Toronto The One | 308.6m | 85s | Tridel | Foster + Partners

[Benito]

Or better yet remove the stone and use them on the limestone facade of his various other projects. Too late, it's already been chipped off.

AoD

I agree they could have made an attractive art installation somewhere, it wouldn't even need to be part of this development. But no chance of that.

 

[arvelomcquaig]

How would this be connected to the PATH? The furthest north the PATH goes is Dundas, isn't it? I wish it reached Bloor.

 

[AlvinofDiaspar]

How would this be connected to the PATH? The furthest north the PATH goes is Dundas, isn't it? I wish it reached Bloor.

Technically not PATH as we defined it, but I think the term is being used generally to any kind of underground connections that spans multiple properties.

AoD

 

[buildup]

I don't think you get it it....these aren't good quality carved limestone bits, and dating from 1930 doesn't change that. Why would you want to save them and pin them on something?

I'm all for this sort of thing, but you can't just expect people to preserve every piece of junk ever constructed. It would appear that the problem seems to be that people can't discern between junk and quality. I understand that sometimes buildings aren't of significant architectural value, but are of significant historical value...not the case here either (unless you think selling over-priced Barbour coats are of significant historical value).

The 1845 William Thomas (St. Lawrence Hall, St. Michael’s Cathedral) facade in the galleria is both high quality and of historical significance...the 11 facades of BCE Place are the few survivors of the fire of 1904.

Thank you for some perspective. There seems to be a view that anything old is of superior artistic quality. This is often the case in part because inferior work from any era tends to get culled out so that better work remains. Its almost Darwinian.

The exception is when some sort of context still exists which is not the case here.

 

[TrickyRicky]

^I don't think it is artistic quality that matters to people. I think it is just that old stone or wood work etc. were endowed with what most people feel is personality and they feel connected to it. Our examples here in Toronto are relatively poor by European or even American Standards but the fact that so many people still care about this "low quality" stuff here in Toronto is a strong critic of contemporary architecture. Great examples of contemporary architecture are endowed with an overall feeling or expression but it is still mostly just made up of junk material that has no personality and no one cares about. Where natural materials such as wood or stone are used at least we get a sense of the natural expression and personality of the material.

I can appreciate a Foster building for instance if it has a strong sense of form and expression and I think most people would agree; However, the vast majority of people feel instantly a connection with natural materials, and historical architectural details that invoke the idea that someone's hand, time, and labour went into creating it.

I am not making an argument for historical preservation of the building in question here. I am just making an argument against dismissing even mediocre historical detailing as significant. Even mediocre architectural detailing is significant because no one puts the time, money, and effort into creating it today.

 

[Tewder]

Also, a knee-jerk position of deference towards older buildings is not necessarily a bad thing. All the more so given a) a pretty lousy track record of heritage preservation in Toronto to start with, and b) massive pressure for development and intensification making many older buildings vulnerable. In a perfect world we would be far less reactionary where preservation is concerned, unfortunately this doesn't seem likely any time soon

 

[freshcutgrass]

There seems to be a view that anything old is of superior artistic quality. This is often the case in part because inferior work from any era tends to get culled out so that better work remains. Its almost Darwinian.

You are correct....as long as the culling is under the direction of a natural aristocracy....not idiots.

 

[AlvinofDiaspar]

You are correct....as long as the culling is under the direction of a natural aristocracy....not idiots.

A self-appointed one? I thought leaving everything to the "experts" was what got us into trouble previously.

AoD

 

[Lenser]

Yeah, the term "natural aristocracy" gives me the heebie-jeebies.

 

[freshcutgrass]

^I don't think it is artistic quality that matters to people.

That's obvious. Why you are trying to make this out as some kind of noble sentiment is what has me puzzled.

Great examples of contemporary architecture are endowed with an overall feeling or expression but it is still mostly just made up of junk material that has no personality and no one cares about. Where natural materials such as wood or stone are used at least we get a sense of the natural expression and personality of the material.

Wow.

I'm trying to think if your statement could be any more wrong. And the answer is...no. ha

 

[Strange Advance]

Supertall. Could this be The One? Pfft!

 

[ChesterCopperpot]

Supertall. Could this be The One?

I wouldn't put my money on it

 

[Uptowner]

That's obvious. Why you are trying to make this out as some kind of noble sentiment is what has me puzzled.

That's obvious.* Why you are trying to make this out as some kind of noble sentiment is what has me puzzled.

This is as much a general reaction than a specific reply to one person.

I agree that a knee-jerk reaction that everything old should be kept would not be noble. On the other hand, a general disposition towards viewing older buildings as generally inherently more difficult to recreate, and thus approaching the question of their demolition with more circumspect, seems to have merit and appears a reasonable, if somewhat weak, precaution against making irreversible and consequential errors. Admittedly this would lead to a slightly longer review process in some cases but we have so few buildings from this period this issue need not seriously detain us.

In general, if something is harder to replace then tending to give the decision to discard it more scrutiny than when considering a run of the mill commodity only seems prudent. In Toronto's case there is little evidence of burdensome cost and, in the opinion of many the case at hand would demonstrate, more than a mere speculative opportunity for potential benefit.

On a slightly different point I am on record that, after considering what I believe to be all the pertinent factors, on balance this demo is worth it if we are to get a great building. However, the optics of how this process is playing out reflect poorly on the procedure and the players and should be addressed.*

 

[salsa]

I don't think you get it it....these aren't good quality carved limestone bits, and dating from 1930 doesn't change that. Why would you want to save them and pin them on something?

I'm all for this sort of thing, but you can't just expect people to preserve every piece of junk ever constructed. It would appear that the problem seems to be that people can't discern between junk and quality. I understand that sometimes buildings aren't of significant architectural value, but are of significant historical value...not the case here either (unless you think selling over-priced Barbour coats are of significant historical value).

The 1845 William Thomas (St. Lawrence Hall, St. Michael’s Cathedral) facade in the galleria is both high quality and of historical significance...the 11 facades of BCE Place are the few survivors of the fire of 1904.

I feel that they should have at least saved this part of the facade, and put it somewhere in the lobby of the new tower.

 

[Automation Gallery]

I feel that they should have at least saved this part of the facade, .

Who is to say they didn't