Toronto One Bloor West | 308.6m | 85s | Tridel | Foster + Partners

You can see the "before" brick on page 329 of this thread. It's lower grade filler brick and it's pretty rough. What's there now is horrible. I foresee some sort of artwork or electronic sign to cover it up.
 
Neil said:
You can see the "before" brick on page 329 of this thread. It's lower grade filler brick and its pretty rough. What's there now is horrible. I foresee some sort of artwork or electronic sign to cover it up.
Click to expand...
A Zoom in from page 329 for reference:
Screenshot_20240109-192542.png
 
Northern Light said:
Below is a pic by great UT contributor @jer1961

View attachment 532226

I love the restoration work on the Yonge-facing facade.........but what's with the north-facing brick wall?

That can't be original brick, it doesn't match the front facade at all. I find that rather jarring.

Edit to add: I think we need to summon UT's brick connoisseur @DavidCapizzano to opine on the matter.
Click to expand...

I don't really mind. I'm sure it will get a wash before construction is completed. The same brick will also be used on the new facade to the south of the heritage building, so it should look a bit more continuous. While I think they definitely could have sourced something a bit more orange, this is not the most offensive thing I have seen. You can see where the new brick facade will be in the image below from @BloorMan prior to the scaffolding going up.

1704922607268.png


I disagree with the idea that the wall should have used a contrasting or more crisp facade material, or that any addition to a heritage structure neeeeeeds to contrast both in colour and materiality - that's why a lot of our newer buildings abutting heritage structures are so monochromatic and boring. This idea is outdated and shows a lack of creativity. The new accompanying 3 story facade here uses the same colour brick, but with a contemporary fenestration - it does not need to contrast to be successful, and to give the heritage facade room to breathe.

I think when doing façadism, preserving the dimensionality of the original building is just as important as restoring the facade itself. While the restoration at Immix is quite nice, the brick stopping so suddenly on the north wall wrap around makes the preserved facade feel tacked on and not part of the building as a whole.

You can see this in @flonicky 's photo from the Immix thread where the brick on the north wall shifts to a metal panel system. Feels phoney to me. I think this is the main reason I am ok with that brick wall.

1704921914888.png


Anyways, thanks for coming to my ted talk.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
DavidCapizzano said:
I don't really mind. I'm sure it will get a wash before construction is completed. The same brick will also be used on the new facade to the south of the heritage building, so it should look a bit more continuous. While I think they definitely could have sourced something a bit more orange, this is not the most offensive thing I have seen. You can see where the new brick facade will be in the image below from @BloorMan prior to the scaffolding going up.

View attachment 532424

I disagree with the idea that the wall should have used a contrasting or more crisp facade material, or that any addition to a heritage structure neeeeeeds to contrast both in colour and materiality - that's why a lot of our newer buildings abutting heritage structures are so monochromatic and boring. This idea is outdated and shows a lack of creativity. The new accompanying 3 story facade here uses the same colour brick, but with a contemporary fenestration - it does not need to contrast to be successful, and to give the heritage facade room to breathe.

I think when doing façadism, preserving the dimensionality of the original building is just as important as restoring the facade itself. While the restoration at Immix is quite nice, the brick stopping so suddenly on the north wall wrap around makes the preserved facade feel tacked on and not part of the building as a whole.

You can see this in @flonicky 's photo from the Immix thread where the brick on the north wall shifts to a metal panel system. Feels phoney to me. I think this is the main reason I am ok with that brick wall.

View attachment 532422

Anyways, thanks for coming to my ted talk.
Click to expand...
Heritage has never been a priority for this developer, as evidenced by his inauspicious demolition of Stollery's at the beginning. In fact, the record shows that his original application on April 21, 2015 was deemed incomplete because he did not even include a Heritage Impact Statement. His heritage architect is one of the best (GBCA) and their presentation to the Toronto Preservation Board in 2016, clearly shows that the intent on the north elevation was to match the brick on the west elevation (last page):


Unfortunately, given the developer's lack of interest in heritage and all the travails the project has gone through, the choice of a "near-miss" brick colour for the north facade was not given adequate attention by those involved (and Heritage Preservation Services was, as usual asleep at the switch in not requiring approval of brick samples). Compare this to the quality of both 2 Queen West and Waterworks where attention was duly paid by the developer, the consultants and the trades.
 
thecharioteer said:
Heritage has never been a priority for this developer, as evidenced by his inauspicious demolition of Stollery's at the beginning. In fact, the record shows that his original application on April 21, 2015 was deemed incomplete because he did not even include a Heritage Impact Statement. His heritage architect is one of the best (GBCA) and their presentation to the Toronto Preservation Board in 2016, clearly shows that the intent on the north elevation was to match the brick on the west elevation (last page):


Unfortunately, given the developer's lack of interest in heritage and all the travails the project has gone through, the choice of a "near-miss" brick colour for the north facade was not given adequate attention by those involved (and Heritage Preservation Services was, as usual asleep at the switch in not requiring approval of brick samples). Compare this to the quality of both 2 Queen West and Waterworks where attention was duly paid by the developer, the consultants and the trades.
Click to expand...
most heritage is crap and used by nimbies to limit development. this city will call any ugly building heritage and we end up with disgusting monstrosities at ground level.

i am happy he quickly got rid of the building so that we could have a 40 foot high uninterrupted street presence which is going to be unique and world class for once.
 
jibsta said:
most heritage is crap and used by nimbies to limit development. this city will call any ugly building heritage and we end up with disgusting monstrosities at ground level.

i am happy he quickly got rid of the building so that we could have a 40 foot high uninterrupted street presence which is going to be unique and world class for once.
Click to expand...
We also end up with of lot of new "crap". I think many would agree the heritage here was poorly executed. I would have liked to have seen the building moved to the southern property line. Older exterior clay brick walls can have dismal recovery rates of usable brick. The bricks simply are not suitable for reuse, however there are enough sources of good quality reclaimed brick that could have been used here.
 
Last edited:
The Preservationist said:
We also end up with of lot of new "crap". I think many would agree the heritage here was poorly executed. I would have liked to see the building moved to the southern property line. Older exterior clay brick walls can have dismal recovery rates of usable brick. The bricks simply are not suitable for reuse, however there are enough sources of good quality reclaimed brick that could have been used here.
Click to expand...
no doubt and there are nice buildings we keep for sure!

but imagine he didnt demo stolleries, and city voted to keep it, it is aun unremarkable building, and would have handicaped the ever loving shit out of this tower, the fact it was gone and we get this insane high end street facade is a huge win.
 
jibsta said:
no doubt and there are nice buildings we keep for sure!

but imagine he didnt demo stolleries, and city voted to keep it, it is aun unremarkable building, and would have handicaped the ever loving shit out of this tower, the fact it was gone and we get this insane high end street facade is a huge win.
Click to expand...
As long as they find a tenant soon after the building / retail is open. The last thing you want to have is a 40 ft glass wall covered in that white hoarding/ sheet for more than 8 years - like the vacant space across the street at 1 Bloor East (no, I’m not talking about ex Nordstrom Rack, some of the retail space has NEVER been leased). I guess in Toronto beggars CAN be choosers.
 
You must log in or register to post here.

Back
Top