dt_toronto_geek
Superstar
This is the most recent rendering, correct?
Toronto Velocity at the Square | 122.52m | 40s | HNR | P + S / IBI
- Thread starter Mike in TO
- Start date
This is the most recent rendering, correct?
Redroom Studios
Senior Member
You can find out more about its fate in this report: http://www.toronto.ca/legdocs/mmis/2009/te/bgrd/backgroundfile-24712.pdf
a quick glance through the report only seems to mention preserving the buildings fronting onto Dundas Square. I agree it would be a shame to lose this building next door on Victoria Street, but as with most things in this life, money rules the day.
here is the relevant info:
The development proposal requires the demolition of the listed property at 258 Victoria
Street, the Hermant Annex building constructed in 1920, as well as the unlisted building
at 252 Victoria Street, for construction of the new 39-storey office / residential tower.
Staff consider the loss of this listed property a necessary compromise in order to secure
the long term preservation of the two highly prominent heritage properties fronting on
Dundas Square. This includes extensive rehabilitation of these buildings, including the
restoration of principle character defining features that have been altered over the years;
namely, the replacement of the existing ground floor storefront to replicate the original
design at 19 Dundas Square, and the restoration of the lobby entry sequence at 21 Dundas
Square based on drawings by Benjamin Brown and archival photographs. The applicant
has also agreed to the designation and securing of Heritage Easement Agreements for
these properties.
Conservation Strategy
A Heritage Impact Statement (April 14, 2008) and Conservation Plan (preliminary)
(March 24, 2008) were prepared by ERA Architects Inc. The Conservation Strategy can
generally be summarized to include the following:
19 Dundas Square
a) preservation of building massing;
b) rehabilitation of north elevation windows, decorative metal guardrail and
terra cotta units;
c) replacement of existing ground floor storefront, signage and upper level
window assembly with historically appropriate design; and
d) exterior lighting of principal facades.
21 Dundas Square
a) preserve the building massing;
b) repair masonry as required;
c) rehabilitation of original bronze entry and lobby design; and
d) exterior lighting of principal facades
Additionally, an interpretive plaque will be provided with information on the
development and historical significance of the Hermant Buildings.
Last edited:
tapesonthefloor
New Member
Thanks for pulling that out, RS.
Staff consider the loss of this listed property a necessary compromise in order to secure the long term preservation of the two highly prominent heritage properties fronting on
Dundas Square
I wonder if this was discussed at any length at previous meetings. Not to be cynical, but it almost reads like an ultimatum: let us tear down the Heritage property that's in the way of our wholly unremarkable apartment highrise or 21 Dundas Sq gets it. Wouldn't a real compromise be that HNR gets to build its income property if it can manage to work around previously existing structures that have been flagged as being (whether or not you, or they, agree) essential parts of Toronto's history?
I spoke to the tenants of 258 Vic yesterday, and none were aware of the latest renderings, or of next Tuesday's meeting at City Hall. "They've been trying to do this for five years now. How is this attempt any different?", said they. I let them know that someone representing that building should probably attend.
Staff consider the loss of this listed property a necessary compromise in order to secure the long term preservation of the two highly prominent heritage properties fronting on
Dundas Square
I wonder if this was discussed at any length at previous meetings. Not to be cynical, but it almost reads like an ultimatum: let us tear down the Heritage property that's in the way of our wholly unremarkable apartment highrise or 21 Dundas Sq gets it. Wouldn't a real compromise be that HNR gets to build its income property if it can manage to work around previously existing structures that have been flagged as being (whether or not you, or they, agree) essential parts of Toronto's history?
I spoke to the tenants of 258 Vic yesterday, and none were aware of the latest renderings, or of next Tuesday's meeting at City Hall. "They've been trying to do this for five years now. How is this attempt any different?", said they. I let them know that someone representing that building should probably attend.
syn
Senior Member
The Square doesn't have any billboards or overt commercialism; as Tewder pointed out, the Square provides the contrast to the surrounding visual excess. If anything, this tower will provide an unnecessary break in the surroundings.
Even assuming your rationalization makes sense, I don't see how this tower provides the best solution. The scale ensures it will overwhelm the HNR tower. The blank precast walls of a similar colour to 21 Dundas actually detract from the building rather than help it stand out. I believe a glass tower along the same lines as the Telus tower (obviously not exactly the same) would've provided a much more sympathetic solution in all regards.
SP!RE
°°°°°°
I quite like the design of this tower, actually. I don't understand what all the complaining is about.
Urban Shocker
Doyenne
Stand in the Square and look around - you're in Ground Zero of it!
The new apartment building will be the antidote. The verticality of the tower - windows, balconies and unadorned space between them - will echo the similar verticality of the heritage buildings at 19 and 21 Dundas Square, so it all connects nicely. Good old Jack to the rescue!
Granny
Active Member
This can't be right. For once I'm in absolute agreement with Urban Shocker. Maybe I should go lie down when I finish this.
One thing that intrigues me about this design. Where are the 'money' units? Right.. Overlooking the square and the interesting part of the city. Yet here we have two unusual strips of solid wall running straight up the entire building, and right up front facing the square. No windows. Hmmm. I wonder what we could do with these walls in the future that would be worth more than the potential windowed units that could have been here. Any ideas boys and girls?
I smell money in them thar walls. ...lots and lots and lots of revenue.
ProjectEnd
Superstar
The lack of windows is a clear and responsible solution to the problem of extreme amounts of light emanating from the square and the billboards surrounding it. It seems like the most rational piece of the building to me.
It still doesn't make it good though.
It still doesn't make it good though.
Granny
Active Member
You ARE kidding....right?
..Hmm 'extreme amounts of light emanating from the square..' ..What here in downtown Toronto?
Yes I could see how that could be a nasty problem. Could force people to ciose their curtains when they go to bed.
newuser2k9
Active Member
I don't believe this. So we're willing to sacrifice a property Y+D square for this? For adma/Shocker, you haven't addressed the three critical complaints here:
1) Blank, mainly vertical walls that have an uncanny resemblance for the few remaining sections of the wall in Berlin, but to a much more tragicly large scale.
2) A total mistreatment of the main concepts involved in the HNR Building. The condensed vertical columns overpower the much more patterned and repetitive (in a good way) facade. The sense of verticality is compromised.
3) Too middle of the road. Y+D is supposed to be trashy, but trashy in an ironic and sarcastic way, like Times Square pre-cleanup. 21 Dundas Square speaks of class, too much so, with it's complex balconies and multiple roof elevations, but then speaks it in a poor way, with the aformentioned treatment of the walls. This square has to be a place of extremes, the loudest architecture in Toronto, but failing that buildings on the square should manage to retain a dignified elegance and silence. A lot of people forget that there are quite a few unadorned, understated, and beautiful modernist buildings on Times Square, and they don't seem to be out of place. This is out of place because it's neither quiet nor too shouty. A failure on both fronts.
I am not aiming high with my expectations of the final product. Based on the current renderings, I expect a disaster of RoCP proportions. Sure, the square is ugly, but at least it's ugly in an endearing way. The same can't be said for this. It's a shame that our mini-Times Square has been put down so much. Why not stop here? Surely even Jack Diamond can manage something better.
1) Blank, mainly vertical walls that have an uncanny resemblance for the few remaining sections of the wall in Berlin, but to a much more tragicly large scale.
2) A total mistreatment of the main concepts involved in the HNR Building. The condensed vertical columns overpower the much more patterned and repetitive (in a good way) facade. The sense of verticality is compromised.
3) Too middle of the road. Y+D is supposed to be trashy, but trashy in an ironic and sarcastic way, like Times Square pre-cleanup. 21 Dundas Square speaks of class, too much so, with it's complex balconies and multiple roof elevations, but then speaks it in a poor way, with the aformentioned treatment of the walls. This square has to be a place of extremes, the loudest architecture in Toronto, but failing that buildings on the square should manage to retain a dignified elegance and silence. A lot of people forget that there are quite a few unadorned, understated, and beautiful modernist buildings on Times Square, and they don't seem to be out of place. This is out of place because it's neither quiet nor too shouty. A failure on both fronts.
I am not aiming high with my expectations of the final product. Based on the current renderings, I expect a disaster of RoCP proportions. Sure, the square is ugly, but at least it's ugly in an endearing way. The same can't be said for this. It's a shame that our mini-Times Square has been put down so much. Why not stop here? Surely even Jack Diamond can manage something better.
Redroom Studios
Senior Member
PE is right in his assesment of the lighting situation in the square. As a photographer I can tell you, exposing properly for the rest of the skyline Y+D will simply burn a giant white hole in the middle of the frame. There is an exceptional amount of light here!!!
And it is a health hazard. anyone who doesnt believe me : http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=q40fKsRsHFU
And it is a health hazard. anyone who doesnt believe me : http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=q40fKsRsHFU
adma
Superstar
Yeah, allowing for something of lesser historical importance than Old Fort York, that might pass muster with the heritage community...40 or 50 years ago. Today, you'd be horselaughed out of the joint. You're obviously either (a) not terribly versed in heritage currents, or (b) patronizingly contemptuous of them (even your use of "beautiful heritage building" sounds cloying in a Pioneer Village-y way).
However, remember that in my effectively branding you with "HERITAGE FAIL", it isn't so much because of statements by yours above, it's because of your assumption in this post that
Really? In 2009? You truly haven't (or hadn't) a clue, Cletus. What you claim to be "zealots" is actually more like the squarely-in-the-heritage mainstream these days. And when it comes to the staunch left field--look, if they have an issue with sacrificing the Riverdale half-round on behalf of saving Don Jail or with any sundry preservation-board-approved facadectomy out there, you can be sure they'd have an issue with moving the THC to a "more prominent waterside location".
======================
However, to get back on topic because everything is relative here, if we're dealing with issues that one can "doubt even the staunchest preservationist would have a big issue with" (or at least, all but the staunchest), I agree that the "necessary sacrifice" of the 1920 Hermant Annex is among them. Like, I like the Hermant Annex, it's definitely got a grungy sidestreet-industrial-modern feeling to it, and it's *ahem* "authentic"-to-the-point-of-euphemism and an urban explorer's/discoverer's delight. But unless there was some sentimental personal connection, I wouldn't bawl my eyes out at its demolition. And by the same token, I don't feel the Diamond/Schmitt design is such a comedown, designwise, as to motivate me to rally on behalf of the Annex. If it were slated to be replaced by bathetic treacle like French Quarter, maybe--but not D+S.
And elsewhere on Y-D Square: believe it or not, this is not just listed, but designated--yet even so, I wouldn't have much of an issue with its disappearance, either. Like, it's great that we've come to the point where stuff like that is recognized for its own merits; but in a case like this, designation opens up a real tripwired can of worms, where you can be sure there'll be chants of woe-is-us-Toronto-doesn't-care-about-its-heritage. Look: it's a relatively minor ex-bank-branch, pretty puny given the conspicuous location, and it's already been conspicuously "adulterated" (and not necessarily for the worse) by circa-Y2K-and-onward commercial alterations. It's worth respecting as long as it's there; but not to the point of heritage designation freezing it in amber forever after--maybe if it were from 1849 rather than 1949, perhaps. (Besides, the demolished CIBC-become-Sams a block away was arguably more interesting as period bank branches go, and a stronger urban anchor to boot, even if it was the standard 50s C(I)BC formula branch, good formula as it was.)
As for the Jack Diamond design, it isn't like I'm singing its utmost phrases: I'm as neutral t/w it as the design is neutral, itself. (And being anarchistically clingy and old-world-atmospheric by nature, I do prefer the Hermant Annex--but that would be over virtually anything proposed for the site.) But when it comes to newuser2k9's "Too middle of the road" judgment, let me put it this way: IMO it's less of a comedown from the "unadorned, understated, and beautiful modernist buildings on Times Square" than Toronto Death Square is from Times Square's "trashy in an ironic and sarcastic way" opposite number.
On that ground, I tend to agree with a USesque perspective: Y-D Square has succeeded more in spite of its Times Square-ian pretensions, than because of them. That is, it's all in the square itself, and in the HNR/Hard Rock "legacy" south side. And when it comes to "trashy in an ironic and sarcastic way, like Times Square pre-cleanup": maybe in the end, the best place for that is not in the square proper, but north of it, i.e. along the erstwhile heart of the Yonge Street Strip, Sam's sign or no Sam's sign. If more retailers can follow the Zanzibar's cue, the better...
Tewder
Senior Member
**Mods I know we've been warned about this tangent so please feel free to move to an appropriate thread, though please consider that some of the issues here are pertinent to the heritage component of this development and this area...
Adma, your notions of preservation are painfully constipated. Dedicated people in this field view heritage as far more 'fluid' than do trendy activists jumping ignorantly on the bandwagon du jour, doing more harm than good. Preservation is not an ultimate 'war' to be waged but an ongoing chain of opportunities that present a multiplicity of possible solutions, the ultimate objective being the nurturing of a self-sustaining long term viability, or mise en valeur as the French say that contributes to a meaningful layering in the evolution of our city surroundings. Don't look it up, it's my definition.
See, the Fort Yorks and Casa Lomas of this world are no-brainers hardly worth discussing, and it doesn't make one an enlightened expert to argue for museum-level preservation here. The bigger challenges are with everything else in the face of modern development and changing contexts where relics tend to 'get in the way', which is the simple reality. Preservationists understand this, and as i've already stated the surest way to endanger a building or site is to freeze it in some false 'ideal' of time and place such that it no longer has a relevence, in which case you may as well just wait for it to fall apart through neglect or under the wrecking ball of progress. We've seen enough examples.
What's amusing though is that you accuse me of 'cloying pioneer-villagey' sentimentality yet are the one here defending such an anal-retentive and idealistic don't-touch approach to preservation at all cost, seemingly informed by some bizarrely selective criteria: the very thought of a restoration of context for the THC building makes you foam at the mouth with indignation but in a heartbeat you are willing to roll out the bulldozer for the Hermant Annex, and without even momentarily deigning to entertain the supposedly much-loathed and intellectually messy solution of facadectomy, or any other possibility for that matter. Preservation, indeed!
True preservationists don't have this luxury. They face these challenges every day and even with museum-level restoration in a "how do you freeze a building in time that has been around for 200 years kind of way', which only underscores the very crucial point here that buildings do have a story and a 'life' that certainly isn't fixed in time and that sometimes isn't even fixed in place: the relocating of Scadding cabbin to various sites throughout its existence is just as much a part of its story and 'our' story as the more prosaic reality of its original location, and lets not conveniently dismiss how gorgeous Campbell House escaped the fate of a parking lot, sitting proudly on University Avenue, and functioning, for almost 40 years now... a true success story unacceptable from Adma's myopic and self-righteous point of view.
... and to save you from blowing off any more hot air must we really state the obvious that there is always going to be an ideal to strive for with any heritage building, that we all wish the built patrimony would come down the ages to us untouched and original in its every detail, destined for museum preservation or thriving in its original function and location? Lovely, but we all understand how rare this is and how unrealistic too in a modern evolving city. At the end of the day only zealots and the misguided are endlessly obsessed by the bare facts of in situ authenticity or originality of function etc, or would even think of risk losing a valued building over a triffling issue such as whether preserving original location is inherently more important than original context. These are issues more useful to archivists than preservationists.
No question that the THC building functions and survives and is therefore a success, if only based on those basic parameters *or* given Adma's trump-all-else evaluation of original location. The original context it was built for is long-gone, however, and progress and development have left it stranded, a heritage relic among unfamiliar surroundings. Bringing it back to a waterfront development as the landmark it was meant to be would raise its profile and reestablish its heritage connections which ultimately might prove a stronger and more satisfying lifeline for it in the future as its current surroundings fall further to the pressures of highrise development. Call me a rube if you will but I don't think that's a horrific trade-off.
Urban Shocker
Doyenne
You're a rube, sweetie.
I can't think of a building that expresses the connection between location and passage of time better than the Harbour Commission building does. There's a profound eloquence in it remaining exactly where it is in the face of transitionary forces that have reordered everything around it.
And I say that as the person who ( hereabouts at least ... ) first threw the concept of "Facade District" into the mix. THC isn't a facade, though, it's a "truth squad"-like reminder of where we've been that perfectly illuminates where we are.
I can't think of a building that expresses the connection between location and passage of time better than the Harbour Commission building does. There's a profound eloquence in it remaining exactly where it is in the face of transitionary forces that have reordered everything around it.
And I say that as the person who ( hereabouts at least ... ) first threw the concept of "Facade District" into the mix. THC isn't a facade, though, it's a "truth squad"-like reminder of where we've been that perfectly illuminates where we are.
Tewder
Senior Member
... well an historical marker can achieve that quite simply actually, if that's the aspect of it you want to preserve. It's a choice.
Last edited: