all had to deal with that. As for him telling us we need to travel. I've been to Europe, I've been to Australia, and I've been to most American cities. next on my hit list will be Asia. Do I think that makes me an expert? No.

[dleung]

Let's just say if you proposed a faux-historic studio project in my class, I or another other prof, would fail you all.

[Symz]

This is like arguing about art.

[logan5]

Originally Posted by Kritter

Parkview Square, Singapore

http://www.emporis.com/en/wm/bu/?id=parkviewsquare-singapore-singapore

How could a fantastic building like this be a mistake just because it was built in 2002? Is this considered faux historic?

[The_Architect]

Pagodas are so 3rd dynasty...

[dleung]

^^not faux historic and you know it

[Rico Rommheim]

Originally Posted by MTLskyline

Here are some of the various proposals. The 900, 1215 and Mackay (in their current forms) are dead. The buildings that are whiteish/yellowish are examples of the kind of buildings that would be allowed to go up in those locations.

http://blogues.cyberpresse.ca/lapresseaf...gements-et-14-fois-la-place-ville-marie/

I think it is safe to declare that no matter what happens, no matter how big our condo boom(s) will be, our skyline will not be drastically changed.


And that's fine, because Montreal right now doesn't need new tallests, it needs to fill the gap between the top 5 and the rest of the highrises. We need more infill, more highrise density. And we're finally getting it...bring it on!

[someone123]

Originally Posted by dleung

Let's just say if you proposed a faux-historic studio project in my class, I or another other prof, would fail you all.

This is a strange thing to post. If you would fail somebody, presumably you're able to articulate a clear reason for your decision. What is the rationale? What does "faux-historic" mean? So far you seem to be following "I know it when I see it" style intuition. Your intuition may be correct, but it's difficult for anybody else to actually know what your tastes or reasoning are. As a result, your whole argument is pretty much a mystery.

[Nouvellecosse]

Originally Posted by Rico Rommheim

I think it is safe to declare that no matter what happens, no matter how big our condo boom(s) will be, our skyline will not be drastically changed.


And that's fine, because Montreal right now doesn't need new tallests, it needs to fill the gap between the top 5 and the rest of the highrises. We need more infill, more highrise density. And we're finally getting it...bring it on!

Totally agreed! Tall buildings are great, but what I'd be happier about than anything is to see all the parking lots eaten up!

[Nouvellecosse]

Originally Posted by someone123

This is a strange thing to post. If you would fail somebody, presumably you're able to articulate a clear reason for your decision. What is the rationale? What does "faux-historic" mean? So far you seem to be following "I know it when I see it" style intuition. Your intuition may be correct, but it's difficult for anybody else to actually know what your tastes or reasoning are. As a result, your whole argument is pretty much a mystery.

He actually goes into a lot more detail on some of his older posts like those on this and the next page in the Toronto section where he says,

"It doesn't even matter if the replica is done perfectly or well (which never happens), because it has no meaning. Art deco wasn't a "style" back in the 30's, it was the standard, a testament to the spirit of the period and available technology. It's only because society is so pessimistic about the future that we turn back to the comfort of "traditional" architecture. Another low point in architectural history IMO is neo-classicism."

It seems as if he views architecture as being fundamentally linked to the era in which it was designed and constructed and feels [a building's] merits cannot stand alone outside that context.