Toronto X2 Condominiums | 160.93m | 49s | Lifetime | Wallman Architects

Parkdalian said:
And I know we all get into a lather about "historicism," but strictly speaking X and X2 are kinda historicist. And if we want to get picky, most of the Victorian architecture we jizz over is pretty "historicist" (they just called it "revival"). Europeans still build "historicist crap" - look at the sort of architecture Prince Charles supports.
Click to expand...

You seem to fail to differentiate between historicism that makes a strong effort to recreate a past style down to the proportions, materials, and fine details and the kind of historicism we tend to see in Toronto and other places in North America. The kind of historicism that's derided here at UT is quasi-historicism at most. Some details are recreated but the architecture fails to show any real commitment to a past style, omitting important details, and using original proportions and historically incorrect cladding.
 
junctionist said:
You seem to fail to differentiate between historicism that makes a strong effort to recreate a past style down to the proportions, materials, and fine details and the kind of historicism we tend to see in Toronto and other places in North America. The kind of historicism that's derided here at UT is quasi-historicism at most. Some details are recreated but the architecture fails to show any real commitment to a past style, omitting important details, and using original proportions and historically incorrect cladding.
Click to expand...

But revival styles often changed materials and incorporated mixtures of different historical styles. The Queen Anne style isn't really a revival of the early 18th century. Tudor revival made the black and white timbering into a decorative feature, rather than a structural one. I would argue that being committed to a past style is less interesting than mixing and matching. And it's been said before - mid-century Modernism is the style that isn't "supposed" to be revived.

I'm just pointing out that the cry of historicist! is often a way to show that one's taste is more subtle than the purchasers of, say, a Wengle townhome. It's a blanket slur that limits creativity because it demands that only certain things can be done. Po-mo, after all, was a reaction to the strident airlessness of modernism. Who knows - the next major architectural style might look more like the Chicago condo in Mississauga than all of Clewes's stuff.

I would argue that what is being implied is that our historicism uses "cheap" materials. I don't have such a knee-jerk hate of pre-cast that everyone else has here, so I don't necessarily agree. But if you are going to argue that Torontonians are cheap, that has nothing to do with "historicism."
 
Last edited:
Parkdalian said:
But revival styles often changed materials and incorporated mixtures of different historical styles. The Queen Anne style isn't really a revival of the early 18th century. Tudor revival made the black and white timbering into a decorative feature, rather than a structural one. I would argue that being committed to a past style is less interesting than mixing and matching. And it's been said before - mid-century Modernism is the style that isn't "supposed" to be revived.

I'm just pointing out that the cry of historicist! is often a way to show that one's taste is more subtle than the purchasers of, say, a Wengle townhome. It's a blanket slur that limits creativity because it demands that only certain things can be done. Po-mo, after all, was a reaction to the strident airlessness of modernism. Who knows - the next major architectural style might look more like the Chicago condo in Mississauga than all of Clewes's stuff.

I would argue that what is being implied is that our historicism uses "cheap" materials. I don't have such a knee-jerk hate of pre-cast that everyone else has here, so I don't necessarily agree. But if you are going to argue that Torontonians are cheap, that has nothing to do with "historicism."
Click to expand...

Our quasi-historicism is often (but not always) lazy combination of reviving anything that can be done cheaply and combining it with modern design ideas. Historicism demands creativity but ambition as well. It doesn't matter that in the past, some historicism mixed styles. The materials are often inappropriate and attention to detail lacking because so much separates contemporary society from the architecture of a century ago.
 
junctionist said:
Our quasi-historicism is often (but not always) lazy combination of reviving anything that can be done cheaply and combining it with modern design ideas. Historicism demands creativity but ambition as well. It doesn't matter that in the past, some historicism mixed styles. The materials are often inappropriate and attention to detail lacking because so much separates contemporary society from the architecture of a century ago.
Click to expand...

More time separates the Victorians from the Tudor and Gothic periods than separates us from the Victorians. I think the problem here is that we usually assume that current designers of historicist buildings have bad intentions at heart (cheap materials, lazy recombinations) and we assume that in the past they had pure hearts. The problem is that it isn't a fair comparison: the cheap buildings from the 19th century have long since fallen apart, and previous eras' recombinations now seem so intuitive that we don't question them. As a fan of camp, I wish there were more inappropriate combinations of styles in buildings. The problem with the Wengle townhouses is not that they need to be more attuned to the past but that they need to be a crazier mish-mash of styles than they currently are.

Back to X2: I like these buildings, but it is sorta because they are kinda thumbing their nose at the purity of modernism. They are the sex of modernism without the philosophy. And the less philosophy in the world, the better.
 
Yes, stealing an idea and doing something new with it - like Starck's Louis Ghost that isn't simply a faux Louis XV chair ... or going back to the 1950s and considering Castiglione's Mezzadro stool inspired by a tractor seat, or Noguchi's Akari lamps that appropriate the form of traditional Japanese paper lanterns ...
 
Things are moving along here, the former two buildings which housed the Pizza Pizza offices (568 & 580 Jarvis) are about half demolished

Click on the thumbnail to enlarge, then click again on the image for full size.



The front of the former sales office (99 Charles East) is the last piece of the two Victorians on site still standing

 
Going quick

Click on the thumbnail to enlarge, then click again on the image for full size.

 
Demolition continues. The Victorians are completely gone, most of the former office buildings are probably about 80% demolished. The property should be clear of materials within about two weeks, hopefully excavation begins soon afterward.

Click on the thumbnail to enlarge, then click again on the image for full size.



The basement of the Victorian at the west end of the lot which was also the X2 sales office.

 
An aerial (sort of) shot of the continuing demolition at X2.

x2-demo.jpg
 
This was one SPEEDY demolition :D. I hate the surrounding buildings that are to the south of X2. all those aged brick apartment buildings are really the opposite of the X condos...X2's view to the south (that yellow/green building) is nasty!
 
steveve said:
I hate the surrounding buildings that are to the south of X2. all those aged brick apartment buildings are really the opposite of the X condos...X2's view to the south (that yellow/green building) is nasty!
Click to expand...

I think they'll provide a good contrast against X2. The apartments and property are fairly well maintained, the exterior of the buildings (especially the one to the north) could use a bit of TLC, window updating etc. They have good sized apartments in there with generously sized balconies plus they're relatively affordable for downtown.
 
steveve said:
This was one SPEEDY demolition :D. I hate the surrounding buildings that are to the south of X2. all those aged brick apartment buildings are really the opposite of the X condos...X2's view to the south (that yellow/green building) is nasty!
Click to expand...

I should throw out a giant thanks - that's my building :). And yes, this is a very well maintained older building with very large apartments and quite a great view to the southeast.

:)
 
A lot of the ubiquitous '60s and '70s apartments are perfectly fine. A lot of them would look decent with a few modern updates, such as glass balcony railings and new windows. Removing the years of tacked-on siding plastered over a lot of them would help too.
 
You must log in or register to post here.

Back
Top