Today Monday Tuesday
It is forcast to be Chance of a Thunderstorm at 10:00 PM CDT on May 19, 2013
Chance of a Thunderstorm
90°/68°
It is forcast to be Thunderstorm at 10:00 PM CDT on May 20, 2013
Thunderstorm
86°/68°
It is forcast to be Thunderstorm at 10:00 PM CDT on May 21, 2013
Thunderstorm
88°/66°

13 Comments

news

Bad Buildings: The Twist(ed)

badbuildingsabsolute.jpgBad Buildings recently had the unusual ambivalent fortune (that is to say, neither good nor bad; we’re reserving judgment lest you get the impression we’re an urbanity snob—heaven forbid) of traveling north on Hurontario Street in Mississauga, past the intersection of Burnamthorpe Road. For the urbanity snobs among you, this would be Mississauga downtown—a nifty bit of urban planning that says, hey, we CAN build a “city” out of nuthin’. (Note ambivalent tone torquing only-and-ever-so-slightly)
In any case, at this intersection, the heart—the very throbbing pulse, one might even say—of this model city centre, a structure that will no doubt define it for generations is rising. It’s rising off-kilter, torqued and a little awry, but, two years after it was announced, it is, finally, rising. We are, of course, talking about Cityzen Group’s 50-story (shudder) “Marilyn Monroe” tower, which cute little old Hazel McCallion, ole’ Miss’s octegenerian mayor, predicted would be a “real landmark.”
Okay. Cities may form their identities organically over the decades, but our civic leaders, alas, tend to choose the grand symbols we present to the rest of the world (witness Olde Pointy, the CN Tower, destined to soon become the second-tallest tower on earth, following Dubai’s version of same, the Burj Dubai, set for completion this year. We’re number two! So Canadian. But we digress).
In Mississauga, where nothing is organic, from what we can tell, this contortional squibble of a building is as fitting a symbol as any. Its trivial goofiness may come to be viewed with awe by those who travel the Hurontario/Burnamthorpe corridor, but its impact on the larger world, we predict, will be somewhere next to nil.
It’s bold, sure, we’ll give it that (maybe it should have been on our list?) And kudos to the developers (gak, we think we just puked in our mouths a little) for taking a bit of a risk.
But our quibble with the squibble, as it were, is simply this: Lauded as, ahem, “sexy,” and “glamorous,” we see nothing of the sort, unless you’re one of those folks who found Fritz the Cat sexy (hey, no offence—to each his or her own). Because it is, frankly, a cartoon—a dorky rendition of a building that seeks only to make a spectacle of itself. To us, sexy buildings aren’t silly—they’re commanding, forceful, a veritable Brando of a building, all muscle and attitude. Think the Chrysler Building, or the Empire State, or Gehry’s Bilbao Guggenheim—take me now, Frank! Now!
Ahem. So, in any case, it would appear our urbanity snobbery is revealed. Character isn’t conjured, it’s formed. Mississauga seems to be missing that point, and this screwy goofball only serves to make that painfully clear.

Comments

  • guest

    Had you been blogging in the 30s, I’m sure you would have decried all the ugly monstrosities springing up in New York.
    “All these skyscrapers, they’re not elegant and stately like the Eiffel Tower,” you’d mutter darkly.
    This tower obviously won’t measure up to the Chrysler or Empire State buildings. But it’s a step in the right direction, far better than the average anonymous glass and concrete lump that usually passes for a condo.
    Maybe it’s not brilliant architecture, but at least it’s interesting. That’s a lot better than the alternative.

  • guest

    look up the aqua building in chicago. it’s like this only a lot better looking.

  • davedave

    “trivial goofiness”
    WTF?
    Not sure what’s up your ass, but maybe you should get it checked out.
    That Mississauga tower is beautiful, interesting, and a breath of fresh architectural air from all the usual crap condo towers.
    If it were in Paris or Barcelona you’d be drooling over it.
    The old Canadian eat our own mentality is so tired.

  • guest

    Appreciate the witty writing, but content is king and you are way off base here. Would you prefer another blah slab, perhaps with a kitchy top on it so bad that even a child could not recognize its progenitor? (ahem, the Capital, NY Towers)
    I don’t think anyone outside the condo marketing department is claiming this thing will change the world, but if a value-engineered for-profit tower in a North American suburb can look like this, it very well may resonate with developers more than any architectural critique. (And yes #2, the Aqua will be even more influential.)
    I hope to see some columns on actual Bad Buildings sometime soon in order to restore your tenuous credibility as arbiters of architectural taste.

  • guest

    This series should be reconsidered. I implore you.

  • guest

    That building, and the small version they are building is beautiful in my opinion. Have you seen the junk going up in Mississauga – or even Toronto for that matter?
    A building this bold should be going up in Toronto’s downtown, not shitty ‘Sauga.

  • guest

    What are some current buildings going up here, or anywhere, that the writer likes?

  • guest

    I think the writers like to be snarky by pointing out buildings that are popular to like, even to the point of being cliche, and then pointing out how intellectually berefit they are. It’s not terribly useful nor good reading. What this blog really needs is a recreation of Hume’s discontinued series that graded new condos, except expanded to all new and recent buildings.

  • guest

    Torontoist – once again – serves up personal point of view devoid of legitimate critical reasoning. Already the Romans knew the fallacy of discussing our own aesthetic preferences. De gustibus non disputandum est.

  • guest

    “To us, sexy buildings aren’t silly—they’re commanding, forceful, a veritable Brando of a building, all muscle and attitude.”
    So basically your idea of sexy is entirely masculine? Way to be unselfconscious.
    This series is getting worse.

  • rek

    I have no opinion on this building, but this article is style over substance. C’mon BB.

  • Jonathan Goldsbie

    “What this blog really needs is a recreation of Hume’s discontinued series that graded new condos…”
    The Condo Critic series came back with the Star‘s redesign and appears in the Condos section every (or maybe every other) Saturday. In any case, it was in the paper yesterday and actually rated the already-constructed towers in this very development.

  • b24chicago

    This twisting design is popping up in Chicago as well with the Chicago Spire. Also the Aqua in Chicago is similar in concept.

The forecast for Toronto by WP Wunderground