Automation Gallery
Superstar
What, have they gone back to the old proposal with the 18 storey curved building.
Toronto King Blue by Greenland | 155.75m | 48s | Greenland | Arcadis
- Thread starter maestro
- Start date
Mike in TO
Senior Member
Small progress update:
- Late last week, the Toronto Preservation Board decided to ignore staff recommendations and approved major alterations
to the 1927 heritage designated Canada Westinghouse Building; - The previously approved proposal for two towers of 42 and 47 floor and 4,066 sqm of non-res spece is now set to move forward;
- Project also includes a public courtyard on site;
- Proposal will retain north and west walls (part of east and south walls at edges to retain 3D look);
- Staff had recommended adaptive re-use in its entirety and disagreed with proposal to remove most of the structure;
- Councillor Adam Vaughan introduce the motion that was approved by the preservation board to ignore the staff recommendations and approve the alterations to the heritage designated property;
Towered
Superstar
Another blow dealt to meaningful heritage preservation in this town.
ahmad.m.atiya
Banned
This is a great project. I can't wait to see it go through. I love how modern Toronto is. I just hope this anti-developement (ie "heritage preservation;" junk preservation) movement doesn't continue.
ladyscraper
man alive
You repeat this same garbage in every thread. I can't wait to hear what developer you work for.
adma
Superstar
sodapop
Active Member
what a ridiculous comment to make, toronto can be modern even if we preserve heritage. the way i see it your saying you have to destroy heritage buildings to be a modern city which isn't true.
grey
Senior Member
I hope your posting doesn't continue.
Atlantis
Active Member
Sound like we're still living in the 70s and believing the same modernist mantra that brought us some of our most regretful block-busting mega projects. Toronto has plenty of space to construct new in between the old without needlessly having to destroy every last bit of heritage we still have left. One look at the Distillery for example and you'll see what I mean. We can save and build around existing built forms if we really want too! In fact it takes a far more creative mind to do that then it does to simply trash and rebuild. We really need to reassess our 'throw away' culture with respect to older architecture and heritage!
Ramako
Moderator
That's what the 'ignore' feature is for.
Big Daddy
Senior Member
I rarely agree with the preservation society because I don't think all buildings are worthy of saving - however I feel this one is an exception - It adds tremendous character to the area and helps preserve an historic sense to the now glass covered dictrict. This one should have been preserved IMO.
egotrippin
Senior Member
In most cases I believe we should lean towards the preservation approach. Even though some older structures are basic brick boxes, their materials and age add texture and visual contrast to our increasingly glassy neighbourhoods. The Westinghouse isn't the most ornate or spectacular building on King West by a long shot, but like most warehouse structures from its era, it provides visual interest and historical reference to the area.
I don't understand how anyone could blame heritage preservation for being anti-development. The reuse of our heritage buildings is a very important part of the city's development.
I don't understand how anyone could blame heritage preservation for being anti-development. The reuse of our heritage buildings is a very important part of the city's development.
TheKingEast
Senior Member
I rarely agree with the preservation society because I don't think all buildings are worthy of saving - however I feel this one is an exception - It adds tremendous character to the area and helps preserve an historic sense to the now glass covered dictrict. This one should have been preserved IMO.
I agree. This one's a beauty IMO.
maestro
Senior Member
I don't understand this decision. The developer actually OWNS the surface lots around this building. Why not negotiate for the perservation of the building or better yet, slap the owner for paying too much for the property. SSC would disagree but, this city in light of the OMB is a little too pro-development at times especially when there is little need to be. We aren't exactly desparate for any sort of investment by any means.
MBS
Active Member
I see the two sides of the argument, but I have a thought. People seem to be complaining that they aren't preserving a historic building that bring character to the area, etc, etc, but the character the building brings to the area is entirely because of its facade, right? I mean, the interior does absolutely nothing for those walking by. I've never seen the interior in my life. So if they're preserving the facade, how will this development take away from the character the facade brings? I know interiors are important too, yadda yadda, but this wont take away any character it brings to the street, imo. Actually this development will be great. The historic building can get some nice new windows to replace the junky old ones, and the towers actually have a very interesting design. Personally, I can't wait for this to start.