Toronto Burano | ?m | 48s | Lanterra | a—A

Why would one choose to dismantle a facade only to rebuild it? Why is it retained at times and rebuilt at other times? The one thing I don't like about the rebuilt facade at BA Centre is the use of new bricks. Part of the charm of these structures is the old aged brick. I imagine the same will happen here.
 
ganjavih said:
Why would one choose to dismantle a facade only to rebuild it? Why is it retained at times and rebuilt at other times? The one thing I don't like about the rebuilt facade at BA Centre is the use of new bricks. Part of the charm of these structures is the old aged brick. I imagine the same will happen here.
Click to expand...

They dismantled and rebuilt the facade of the warehouse which became the base for the residential building on the south side of St. Joseph Street directly west of St. Nicholas and they did a fab job of it. I imagine it is just easier and more economical to do so. I agree about with you about the use of new brick at B/A being a disappointment but I don't think there is any need to assume that a similar situation will occur with Burano. Fingers crossed, eh?
 
jaborandi said:
They dismantled and rebuilt the facade of the warehouse which became the base for the residential building on the south side of St. Joseph Street directly west of St. Nicholas and they did a fab job of it. I imagine it is just easier and more economical to do so. I agree about with you about the use of new brick at B/A being a disappointment but I don't think there is any need to assume that a similar situation will occur with Burano. Fingers crossed, eh?
Click to expand...

So why is it that they cant do the same at MLG and get that development going ahead.
 
ganjavih said:
Why would one choose to dismantle a facade only to rebuild it? Why is it retained at times and rebuilt at other times?
Click to expand...
Sometimes the facade is not structurally sound and needs to be rebuilt in case it falls down, often it must be rebuilt because the builders need to excavate and the facade's foundations would not cope with that. Sometimes it is not built in exactly the same place or form - the BA facade is NOT exactly the same as the old building and is not, I think, in exactly the same place. Ideally everything from the old facade is used but sometimes parts of it are rotten (in particular bricks.)
 
ganjavih said:
Why would one choose to dismantle a facade only to rebuild it? Why is it retained at times and rebuilt at other times? The one thing I don't like about the rebuilt facade at BA Centre is the use of new bricks. Part of the charm of these structures is the old aged brick. I imagine the same will happen here.
Click to expand...

Facades don't stay standing up all on their own; if you don't take it down, you have to prop it up with an elaborate steel rig. (We saw this on Gerrard East, I think, and at Ryerson, and in Yorkville.) If you're digging a giant pit beneath it, it can become impractical.

B/A was a preservation clusterfuck, in my humble opinion. The problem wasn't so much that the brick was new (on its own, perhaps forgivable), or that the heritage facade stuck to the bottom of an unsympathetic tower like a postage stamp (the streetwall effect *is* nice, and at least you can't accuse the old and new buildings of competing), but that they actually changed the old building's design, removing a storey and heightening the remaining ones so that the old floor height matches B/A's floor height.

And which point, it's hard not to ask: why even bother? What we're left with is so far removed from the original building, in design, material, and context, that it really is not much more than a Disneyland simulation of a generic old-timey building. It's not heritage, it's just an approximation.
 
The National Building (the BA facade) was another example of a damaged building due to roof leaks back in the 80's. It would likely not have survived a tear-down around it and as it continues to deteriorate would likely have become unstable in years to come.
In the case of Burano, it was discovered that the ground beneath the Addison Motors building is not well packed. Excavating the parking garage so close to the existing facade could have caused it to sink, crack and perhaps collapse. So it was decided to carefully mark, dismantle and store the existing materials then rebuild it once the new concrete foundation is complete.
 
Automation Gallery said:
So was Montreal,Chicago and NewYork,s old home and they are all gone.
Click to expand...

Is that an excuse to follow suit? Heck, even a lot of preservationists would rather MLG be euthanized altogether than travestied through facadectomy.

Speaking of which, I believe that structural issues also stand in the way of an MLG facadectomy/adaptation; that is, the whole arena is effectively a "unit construction" which renders it rather inflexible for any purpose other than what it was built for--that's why Loblaw shied away...
 
adma said:
Is that an excuse to follow suit? Heck, even a lot of preservationists would rather MLG be euthanized altogether than travestied through facadectomy.

Speaking of which, I believe that structural issues also stand in the way of an MLG facadectomy/adaptation; that is, the whole arena is effectively a "unit construction" which renders it rather inflexible for any purpose other than what it was built for--that's why Loblaw shied away...
Click to expand...

If that is the case why does the city not buy it restore it and turn it into a public sportsplex.I cant see anyone else taking this on.
 
You must log in or register to post here.

Back
Top