News   Nov 18, 2024
Tower Crane Installed at 1071 King West While Building Gets Height Bump
 1.2K     1 
News   Nov 18, 2024
City of Toronto Introduces Measures to Protect Renters and Boost Affordable Housing Supply
 538     0 
News   Nov 18, 2024
Canada Lands Company Submits Application Outlining Downsview West District
 1.5K     1 

111 Richmond St. W

androiduk

androiduk

Senior Member
Member Bio
Joined
Sep 3, 2008
Messages
6,966
Reaction score
1,838
Location
Yonge & Bloor
Application: Building Additions/Alterations Status: Not Started

Location: 111 RICHMOND ST W
TORONTO ON M5H 2G4

Ward 28: Toronto Centre-Rosedale

Application#: 08 196751 BLD 01 BA Accepted Date: Aug 30, 2011

Project: Multiple Use/Non Residential Multiple Projects

Description: REVISION TO EXISTING BUILDING PERMIT - REVISION TO ALL PARTS OF APPLICATION \Interior demolition to all 16 floors, demo existing mechanical floor to roof, and demo existing 2 storey building immediately east of main building ( Part 8 on Survey) Main building Part 33 on Survey. Interior alterations on lower concourse to fit out new Retail. Interior alterations to all floors for WC's. New window replacement to entire perimeter. New sprinklers throughout . New mechanical penthouse. See attached fees list. Includes Environmental review fee. Applicant to submit forthcoming.


Capturer.JPG
 
I must admit, while I acknowledge we all have varied tastes .... I still get surprised by things that some people see virtue in.

This building has always made my ugliest in Toronto list. Not at #1 or #2, but definitely in the top 20 of non-industrial, 2 + storey buildings.

Rather than degrading anyone else's opinion, I'm genuinely curious about what people find attractive in this design.

I see a grey, simplistic box, whose retail does a poor job addressing the street, lacking any artistic flare, or particularly high quality materials.

It just seems to be a lifeless slab.

That's not a put-down of anyone else's opinion, just my own on the building itself; what do others see, that I apparently overlook?
 
What's the big deal ?

The building is staying as is, just windows being replaced - also the little stub attached is being removed.

BTW - google is moving (and expanding) their offices into this building, from dundas square.
 
Northern Light said:
I must admit, while I acknowledge we all have varied tastes .... I still get surprised by things that some people see virtue in.

This building has always made my ugliest in Toronto list. Not at #1 or #2, but definitely in the top 20 of non-industrial, 2 + storey buildings.

Rather than degrading anyone else's opinion, I'm genuinely curious about what people find attractive in this design.

I see a grey, simplistic box, whose retail does a poor job addressing the street, lacking any artistic flare, or particularly high quality materials.

It just seems to be a lifeless slab.

That's not a put-down of anyone else's opinion, just my own on the building itself; what do others see, that I apparently overlook?
Click to expand...

Read.
 
^^^^

Read, past-tense.


Again, no offense intended...

But in the entire set of reasons to designate, there is not even the implication that the building is attractive.

The description actually uses the words 'concrete slab' and fails to discuss any use of particularly appealing/high quality material finishes or engineering feats or the broad popularity of the building.

Apparently the lobby once used some marble....not exactly unique or special.

The retail here has always failed to my mind (either literally or with tenants that do nothing to animate or relate to the street)

The main argument would seem to be that it was commissioned by a well known development firm of its day, which built a few landmarks, many in conjunction with the same architect.

With every sincere apology to those who are die-hard Dickinson fans.... I freely confess I don't like very much of his work; and find his association w/the project in sufficient grounds for its preservation.

Indeed, let me add, that if this work belonged to Safdie (to use a contemporary example) or Lyle to use an older one......I'd still be unable to defend a building solely on the basis of its architect.

Though I might well be more inclined to find something laudable in the style of one whose work I had a greater appreciation for.
 
adma said:
In other words, you're out of your depth. Bye.
Click to expand...

That was inexcusably rude! :mad:

I went out of my way to be polite about those who value this building, pointing out that my opinion is of the building and not my fellow posters.

But you would answer that politeness with brusque dismissal.

Your manners are appalling.

I won't engage in a flame-war, for the simply reason I think you've made a bigger fool of yourself than anyone else could ever hope to.
 
Northern Light said:
That was inexcusably rude! :mad:

I went out of my way to be polite about those who value this building, pointing out that my opinion is of the building and not my fellow posters.

But you would answer that politeness with brusque dismissal.

Your manners are appalling.

I won't engage in a flame-war, for the simply reason I think you've made a bigger fool of yourself than anyone else could ever hope to.
Click to expand...

Keep in mind who you are replying to. Adma is without question the rudest, most condescending regular poster on this board. I have seen countless posts by him that are at least as bad as the one you replied to.
 
Northern Light said:
That was inexcusably rude! :mad:

I went out of my way to be polite about those who value this building, pointing out that my opinion is of the building and not my fellow posters.

But you would answer that politeness with brusque dismissal.

Your manners are appalling.

I won't engage in a flame-war, for the simply reason I think you've made a bigger fool of yourself than anyone else could ever hope to.
Click to expand...

What does it matter? The "prove to me why I should like this building" attitude (cloaked, of course, in a self-deprecating tone) which underlies your original post is just as ignorant as someone dismissing it. I can't speak for adma, but what really gets my goat is less the one or two isolated posters who may not like a building or a style, but the consistent 'this isn't worth preserving' attitude which has seemed to seep into UT as of late. adma's first response was polite enough - directing you to the heritage report is what many of us would have done. But after reading and reflecting upon that document, you still came back with little more than 'it's only protected because of who designed it,' thereby confirming, as adma pointed out, that you are indeed out of your depth.

Mongo said:
Keep in mind who you are replying to. Adma is without question the rudest, most condescending regular poster on this board. I have seen countless posts by him that are at least as bad as the one you replied to.
Click to expand...

But pick it apart Mongo. Would you not grow increasingly bitter if a sizable and sadly still-growing cohort of the UT crowd were consistently posting with the same lack of foresight which crept into municipal politics fifty or sixty years ago and fortunately(?) relieved us (and countless other cities) of much of our then-existing building stock? I think there's far to much heritage back-patting going on now as if we've somehow crested a hill and moving forward everything will be better. In fact, many of the members of the UT Moron's Echo Chamber give me great cause for concern since in many ways, it will be they who inherit the city.

I too have grown tired of the 'no love lost' posts of members like Automation or Big Daddy. adma's directing them to city documents or calling them out for being completely ignorant to significant heritage issues such as the Penn Stn/MSG debacle seem like appropriate responses to me. If you're so hung up on the way he replies, perhaps you should read into the argument itself and let the actual words melt away.

For example, I have absolutely no interest in hockey. So what gives me any right to take an authoritative stance on it? I still can't get my head around the populist notion that somehow education is a bad thing or that reading about a particular issue actually makes you less informed about it. When allied to the equally-erroneous 'everyone's opinion is right' rook, it's rather comical to see misguided and uninformed members confidently declaring that buildings such as this one, 45 Charles or 17 Dundonald are of little value but are angered when they're served a cold glass of heritage-flavored shut-up juice.

Bottom line: UT is not a playground. Taking stances is, in many ways, what we're all about and one's ability to defend their positions is a great garner of respect here. Just remember that it's more than likely that not everyone agrees with your view so don't go crying if/when someone takes you on.
 
Mongo said:
Keep in mind who you are replying to. Adma is without question the rudest, most condescending regular poster on this board. I have seen countless posts by him that are at least as bad as the one you replied to.
Click to expand...
He's usually right, though.
 
Project End:

I've never taken to insulting you on this board, irrespective of whether I agree with each and every opinion of yours. I would appreciate the same courtesy.

I don't know your education, though your vocabulary suggests a good one, I will however suggest, I am not lacking in that department. The point is not a pissing contest over who has more letters after their name......

There was nothing 'cloaked' about my self-deprecation; rather I was sincerely asking what it is that some posters like about the building. I don't think its a complicated or insulting question. It in no way disparages your taste or any other. If I asked "Why do you like Oranges?" that does not mean I don't understand oranges, or they're too complicated for me; rather its an honest question...is it the colour, the acidic qualities, the sweetness, the flavour, the texture?

The question about the building was just as sincere, and straight forward.

Without insulting any other poster, I'm far more the preservationist than most on this board, and lament the lost of the old post office on Adelaide; the Board of Trade Building at Yonge/Front; and Uptown Movie theatre to name but a few.

But I don't wish they were around just because they used to be; or even because a particular architect designed them (if those are your reasons, that's fine); rather I lament their loss as an aesthetic one; as removing 'character' from an area that was desirable, generally to replace them with buildings that would widely be acknowledged as lesser contributors to civic life.

It just so happens when I look at this particular building I don't see any distinguishing characteristics that are particularly attractive or functional; and I can't imagine that if an identical building were proposed today than most on UT would not be panning it.

But I don't insist that everyone agree with me; nor do I insult those that don't (unless they insult me first); rather I genuinely inquire; what is it about this building you like? If its just that Dickinson designed it.....OK.....not a logic I share; but that's fine. What I was hoping for however, was a response that might have told me something about what you SEE in the building.

Do you really like the material palate? Does that shade of grey work for you? Seriously! I mean I just don't see what's interesting.

I do see what is interesting about Union Station (limestone, grandeur, columns, detailed carving, high ceilings etc. etc. etc.)

I could similarly speak well of the Board of Trade building, how it complimented and would have spoken too the old Bank of Montreal/Hockey Hall of Fame and the Dominion Building across Front, and fit in nicely with the St. Lawrence area, how its scale, was just right, how it conveyed warmth etc etc.

And lest you think I some how only lament buildings over 70 years old.....;

I'll put in now for protecting the TD Centre; The BCE/Brookfield place Atria ( a masterpiece by Calatrava); and The Humber Bike/pedestrian bridge).

For each of those I can list striking characteristics that I and others enjoy now and would like to continue doing so for many decades to come.

I just don't see it on this one building. (not a knock on preservation in general) and I again I ask.....what is it you see that you find special? (I'm not asking to be convinced, merely wondering.) and by the way, if you'd like stuff like this preserved you do need to persuade other's of your cause; something far more likely to be achieved by a straight-forward and polite answer; rather than impertinent self-importance.
 
You must log in or register to post here.

Back
Top