Urban Shocker
Doyenne
Why would it have been better?
Why must an apartment building look like an ad for jeans?
So people can find the front door? If your home looks like a pair of jeans do you go in through the fly or up the leg?
Natch!
Not so!
Toronto Velocity at the Square | 122.52m | 40s | HNR | P + S / IBI
- Thread starter Mike in TO
- Start date
Why would it have been better?
Why must an apartment building look like an ad for jeans?
So people can find the front door? If your home looks like a pair of jeans do you go in through the fly or up the leg?
Natch!
Not so!
alklay
Senior Member
No one is arguing that the building look like a pair of jeans. Once again you are arguing with imaginary points of your own making.
We want a building that looks good, if not excellent.
Of course, how does one get into one's apartment if the front door is a blank wall of beige precast?
We want a building that looks good, if not excellent.
Of course, how does one get into one's apartment if the front door is a blank wall of beige precast?
Tewder
Senior Member
For being more of a counterpoint to HNR? Just an idea, not black necessarily.
Urban Shocker
Doyenne
It will. Once again you are arguing with imaginary points of yur own making.
syn
Senior Member
I guess it's like how the Distillery District needed a counterpoint to all the historic architecture...but with contrasting towers rather than ones that were contextually appropriate.
The HNR building is certainly nice, but it amazes me a tower at Dundas Square must pay more respect to the HNR building than condo towers at the Distillery District.
I agree with interchange - something along the lines of an Alsop or other creative design would've been welcome here.
newuser2k9
Active Member
I really don't get the whole paying respect thing with this tower. I mean, you're putting up a huge building, decked in giant slabs of ugly material, and that's context? The only thing I see in this building is a wall, a barrier to the city. It's silly, it's stupid, and compared to what could be here it's downright awful.
adma
Superstar
Well, if you want the ultimate "huge building, decked in giant slabs of ugly material" in the name of "context" (i.e. the decreed Times Squareisms of Y-D Square), look opposite HNR. And compared to *that*, D+S's neutrality is actually half decent. And besides...
...who, other than Jack Astor's customers and Google employees, is going to have anything like that kind of elevated vista? What you see in this picture isn't designed for this as a primary viewpoint--a street-level perspective can do wonders for foreshortening; and built reality can mitigate a lot of what may appear as "ugly material" in renderings.
And what matters is that the HNR-Hard Rock blockfront (or, if you want to be old school, the Hermant-Childs blockfront) continues to shine. Why'd you all prefer an overwrought G+C curvefest, or even arbitrary Alsopification? HNR-Hard Rock doesn't need it--it's already, in its subtle preexistence, the true star of the square; whereas the ex-Olympic Spirit, the ex-Metropolis, and even the H&Mification of the Eaton Centre N end are all severe disappointments which may, indeed, vindicate D+S's design decision. (Indeed, I'd argue that the best built "designed for Y-D" element remains the first, i.e. the sign tower at the NW corner, which succeeds through its own sheer giga-constructivist absurdity.)
I suppose the problem here is that HNR-Hard Rock is taken for granted because it's a "pre-existing condition", in a way that can easily be lost to the development-dorkitude amongst many UTers--especially when, like Tewder, they're under the imbecilic miscomprehension that even heritage-community diehards would approve of moving the Toronto Harbour Commission building to the present-day waterfront...
Tewder
Senior Member
How do you enjoy your steak at the THC?...
How tiring it is to listen to self-righteous preservationist-dorks pick and choose their principles: Lets willingly screw original function so long as we preserve original location, even if it has been so compromised as to be unrecognizeable or so isolated as to be wasted on all but drivers careening along the QEW off-ramp! Heritage preservation that is beyond the scope of museum-ification is often about giving something up in order to get something better, given the circumstances, and this is indeed worthy of an 'imbecilic' question...
As for HNR, advocating for inferior design because other recent additions to the area are already failures is a bit much but given this rationale it is clear why some here would prefer D&S's proposal... Sad. Nobody argues that the 'stars' of this show are HNR-Hard Rock but a strong supporting cast makes for a much better production overall, always.
How tiring it is to listen to self-righteous preservationist-dorks pick and choose their principles: Lets willingly screw original function so long as we preserve original location, even if it has been so compromised as to be unrecognizeable or so isolated as to be wasted on all but drivers careening along the QEW off-ramp! Heritage preservation that is beyond the scope of museum-ification is often about giving something up in order to get something better, given the circumstances, and this is indeed worthy of an 'imbecilic' question...
As for HNR, advocating for inferior design because other recent additions to the area are already failures is a bit much but given this rationale it is clear why some here would prefer D&S's proposal... Sad. Nobody argues that the 'stars' of this show are HNR-Hard Rock but a strong supporting cast makes for a much better production overall, always.
Urban Shocker
Doyenne
It's simple enough, alklay, most people can grasp the concept of a building that accomplishes several things simultaneously. It's like walking and chewing gum at the same time, ya know?
The new apartment building will accommodate to the heritage buildings at 19 and 21 Dundas Square and contrast with the commercialism of the billboards and signs of the Square. Think of the latter contrast as a minimalist building/visual-overload-of-the-Square one ... much as the Distillery represents a new/old and tall/short contrast.
Nobody is advocating for inferior design by identifying the strengths of D+S's solution. That G+C thing, by contrast, certainly looked like more of the same-old same-old - akin to Torch, H&M and Metropolis - than a design solution that deals intelligently with the various elements at play: heritage buildings, flamboyant commercialism, retail, public space and residential uses, which this one does.
scarberiankhatru
Senior Member
Since we won't know until it's built whether or not the blank walls will be attractive blank walls (yes, that's possible) or eyesores (though attractive blank walls can become eyesores with wear and tear and discolouration, such as FCP (edit - and I mean the marble panels)), it's easy to want windows or balconies instead, but as mentioned it's important to keep the street level views in mind. Windows are one thing, but don't people know what a facade of balconies looks like from the perspective of the sidewalk beneath it?
Last edited:
Tewder
Senior Member
Your comments make me go back and look at the renderings US. I see your point in the sense that it makes for a particularly nice fit at the Distillery where by and large the approach you advocate has been well-executed but I'm still not convinced here. That beige precast just doesn't do it for me. Even if I could buy the approach I'm not sure about the way it is being handled here (in rendering terms at least).
However, in a way the G&C approach also manages to offer a feeling of counterpoint to the crass commercialism/visual chaos of Dundas Square by adding some residential 'calm' to the mix with windows, balconies and 'life' along with the stabilizing presence of permanent living to the perpetual coming and going activities of the area. Its towers also offer the advantage of creating a beacon/landmark from afar. After all, if as some here maintain this building is hardly visible from the square at all why care about tasteful minimalism and why not focus a design based on the distant vantage points where it will actually be seen?
adma
Superstar
Ah, but with what you were suggesting about the Toronto Harbour Commission...over half a century ago, the city proposed likewise with Old Fort York on behalf of the Gardiner Expressway. What happened, instead, was one of the first significant victories for the "self-righteous preservationist-dorks". What you're saying now could have been said about Fort York half a century ago.
From a Toronto standpoint, you just failed a major test in heritage civics, bucko.
Tewder
Senior Member
Nonsense, we've learned at lot since then and I have not denied that parameters protecting museums should be different. Fort York is a national historic site after all. Not every single older building can or should be a museum, however, and other solutions are required. Real preservationists understand that the surest way to endanger heritage buildings or areas is to freeze them unrealistically in time and place, and to take away their vitality and ability to evolve as 'living' buildings and areas do...
Look, I'm not implying the THC building must be moved. It is still well used and seems to serve a function which at the end of the day is a preservation success story. This building was meant to be on the water, however, and its original context has been lost. The idea of relocating it to a more prominent waterside location to recapture that context and to showcase a beautiful heritage building that was designed to be 'seen' front and centre is simply not the injury to preservation that some zealots will paint it to be. Historical plaques and markers can come in quite handy to point out the evolution/changing locations of sites and buildings.
Look, I'm not implying the THC building must be moved. It is still well used and seems to serve a function which at the end of the day is a preservation success story. This building was meant to be on the water, however, and its original context has been lost. The idea of relocating it to a more prominent waterside location to recapture that context and to showcase a beautiful heritage building that was designed to be 'seen' front and centre is simply not the injury to preservation that some zealots will paint it to be. Historical plaques and markers can come in quite handy to point out the evolution/changing locations of sites and buildings.
Naturally, all subsequent posts will be back, more specifically, on topic.
Go!
42
Go!
42
tapesonthefloor
New Member
On topic:
The next planning meeting for HNR's proposal is set for Tuesday, November 10th at 10am. Will anyone here be attending?
Also:
I've noticed very little mention of the Heritage property at 258 Victoria, pictured here:
Is the consensus here that it's unremarkable and not worth saving? Are we ignoring it because it doesn't happen to have a facade highly visible from Y-D Square? I would like to submit that this building is among the last of a dying breed in the downtown core. Does anyone have any information about its history, or about why it was registered as a Heritage property in the first place? I once saw a mention of its unique facade details, and now I can't remember where I read this. Any thoughts?
The next planning meeting for HNR's proposal is set for Tuesday, November 10th at 10am. Will anyone here be attending?
Also:
I've noticed very little mention of the Heritage property at 258 Victoria, pictured here:
Is the consensus here that it's unremarkable and not worth saving? Are we ignoring it because it doesn't happen to have a facade highly visible from Y-D Square? I would like to submit that this building is among the last of a dying breed in the downtown core. Does anyone have any information about its history, or about why it was registered as a Heritage property in the first place? I once saw a mention of its unique facade details, and now I can't remember where I read this. Any thoughts?