Toronto The Charles at Church | 152.7m | 47s | Aspen Ridge | BDP Quadrangle

IMG_1619.jpeg
IMG_1620.jpeg
IMG_1621.jpeg
IMG_1623.jpeg
IMG_1624.jpeg
Yesterday.
 
I wish this facadectomy would go somewhere and die. It's cool if done right, but this is just ridiculous. This thing looks utterly ridiculous.
 
TheKingEast said:
I wish this facadectomy would go somewhere and die. It's cool if done right, but this is just ridiculous. This thing looks utterly ridiculous.
Click to expand...
I personally like it.
There is enough depth from the facias to the base of the tower that you get a feeling of the heritage buildings still existing on their own.

Different strokes for different folks I guess. Building is nice so far imo.
 
This building looks good from far and high, but up close and at street level they killed it with leaving the bottom of those balconies white. Had they made them black to blend it with the building it would have made all the difference.
 
Last edited:
Lyphe said:
I personally like it.
There is enough depth from the facias to the base of the tower that you get a feeling of the heritage buildings still existing on their own.

Different strokes for different folks I guess. Building is nice so far imo.
Click to expand...

Different strokes. It just looks odd to me. Why are we saving the old structure? Is it because Toronto destroyed any character it had left to the point where we’re scraping the barrel now?

I’ve been to the Eastern side of the US the last couple weeks…it makes stuff like this look amateur. DC, Boston, even Philly. Great job restoring their old structures.
 
I've come to appreciate the facadism in Toronto for a few reasons:

1. The contrast between old and new, small and big, can be quite striking
2. We simply wouldn't get good, interesting ground level architecture without it (I agree that I wish this wasn't the case, but given the ample evidence of how buildings in Toronto without facadism generally meet the street, it's just a reality. Whether that's due to Toronto architects or developers or both, I don't know)
3. It is (somewhat) unique. Which is a positive given Toronto struggles at times to stand out from other large cities (including in architecture).

I actually really like it in this instance in particular.
 
Start Fox said:
I've come to appreciate the facadism in Toronto for a few reasons:

1. The contrast between old and new, small and big, can be quite striking
2. We simply wouldn't get good, interesting ground level architecture without it (I agree that I wish this wasn't the case, but given the ample evidence of how buildings in Toronto without facadism generally meet the street, it's just a reality. Whether that's due to Toronto architects or developers or both, I don't know)
3. It is (somewhat) unique. Which is a positive given Toronto struggles at times to stand out from other large cities (including in architecture).

I actually really like it in this instance in particular.
Click to expand...

I like facadism...I just don't think it is always necessary. Sometimes the new and the old just don't compliment each other well.
 
You must log in or register to post here.

Back
Top