CanadianNational
Senior Member
John Bently Mays wrote a sympathetic article about the building:
http://www.theglobeandmail.com/life/home-and-garden/architecture/as-regent-park-rebuilds-a-pause-to-consider-what-came-before/article9146731/
"Each of these award-winning blocks is a 14-storey stack of spacious two-level apartments that spread across the entire width of the building. When I visited one of the three-bedroom suites a few years ago, I found it to be a fine, honest expression of what mattered to the humane modern architects of mass housing in Mr. Dickinson’s day: excellent cross-ventilation, copious natural lighting, density without a sacrifice of privacy, and a strong sense of the social and communal. If the elevators were not kept in working order as time went by, if mindful maintenance was allowed to slide, if poverty wrecked the lives of the inhabitants – none of that is the fault of the architecture, which embodies a style of serious social conscience that should never be forgotten."
But...
"TCH, it should be noted, is not simply hell-bent on bulldozing everything standing in the way of its bright, shiny redevelopment scheme....[Mr. Burr said,] that the building is not viable for a conversion to a market condominium building, and any efforts to modify the building to meet current energy efficiency standards will significantly alter the functionality of the suites, and the exterior of the building, thus eliminating the original design intent.”
I guess I find it hard to believe that either the building is so far behind in code that it can't be renovated. If that's the case - what are people still doing in there? I guess that this, and other housing stock was falling far enough behind in repairs, efficiency and general modern building code specs that the only solution was to get people out wholesale - and tear them down, rather than try more piecemeal. Still, it's hard to believe that if the building was well and truly gutted, nothing could be done.
My second point of disbelief comes from the fact that even if bringing a tower up to code does impact the suites within, would it really be worse than many of the shoe box and closet-sized condos going up in the city, made of cardboard and spit? These have quite interesting layouts. I think in this case, where there's a strong enough general will, there could be a way. But - expensive to renovate, probably looking like an affront to former residents if it went condo, and unloved for decades - I think the general populace would rather spend the money on something brand new.
http://www.theglobeandmail.com/life/home-and-garden/architecture/as-regent-park-rebuilds-a-pause-to-consider-what-came-before/article9146731/
"Each of these award-winning blocks is a 14-storey stack of spacious two-level apartments that spread across the entire width of the building. When I visited one of the three-bedroom suites a few years ago, I found it to be a fine, honest expression of what mattered to the humane modern architects of mass housing in Mr. Dickinson’s day: excellent cross-ventilation, copious natural lighting, density without a sacrifice of privacy, and a strong sense of the social and communal. If the elevators were not kept in working order as time went by, if mindful maintenance was allowed to slide, if poverty wrecked the lives of the inhabitants – none of that is the fault of the architecture, which embodies a style of serious social conscience that should never be forgotten."
But...
"TCH, it should be noted, is not simply hell-bent on bulldozing everything standing in the way of its bright, shiny redevelopment scheme....[Mr. Burr said,] that the building is not viable for a conversion to a market condominium building, and any efforts to modify the building to meet current energy efficiency standards will significantly alter the functionality of the suites, and the exterior of the building, thus eliminating the original design intent.”
I guess I find it hard to believe that either the building is so far behind in code that it can't be renovated. If that's the case - what are people still doing in there? I guess that this, and other housing stock was falling far enough behind in repairs, efficiency and general modern building code specs that the only solution was to get people out wholesale - and tear them down, rather than try more piecemeal. Still, it's hard to believe that if the building was well and truly gutted, nothing could be done.
My second point of disbelief comes from the fact that even if bringing a tower up to code does impact the suites within, would it really be worse than many of the shoe box and closet-sized condos going up in the city, made of cardboard and spit? These have quite interesting layouts. I think in this case, where there's a strong enough general will, there could be a way. But - expensive to renovate, probably looking like an affront to former residents if it went condo, and unloved for decades - I think the general populace would rather spend the money on something brand new.
Last edited:
