Toronto London On The Esplanade Condos | 102.1m | 33s | Cityzen | Burka

adma said:
Though--and this *is* where US has a point--the same might go for your first pic. I'll take real Victorian over faux Victorian anyday...
Click to expand...

But LotE is not faux brutalist. I would take Robards over St. Lawrence any day even though they are both actual brutalist. St. Lawrence is dull to look at and a sub-par example of brutalist from the exterior.
 
You mean Robarts?

Brilliant bit of building that is.

robarts-library-of-u-of-t.jpg
 
Urban Shocker said:
Boasting about London on the Esplanade? To whom, and on what basis? A B-list building by a B-list architect. Nothing more.
Click to expand...


So we can only boast of 'big hair' starchitecture (your terminology I believe)?

London fits its context nicely, subtly gesturing to its surroundings in its materials, in its contrasting with (thereby highlighting) important neighbouring buildings such as the O'keefe and St. Lawrence Centres, and in its street-level massing and red brick finishes that respect adjacent heritage streetscapes. It also pleases in a larger Toronto context by continuing a Toronto style that effectively blends heritage sensibilities with modern/minimalist contrasts. It does all this modestly without resorting to faux-ness or being 'Ye Olde', and without resorting to empty spectacle. This is definitely something to boast of.
 
adma said:
Then again, I *can* understand the kneejerk reaction to US embracing O'Keefe and StLC at the expense of much else that's older, never mind the Old Spaghetti Factory. Look: little's been mentioned of the Gooderham Building, or the row of shops on Front (including Toronto's last remaining cast-iron commercial fronts, or even the more physically substantial (and perhaps themselves endangered) brick warehouse neighbours to the OSF along the Esplanade. Are these all mere devoid-of-merit throwaways?

Why, indeed, must one embrace one while rejecting the other?
Click to expand...

Agreed, but it is wrong to suggest that London on the Esplanade somehow rejects the O'Keefe or the St. Lawrence Centres. Opting for a faux-brutalist structure here would actually be disrespectful to those buildings, imo.
 
This place is going to be super convenient (so close to Union and all the attractions of downtown).... if you got in on this 2-3 years ago, you are a happy camper...
 
I've heard it said that a picture is worth a thousand words.
...and I aint saying any more..
 

Attachments

  • Picture 006.jpg
    Picture 006.jpg
    93.3 KB · Views: 373
3Dementia said:
Not sure what you mean, but I still think this slightly forgettable, tallish in-fill is rather respectful of its context and gets props for fitting in...
Click to expand...

Aaah 3!..
I see you must have been away. On holiday perhaps? Perhaps backreading a couple of posts might help clear up your confusion. Hows your tan?:eek:
 
w.ll.am said:
But LotE is not faux brutalist. I would take Robards over St. Lawrence any day even though they are both actual brutalist. St. Lawrence is dull to look at and a sub-par example of brutalist from the exterior.
Click to expand...

Yeah, but ultimately, that's an argument like taking New City Hall over, say, the O'Keefe Centre.

Or maybe like taking Old City Hall over, I dunno, the Victorian frontages on Yonge between College & Bloor...
 
I will agree 100% with Granny here. From that angle at least there is really nothing redeeming about the west facade of the St. Lawrence Centre. Admittedly I'm not a huge fan of its style, even in its better incarnations, but I just do not see here what commends it save the fact that it manages to hold up the billboards well.
 
^ I took them when I helped move my friend in there. He posts on UT occasionally so expect some more shots from there in the future, and of higher quality.
 
You must log in or register to post here.

Back
Top