Toronto 1200 Bay | 326.5m | 87s | ProWinko | Herzog & de Meuron

I don't know but I assume he has backers/investors lined up. I'm sure he couldn't/wouldn't try to do the "Another One" on his own.

He has to actually build The One first. There is no way he could do Another One on his own. He's not a billionaire. He borrowed every cent for the One optioning out most of the ownership in the development during the process. He'll never build again if he fails to deliver. He succeeds, well, than he shouldn't have an issue building a big tower at 1200 Bay.
 
Last edited:
Except that he is not connected with 1200 Bay. Let's not let rumours with no basis in fact get going please!

42
 
No surprise you offer no resolution to dealing with deteriorated precast or wiring that has become a safety issue. Just continue to spew nonsense that I have no interest in the city's architectural legacy because I put safety first. Yeah, profit and loss correlates with safety. I believe The Colonnade is cast in place. You do know the difference?

Actually, re wiring, I offered that as a typical red-herring argument offered by heritage opponents, i.e. "with designations, you can't do nuthin' without jumping hundreds of hurdles or offending someone". Not as *my own* opinion--though of course, with designations you have to be careful *how* you do it (at least as regards street frontages)

And re concrete: this was largely cast in place, too. And yet it was demolished on, er, safety et al grounds.
http://www.archdaily.com/86743/ad-classics-orange-county-government-center-paul-rudolph
And if you think that was the proper thing to do, well, grievous heritage fail on your part.
duncecapplz.png


Look: *technical* resolution is not my expertise--what I'm offering is a differing, more overarching form of "resolution", which is fueled by a different attitude towards the architecture in question. Like, let's go back to this quote of yours...

The only option is to recreate which isn't preservation. Costly as well for something that isn't too popular.

Okay. With the "recreate which isn't preservation" part, you're presenting a ultra-purist cartoon of preservationism; like, it *only* has to be original materials and elements, or *only* installed according to original (and as we now know, faulty or limited-lifespan) specifications. (And like the knob-and-tube red herring, it's a detractor's cartoon.) Look, if things went that far in the ultra-purist direction, that which is Victorian or Deco would be technically no less (and maybe in some instances even more) economically prohibitive, as you'd have to procure trained, specialized craftspersons of all sorts to make things ohsoperfect. (And *keep* things ohsoperfect, given how a lot of these edifices have had to be re-scaffolded and re-restored and fine-tuned at inconvenient intervals.)
In fact, the probable nub of the problem is the "something that isn't too popular" part. So, may I ask, "something that isn't too popular" with...*whom*? *You*? Well, as far as I'm considered, that's your problem. And other than that, whom? The sort of people who think the NPS walkways are a view-blocking eyesore that would've been better off torn down? You really want to pander to *that* mentality?

In reality, I don't think it's a matter of "non-popularity", so much as a matter of casual, everyday non-engagement--something which, unlike non-popularity, *isn't* necessarily founded upon inflexible hostility. The silent majority that *wouldn't* view a 60s precast wall restoration with a "why did they bother with this dated concrete crap which'll fall apart all over again" axe to grind--and in fact, quite a few of them might even be intrigued and drawn in by the whole process, Doors Open-style. And that, in the end, might wind up its own best economic argument: a historically conscious self-appreciation, inviting others to join in...
 
Adma- I get really confused reading your responses. I'm sure you have very good insight, you seem knowledgable but all the *s and " etc., make it sound like you are a crazy person on the corner talking at them self, and though I am intrigued I just want to walk faster.

No judgement but are you stoned when you respond on here? I ask these things not out of ill intent, simply out of extreme curiosity. I imagine things you write on paper must often involve multiple pen colours.
 
Last edited:
Actually, re wiring, I offered that as a typical red-herring argument offered by heritage opponents, i.e. "with designations, you can't do nuthin' without jumping hundreds of hurdles or offending someone". Not as *my own* opinion--though of course, with designations you have to be careful *how* you do it (at least as regards street frontages)

And re concrete: this was largely cast in place, too. And yet it was demolished on, er, safety et al grounds.
http://www.archdaily.com/86743/ad-classics-orange-county-government-center-paul-rudolph
And if you think that was the proper thing to do, well, grievous heritage fail on your part.
duncecapplz.png


Look: *technical* resolution is not my expertise--what I'm offering is a differing, more overarching form of "resolution", which is fueled by a different attitude towards the architecture in question. Like, let's go back to this quote of yours...



Okay. With the "recreate which isn't preservation" part, you're presenting a ultra-purist cartoon of preservationism; like, it *only* has to be original materials and elements, or *only* installed according to original (and as we now know, faulty or limited-lifespan) specifications. (And like the knob-and-tube red herring, it's a detractor's cartoon.) Look, if things went that far in the ultra-purist direction, that which is Victorian or Deco would be technically no less (and maybe in some instances even more) economically prohibitive, as you'd have to procure trained, specialized craftspersons of all sorts to make things ohsoperfect. (And *keep* things ohsoperfect, given how a lot of these edifices have had to be re-scaffolded and re-restored and fine-tuned at inconvenient intervals.)
In fact, the probable nub of the problem is the "something that isn't too popular" part. So, may I ask, "something that isn't too popular" with...*whom*? *You*? Well, as far as I'm considered, that's your problem. And other than that, whom? The sort of people who think the NPS walkways are a view-blocking eyesore that would've been better off torn down? You really want to pander to *that* mentality?

In reality, I don't think it's a matter of "non-popularity", so much as a matter of casual, everyday non-engagement--something which, unlike non-popularity, *isn't* necessarily founded upon inflexible hostility. The silent majority that *wouldn't* view a 60s precast wall restoration with a "why did they bother with this dated concrete crap which'll fall apart all over again" axe to grind--and in fact, quite a few of them might even be intrigued and drawn in by the whole process, Doors Open-style. And that, in the end, might wind up its own best economic argument: a historically conscious self-appreciation, inviting others to join in...


So basically what you're saying is, tear it down, right?
 
Adma- I get really confused reading your responses. I'm sure you have very good insight, you seem knowledgable but all the *s and " etc., make it sound like you are a crazy person on the corner talking at them self, and though I am intrigued I just want to walk faster.

No judgement but are you stoned when you respond on here? I ask these things not out of ill intent, simply out of extreme curiosity. I imagine things you write on paper must often involve multiple pen colours.

Actually, I'm a nondrinker/nonsmoker/nonstoner, which in its convoluted way may explain my technique more than if I *were* a drinker/smoker/stoner. (Or make it scarier, depending on one's POV).

So basically what you're saying is, tear it down, right?

No; just taking a bigger-picture, multipronged, creative-minded overview on behalf of the retention option. While realizing that "retention" isn't an all-or-nothing affair, or a crude declaration that Building X is a masterpiece on a level with Old City Hall, New City Hall, etc. And if you want to argue on behalf of tearing this stuff down, might as well argue on behalf of tearing Dineen or IOOF or any such work down as well.
 
Woah !! Big scoop from @AlexBozikovic


The design is for a tower that would be not just the tallest but also likely the thinnest high-rise in Toronto; its upper floors are just 7,300 square feet in area. It would contain two floors of retail, 13 floors of office space, 71 floors of residential condominium units ranging from one-bedrooms to penthouses, and then a restaurant at the top.

XFHWLGBEGRAHBLOMHOCMHD4-MUI.jpg
 
Herzog in TO, finally. Couple screengrabs and an interesting graf from the Globe article:

The architects, with local firm Quadrangle, are proposing a “double skin” façade of glass. An outer layer would provide shading and allow fresh air in selected places; an inner façade would have windows that can be opened, lined with built-in wooden shutters that can be controlled by the occupants of the offices and homes.


Screen Shot 2020-06-03 at 2.28.46 PM.png

Screen Shot 2020-06-03 at 2.28.36 PM.png
 
Wow! Now that's a sleek tower. Probably never going to be built but amazing render porn regardless :p
...if it does get built, it would be one of significant pruning unless they can justify and make it everyone's worth while for its planned height.
 
To me, seems less likely to be built than the 80 Bloor Street West proposal (80 Bloor Street West), which is directly west of this proposal.

Also from the Globe article (but y'all should subscribe!):

The site sits next to 80 Bloor Street West, another midcentury office building whose owners, privately held Krugarand Corp., are proposing to replace it with a 79-storey tower. The architects for the Kroonenberg proposal are suggesting an integrated development, in which the two projects would share underground facilities including loading and servicing. This would allow the lane behind the buildings to be pedestrianized.
 

Back
Top