News   GLOBAL  |  Apr 02, 2020
A Message to Our Readers
 9K     0 
News   GLOBAL  |  Apr 01, 2020
EarthCam Time-Lapse Documents Rafael Viñoly-Designed New Stanford Hospital Construction
 40K     0 
News   GLOBAL  |  Apr 01, 2020
Resort Town
 5.2K     0 

What's your opinion of 1 St. Thomas?

  • Total voters
    33
  • Poll closed .
One St. Thomas

Total newbie here. First post. There was an article in Saturday's Star saying one can post here and actually have a discussion of what would be seen from a particular condo floor after new construction. My question is what would be seen from the 17th floor of One St Thomas St. and how can anyone know?
Thanks,
Dinah
 
Welcome to UT, Dinah.

It's not perfect, but if you look at www.77charles.com and click on "The Building" You can then see views from the 14th-16th floor of that building, which will be built directly to the southwest of One St. Thomas.

There might be additional info in the One St. Thomas Thread too.
 
"what would be seen from a particular condo floor after new construction. My question is what would be seen from the 17th floor of One St Thomas St. and how can anyone know"

It depends what direction you are facing. The views East and North are more or less set, although some building might eventually replace the store at S/E corner of St Thomas & Bloor but that is 2 blocks away.

The views will change dramatically for the south & west units. 77 Charles (to the south) has setbacks which will allow you to see around it to some extent - the skyline will be largely intact, perhaps St Mike's Church, and Chestnut Hall. But without a doubt a large part of the UofT campus just to the south will dissapear from view.

To the West, The St Thomas (if it doesn't proceed something else will) is also higher than 17 floors. But not so tall it will loom over your unit. It will block most of the afternoon sun.

But the upside is, both are good buildings with great curb level presense. And occupants in one tower can hardly complain about the arrival of another.
 
What a fascinating thread! And one I hope people don't mind if I revive to comment:

My problems with the building are twofold.

One is that it isn't really all that well done in my opinion. The proportions are decidedly stubby and the mock French Deco swags are stylized to the point of resembling a structure in a Superman comic more than any actual work of 3-dimensional architecture.

Two is that 15 Central Park West anchors a vast "historic district" of similar buildings that is probably the longest such stretch of work in the world. You may like those buildings or not--and I don't myself--but I can see where 15 CPW "fits in" to an overwhelming urban landscape that is remarkable for its unity if not its aesthetics. One St. Thomas is indeed the aberration that Stern claims Modern works are in relation to both its location and to Toronto as a whole. (Sure we have some Deco. We have some Regency houses too--that's not what we're known for.)

New York's aesthetic is one of consumption, waste and superficial glamor. Art Deco retreads work there as well as any other style would to convey the real message, which is of money and power.

Toronto has avoided that route and doesn't really need "infill" to suggest it ever traveled that path.

Just my two cents...
 
Your first point is more convincing than your last point. Overlooking your personal dislike for Deco, which is 'fair' in terms of honest subjectivity, to claim that architecture in New York, unlike in Toronto, is simply about money and power is problematic given that most of our tall buildings until only very recently were built by banks...

Anyhow, as far as Deco in New York goes we could talk about a jazz age cultural boom and the optimism/hubris of Yankee industrialism and capitalism looking forwards and upwards, triumphing over European imperialism, but bla bla bla I think you've already made up your mind anyway...
 
I should have clarified--I was thinking specifically of residential architecture. Naturally banks are going to express as much money and power as they can!

I would also point to the trend identified in the U.S. by Veblen as “conspicuous consumption” as the real driving force not only for American Art Deco but architecture in general after the American Civil War. Certainly the other socio-political impulses come into play but I don’t see them as mitigating factors. What was The Great Gatsby about—architecturally—but fashion masking waste, excess, boredom and malice?

Great quote from the novel—“a hundred thousand houses, at once conventional and grotesque”—could sum up the spirit of St. Thomas quite nicely.
 
Last edited:
True, but in that sense anything other than a square corrugated box with a door could be construed as waste.

The skyscraper in New York was a design response to the growing demands on space in a place with only a limited amount of it, and was facilitated by new building technology (steel frame). Residential or otherwise the motivation to build upwards was one of need not waste. The set-back roofs iconic to Deco in New York were also a design response to space, more specifically to the growing closeness and density of New York buildings, offering light and space to the upper levels. The rest is just icing that you either like or dislike.
 
In relation to the net worth of some of these 5th Avenue tycoons, their Manhattan residences were actually pretty restrained as compared to European landed aristocracy, nobility.

In any case, are you implying every condo tower has to be some derivation of a red brick townhouse? I dont mind a slightly eclectic inventory of buildings to break the routine.
 
I hope no one has mentioned this on one of the previous 48 pages of this thread, as I haven't been able to read them all, but as someone who walks past this building often, the one thing that strikes me is its contempt for the area in which it is situated. As far as I can see, there is no major door leading to either street on which it is situated.

Though it is situated in a walker's dream of an area, the preferred means arriving at this building seems to be my car. The major entrance seems to be off an enclosed driveway, with its back turned towards the community.
 
I absolutely adore this building. Always have, always will. I remember watching it grow day by day from the library window in St. Mike's college a few years back, all the while knowing that there was a pretty good chance I'll never make enough money to be able to live in it.
To me, this is the best residential building in the Bloor-Yorkville area. It's tucked away on a fairly quiet corner, Museum station is literally on your street, and the Bloor line is only slightly further. Except for the tower going up on the south side of Charles (77 Charles I believe) it stands relatively alone, peeking above the trees and Victorian buildings on U of T's east campus. I may be mistaked but I don't think The St. Thomas on the other corner will be nearly as tall as 1 St. Thomas. This building gives off the notion of old-school luxury, even if it is somewhat false and made up. It's not like every glass and steel tower that Yorkville is becoming littered with, and that's what sets it apart, whether you think it's for better or for worse is your opinion.
 
I was walking by about 2 months ago and witnessed a strange occurance by the front door. A young girl, about 18 was being photographed by a much older man and they were using the building's entrance as a backdrop.
The girl was blond, pale, skinny and posing to look strung out - "heroin-chic"?. She was wearing a white see-through bridal dress and thong.
Creepy.
 
You must log in or register to post here.

Back
Top