Toronto CHAZ | 150.87m | 47s | 45 Charles Ltd | P + S / IBI

jetsbackincanada said:
The city from Dundas north to Bloor is already banal and horrid. Why does someone who doesn't share your appreciation for concrete need to be ignorant?
Click to expand...

You've written it off as a "crappy grey bunker" and you think it's ugly. It is, in my opinion, not a bunker, but has continuous, elegant bands of horizontal fenestration. It is not a slab, but is rotated 45 degrees and has cut away moments wherein the external terraces are. There is a consistent pattern on all the external walls that is,to my knowledge, not found in other building in the city. Mostly, the building formally unique and represents an age when architects used concrete as a building material in original ways that they did not do before and have not done since. I like it, I think it is an interesting building and think it gives the city an extra layer of built history. But this must just be me spouting out someone else's opinion, right Traynor? I must be a conformist academic elitist for believing such things.

Many people thought old Victorian building in toronto were shabby, squat and fussy (and applauded when they were torn down in the middle of the 20th century). The city lost much of its historical built fabric and people lamented it later when they realized that buildings of that nature would not be built anymore. Tearing down well-conceived, interesting concrete buildings is born of the same blindness... and future generations will lament the loss of something original and interesting. And yes, I do think many people are ignorant of the value of these 20th century brutalist buildings. As traynor said, some are good (and I believe this is one of them).

Those are my reasons. You all can insult me and call me an elitist and insecure and snobbish and whatever other expletives you like. But until you can offer a reason for why this is a bad building (you've offered none except for that you, personally, don't like it aesthetically) then I will continue to support the opinion of obnoxious architectural 'elitists' who can assess the building in a more comprehensive way, over your aesthetic opinion (you don't think it's "beautiful").

Raw populist anger and name-calling doesn't really sway me. You can call me an elitist all you like, but I'm not an academic. I'm merely an architect.
:p
 
Yikes!

Geezus...maybe I shouldn't say anything...!

Just kidding...of course I will...I was born with a mouth so I'll use it!...oh wait...I'm on a forum...my mouth will do me no good here...

...okay, how about 'fingers' then...I was born with them and I'll use them, dammit! ;)

But seriously...what a discussion! I kinda wish you guys would get together for a beer or something...might help smooth things over.

Anyhow, as for the brutalist building, I have mixed feelings...I understand it's significance as a unique structure and the importance of preserving our past...that part I get...

...but I've never really liked brutalist architecture much, except in some cases like 'maybe' Robarts and/or some government buildings in Washington...but I confess I've only ever seen the latter in movies so maybe it's the director's ability of placing them them in a 1970's 'political turmoil' suspense kinda way that I find 'cool'...not sure... ;)

...as for this building...while I recognize it's definitely unique for many reasons...I still haven't ever really liked it much, mainly cause I don't like how it sucks life away from the street without adding much back...it also makes me feel like it's mad at me (and I didn't even do anything!)...and/or I feel like it wouldn't be a place I'd want to be brought against my will...

Robarts on the other hand I feel a bit more leniant towards...not sure why...maybe b/c it's just such an imposing building.

...maybe this is architectural sacrilege to say this..., but I've even often hoped that they would redesign Robarts at the ground...but I know doing so would violate the building's purity.

So bottom line is I still don't know how I feel about it...cause a part of me thinks that just b/c I don't like it personally doesn't mean it shouldn't remain for the sake of preserving our past - good or bad. It is afterall a part of our city and a part of our past and therefore a part of 'us'.

Normally my posts are pretty definitive one way or another...but honestly I'm on the fence on this one.

Has the building been demolished yet? Maybe I'll go take another look to see if can decide one way or another, or maybe someone here can convince me (with logic and reasoning) to solidify which side I take.
 
At the risk of sounding cold and unfair but this building really is an eyesore. I'm not weeping at night.
 
Danielinthecity said:
Has the building been demolished yet? Maybe I'll go take another look to see if can decide one way or another, or maybe someone here can convince me (with logic and reasoning) to solidify which side I take.
Click to expand...

It has a month or two of life left at best, but not much more so take another look before it's gone if your in the area. Go with an open mind and give it a final chance, you may change your view but don't let anyone change it for you.
 
And regarding a request for *my* opinion on the building: sometimes, when the milieu is toxic and one has other items on one's plate, etc, a bibliography/link will suffice as testament to merit. It's like, when pressed for opinion on Elvis Presley, one can refer one to Greil Marcus' "Mystery Train" and leave it at that...
 
And whatever any of you think of the building, look at it this way--if it actively came across the preservation plate in advance of the Chaz plans during Kyle Rae's term of office, I doubt that Kyle would've opposed, esp. considering that various E.R.A. modern-heritage types like Michael McClelland or Graham "Tower Renewal" Stewart tended to have his ear. And ditto now with Wong-Tam. With councillors like that, the "get rid of this ugly concrete pile of shite, it ain't heritage!" demo wouldn't have had a chance in blazes. Of course, they are getting rid of it; but that's only because Chaz' developers put their foot in the door. Sometimes, things happen like that.
 
At least this building was interesting- which is more than can be said for 99% of the buildings in the city. I'll miss it... but I am looking forward to watching how they tear this thing down :)

chaz1.jpg
 
Automation Gallery said:
In that pic, whats that ugly looking concrete/precast monstrosity in the background.:eek:
Click to expand...

That's just the rooftop mechanical for the building- always wondered why they made it so big- plus the wide angle of the shot makes it look further back than it actually is.
 
Fantastic shot androiduk, you never cease to amaze.
45 Charles is going to be a monster to demolish.
 
You must log in or register to post here.

Back
Top