J’aime ce immeuble nouveau (le blanc); il est en harmonie avec ses environnements, parce que il a une certaine complexité minimale de fractale, comme les autres immeubles plus anciens.
I must disagree with you on this, Kai. Seen close up, the new building is a snap-together, post-modern knock off, and only underscores how the craftsmanship of older buildings no longer exists.
A truly modern structure, that does not try to ape past styles, that can truly stand on its own, would have been a more fitting addition to this great street, IMO.
I agree with Kai. I think new building is beautiful. And it looks really nice on Simpson at Sherbrooke! I think this design was a good decision.
Actually, this is not a post-modern design. We are in the period of post-post modern and we are actually building a style called modern traditional. Had this building been clad in limestone instead of pre-fab concrete, it would be celebrated much more. For it to be post-modern this building would have been of a design that was a tongue-n-cheek interpretation of a pastiche of older styles or features. Craftsmanship and quality of materials is a different issue irrespective of architectural style.
Is there one example in Montreal of “modern traditional” done right, then?
Because the pre-fab concrete look, when combined with this style, is downright tacky.
High density limestone is too expensive for a condo building in Montreal. It works for projects like Centurion in New York, but we don’t have the market here.
I don’t see how this looks tacky. I really like it and I like how it looks simple and light (thought that might be the exact same reason why some would think it looks tacky). I would probably change the entrance. I have a more technical question: Was the design of this building inspired by the other one seen in both pictures? If you look at the two buildings from Simpson you will see the reason for my question. Also the entrance is similar. I guess it is a common practice to imitate the older buildings around (I have seen this in Montreal a few times, not necessarily style imitations but some features).
Another question about a smaller detail on the older picture. Why don’t they use those old single-light lampposts anymore? The ones they have now on downtown require a lot of maintenance and four light bulbs, and they are not in very good shape.
Examples of modern traditional are being done in Montreal but have been more restricted to residential projects.
Selwyn House School is Westmount did an addition that is such an example. The stone is matched perfectly as is the architecture.
15 Central Park West in NYC is another high density example of modern traditional done with the right quality of materials.
Edward is right to differentiate between the design style and the materials used to execute the design. But I don’t think the material looks all that tacky – sure, it’s cheaper looking than limestone, but I find it strange to implicitly defend the “brut” look of concrete in a minimalist, brutalist context while deploring it in this one. And from a medium-to-far distance I can hardly tell it’s concrete. I too like the lightness of the look from a distance.
What I was mainly praising was the contextuality of the design – I’m so tired of architects making big solitary artistic statements without any real thought for the neighbourhood in which they will dwell. That plus their tendency to think only in 3 dimensions (not designing for change, esp. changing use) are their two most common failings. Brochure architecture…
In Harvard Square, Cambridge, Mass., where I lived for a time, there was a new building that went up that took pains to blend well with the others around it – it got no raves from architecture critics, just one article by a generalist in a local paper (I think it was the Boston Phoenix) praising it for its unassuming consideration of its place in the community there. In contrast, a couple of blocks away was a much-noted new addition to one of Harvard’s art museums, done in alternating stripes of orange and purple brick, which no doubt was intended as a distinctive statement, but which we locals referred to as the peanut butter and jelly sandwich…
My thing is, I think I’m equally tired of “contextuality” as a way of rationalizing mediocre knock-offs.
And let me make the implicit explicit: yes, I DO defend — even love — the brut look of concrete in brutalist architecture, while deploring it here, strange as that may seem.
That said, I’ll have to walk by the above-posted building again and see if my reaction has changed, now that it’s fully finished, as I am clearly alone on this.
Still, I suspect that it’s a case of this structure looking better in a little photo than in real life.
I don’t care a lot about contextuality. I think the building looks good. I am probably too ignorant on this subject. Now that the building is completed, how is it possible to know the materials that were used? (I know, I am really ignorant). Am I the only one judging only the design of the building (shapes, color, etc)? If we are judging what we cannot see, then isn’t simplicity (easier transportation, faster and cleaner construction) supposed to be better? (maybe I am wrong).
Did I miss a conversation about brutalist architecture? I don’t usually like brutalist architecture, unless it looks really clean and well maintained which is rare. Some people say we will some day see brutalist architecture the way we see older buildings today. I wonder if this is true. If so, I cannot wait :)
11 comments
J’aime ce immeuble nouveau (le blanc); il est en harmonie avec ses environnements, parce que il a une certaine complexité minimale de fractale, comme les autres immeubles plus anciens.
I must disagree with you on this, Kai. Seen close up, the new building is a snap-together, post-modern knock off, and only underscores how the craftsmanship of older buildings no longer exists.
A truly modern structure, that does not try to ape past styles, that can truly stand on its own, would have been a more fitting addition to this great street, IMO.
I agree with Kai. I think new building is beautiful. And it looks really nice on Simpson at Sherbrooke! I think this design was a good decision.
Actually, this is not a post-modern design. We are in the period of post-post modern and we are actually building a style called modern traditional. Had this building been clad in limestone instead of pre-fab concrete, it would be celebrated much more. For it to be post-modern this building would have been of a design that was a tongue-n-cheek interpretation of a pastiche of older styles or features. Craftsmanship and quality of materials is a different issue irrespective of architectural style.
Is there one example in Montreal of “modern traditional” done right, then?
Because the pre-fab concrete look, when combined with this style, is downright tacky.
High density limestone is too expensive for a condo building in Montreal. It works for projects like Centurion in New York, but we don’t have the market here.
I don’t see how this looks tacky. I really like it and I like how it looks simple and light (thought that might be the exact same reason why some would think it looks tacky). I would probably change the entrance. I have a more technical question: Was the design of this building inspired by the other one seen in both pictures? If you look at the two buildings from Simpson you will see the reason for my question. Also the entrance is similar. I guess it is a common practice to imitate the older buildings around (I have seen this in Montreal a few times, not necessarily style imitations but some features).
Another question about a smaller detail on the older picture. Why don’t they use those old single-light lampposts anymore? The ones they have now on downtown require a lot of maintenance and four light bulbs, and they are not in very good shape.
Examples of modern traditional are being done in Montreal but have been more restricted to residential projects.
Selwyn House School is Westmount did an addition that is such an example. The stone is matched perfectly as is the architecture.
15 Central Park West in NYC is another high density example of modern traditional done with the right quality of materials.
Edward is right to differentiate between the design style and the materials used to execute the design. But I don’t think the material looks all that tacky – sure, it’s cheaper looking than limestone, but I find it strange to implicitly defend the “brut” look of concrete in a minimalist, brutalist context while deploring it in this one. And from a medium-to-far distance I can hardly tell it’s concrete. I too like the lightness of the look from a distance.
What I was mainly praising was the contextuality of the design – I’m so tired of architects making big solitary artistic statements without any real thought for the neighbourhood in which they will dwell. That plus their tendency to think only in 3 dimensions (not designing for change, esp. changing use) are their two most common failings. Brochure architecture…
In Harvard Square, Cambridge, Mass., where I lived for a time, there was a new building that went up that took pains to blend well with the others around it – it got no raves from architecture critics, just one article by a generalist in a local paper (I think it was the Boston Phoenix) praising it for its unassuming consideration of its place in the community there. In contrast, a couple of blocks away was a much-noted new addition to one of Harvard’s art museums, done in alternating stripes of orange and purple brick, which no doubt was intended as a distinctive statement, but which we locals referred to as the peanut butter and jelly sandwich…
My thing is, I think I’m equally tired of “contextuality” as a way of rationalizing mediocre knock-offs.
And let me make the implicit explicit: yes, I DO defend — even love — the brut look of concrete in brutalist architecture, while deploring it here, strange as that may seem.
That said, I’ll have to walk by the above-posted building again and see if my reaction has changed, now that it’s fully finished, as I am clearly alone on this.
Still, I suspect that it’s a case of this structure looking better in a little photo than in real life.
I don’t care a lot about contextuality. I think the building looks good. I am probably too ignorant on this subject. Now that the building is completed, how is it possible to know the materials that were used? (I know, I am really ignorant). Am I the only one judging only the design of the building (shapes, color, etc)? If we are judging what we cannot see, then isn’t simplicity (easier transportation, faster and cleaner construction) supposed to be better? (maybe I am wrong).
Did I miss a conversation about brutalist architecture? I don’t usually like brutalist architecture, unless it looks really clean and well maintained which is rare. Some people say we will some day see brutalist architecture the way we see older buildings today. I wonder if this is true. If so, I cannot wait :)