Agreed: the top is totally uninspired pablum, while the bottom is vaguely historic without specifically referencing any particular building in the area that I can recognize.

BerczyModel-May27,10(3).jpg



This is definitely not an entrance, but does make sense as a place to situate some art. As noted by others this articulation in the the building's sidewalk presence does break up the massing in a good way. It makes sense to do it here too: to the north of it the ground floor is a level higher, to the south of it we introduce another level below as the ground slopes down toward the flats of the old harbour infill.

BerczyModel-May27,10(8).jpg


42
 
Isn't its vagueness part of its success though? If it were too historicist it would be an affront to the heritage buildings surrounding it. If it were too modern it would feel out of place and vie for attention with the Flat Iron building, which is arguably one of the most famous and photographed buildings in the city. It adds decent mass to the lot and it meets the street well. If the materials are of good quality this should be above average in-fill for this area. In this sense I feel it is contextually appropriate and not too shabby looking either.
 
I'm not convinced that vagueness or blandness is the way to be deferential to the Flatiron building. That building remains one of the most photographed partly because of the great view you get behind it too, especially of Brookfield Place's TD Canada Trust Tower and the CN Tower, neither of which are vague. If The Berczy dared to be good... and eye-catching... it would be so either outside the frame of many Flatiron pictures, or as something that brightened the left side of the pics. I don't know why that would detract from the Flatiron. (And if The Berczy caused people to stop and shoot it too, bully for it!)

What bothers me most about The Berczy is the mostly unarticulated, mostly symmetrical, slabtastic top as it continues south along Market. Whatever happens at the south end would not impact the FlatIron at all, so why not put an actual focal point on the building down there? Reach a little higher into the sky at the south end as if to grab a few more lake views. Also, the terrace edges look too cornicey to me: why blend cornices with glass and spandrel walls? Ick. Go modern in the modern part, and historicky in the historicky part...

...but maybe that's all just me.

42
 
Tewder said:
Isn't its vagueness part of its success though? If it were too historicist it would be an affront to the heritage buildings surrounding it. If it were too modern it would feel out of place and vie for attention with the Flat Iron building, which is arguably one of the most famous and photographed buildings in the city. It adds decent mass to the lot and it meets the street well. If the materials are of good quality this should be above average in-fill for this area. In this sense I feel it is contextually appropriate and not too shabby looking either.
Click to expand...

That's precisely what I was thinking. I think it is completely meeting its goals and that's what makes good architecture.

It's brilliant in the sense that it completely fits in with the neighbourhood without showing any other building up. This design is clearly focused on the streetscape and the upper floors are meant to be subdued and let the Flatiron, the park, and the rest of the neighbourhood speak for itself and all fit together. Based on the precise location, it needs to do that.

Market Wharf, as a comparison, gives respect to the buildings nearby with it's podium but then incorporates a dramatic tower. It can afford to do that based on it's location and proximity to other buildings nearby. Yet, still, the wavy nature of the balconies of the tower while dramatic also fits in with the idea that the water is nearby and that its location used to be a wharf.
 
Sorry, I remain unconvinced that for buildings to be deferential to nearby classics they must be dull, milquetoast, or half-baked. This building's design should merit as much rigor applied to it as any other.

42
 
What I would have preferred to see is the developer replicate, in exact detail, the facades of the buildings to the west of this site. This is one of the few impressive street walls left in the city and this would have been an opportunity to build on this wall. As for the Tower I would prefer a simple modernistic tower with a smaller floor plate pushed further South. to compensate for the smaller floor plate I would permit a taller tower.
 
Here's an example of a building using materials that fit in with the surrounding architecture, without the need for cornices and other tacky details, while also incorporating a more modern upper portion: http://www.tobuilt.ca/php/tobuildings_more.php?search_fd3=6. To some (with untrained eyes), it may seem very similar to the Berczy, but the key is Rezen has an overall refinement combined with modernity. No "pippy-poos" and doo-dads". There's no reason that the Berczy couldn't have been designed with a similar level of refinement; based on the renderings and model it's a very haphazard and sloppy looking thing suffering from an identity crisis, and a lack of vision.

Now, I will say, the interiors are surprisingly decent looking and I hope that at the very least, the materials are high quality.
 
Agreed. It's a shame that Concert feels the need to incorporate tacky decorative elements in order to attract buyers who are wealthy, but lacking in taste. I expect this building to be filled to the brim with the most top-of-the-line La-Z-Boy recliners money can buy.

Meanwhile, MoZo and Rezen are teeming with Eames lounge chairs to the point that masterfully engineered handmade leather ottomans are positively spilling out the windows onto the streets below.
 
Ooo. I may go by and scoop a couple of those up!

(My sentiments regarding this building are aligned with the posters above.)

42
 
I'd take this over the confused heap that is Vu anyday...

Many of the critiques seem to come down to personal taste in the 'I like pippy-poos, I don't" vein. Either you do, either you don't and nobody will convince me that one 'opinion' over another is right or wrong. This is a contextualy respectful building, and one hopefully of good quality. Not every residence that lines a street has to offer tricks. The flourish here is in the brick materials and in the restrained nod to the forms and textures (and yes, pippy-poos) of the area. It sits well at this location. The backdrop of office towers that forms a view-corridor along Front Street interacts in a different way with the Flat Iron Building than would an eye-popper of competing scale right next door.
 
It isn't my personal favourite, but at least the design will work on the site and not be an utterly dreadful addition to the neighbourhod. Though one do have to wonder if something stylistically similiar to Rogers' St. Lawrence Market North red scheme could be a more contemporary interpretation of what should be on the site that is reflective of our times and yet deferential to what is?

AoD
 
WeirdFishes said:
I don't think Concert can afford to drop the ball on this one, it's their first condo in Toronto and they want to make a mark for themselves moving forward in this marketplace.
Click to expand...


They have already constructed (and are still constructing) a number of bland towers in the Dundas and Kipling area.
 
And I always think of Concert in terms of the Tribute towers in NYCC (must be those old subway ads with cartoon condogrlz pondering playing foozball)
 
You must log in or register to post here.

Back
Top