News   GLOBAL  |  Apr 02, 2020
A Message to Our Readers
 9.7K     0 
News   GLOBAL  |  Apr 01, 2020
EarthCam Time-Lapse Documents Rafael Viñoly-Designed New Stanford Hospital Construction
 41K     0 
News   GLOBAL  |  Apr 01, 2020
Resort Town
 5.5K     0 

It's not even a brick facade; so much for fitting in on Queen (to say nothing of recreating the block). Was an architect even involved or did they just pop in a CD-ROM and select that? There has to come a time when we just say no to trash like this.
 
Agreed.

42
 
i suggest we convene a 'public forum' in order to 'discuss' the 'design' with the 'developer'

6c4adc98.jpg
 
I've never really heard of this firm, but a quick browse through the "portfolio" on their website shows nothing but mcmansions strewn with pre-cast, stucco and faux brick nonsense. So based on that evidence, I guess I am not surprised.

Hey Form, go **** yourselves.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
A tad bit of over-reaction here. While this ain't my favourite replacement scheme either, I don't think an exact duplication was necessarily in order. A major fire has changed this part of Queen Street forever, and while the proposed facade is a faux something or other, trying to copy what was once there is also a little faux-ish as well.
 
gristle said:
A tad bit of over-reaction here. While this ain't my favourite replacement scheme either, I don't think an exact duplication was necessarily in order. A major fire has changed this part of Queen Street forever, and while the proposed facade is a faux something or other, trying to copy what was once there is also a little faux-ish as well.
Click to expand...

To defend rebuilding the old, I'd say it's not "trying to copy" but building the same facade as 100 years ago. It wasn't that complicated or sophisticated but it looked great.

But obviously different people have different preferences. Maybe something undeniably modern but with red bricks to tie it into the streetscape would have looked quite nice as well. The proposed facade doesn't cut it design-wise. Maybe we're so used to cheap precast on McMansions and sloppy attempts at recreating classicism but on Queen Street, a street so rich in real history and design, it's completely unacceptable.
 
I still think an 8-10s condo/loft building with a red brick aA-style look would've been the best solution. I mean, if the fire had happened 100 years ago, I bet the owners would've wanted to build higher to compete with the Burroughes' building next door.
 
You are right on with that assessment UD. Now that we are getting such thoughtless trash here, it makes one wish that a grander scheme was in place to fix Queen Street. After this goes up there will be no point in trying to replicate any of the other destroyed buildings on the block in form or materials.

If all of the properties destroyed by the fire were now under one ownership, the resulting proposal would have been big enough to trigger a visit to the Design Review Panel before being approved. If the threshold for a visit to the DRP is not to be lowered to catch and prevent crap like this (there are many small properties lining Toronto's Avenues that could be redeveloped without having to go to the DRP), then a new criteria should be added that anything being built to replace fire-loss or similar should have to face DRP scrutiny.

In the meantime, I was under the impression that the City was now imposing a minimum height of 4 storeys along the Avenues. Does anyone know for certain either way, and where the reference materials are that state that (or otherwise)? Thanks in advance!

42
 
This is within the Queen West Heritage Conservation District, which has a 3-storey limit on all new development, as well as a number of other restrictions having to do with form and materials. I assume Duke's new building satisfies all the rules.
 
If this plan conforms to all of the Heritage Conservation District's rules including restrictions on materials, then there is no reason for the District to exist. This design makes a mockery of heritage architecture.

42
 
I'm very happy with the scale of the building, but yikes...the design. I agree with everyone who's baffled by the precast facade. What's wrong with brick? Or even that fake brick like on the Opera House. Also, is that a set back store entrance I see? It's hard to tell in that drawing. If so, what the hell are they thinking? Why would you set back your store entrance like that? It makes for a much less pleasant pedestrian environment and reduces the visibility of the store to boot.

That being said, many of the other buildings on Queen Street aren't all that attractive. It's more the uses that are important. Hopefully this will be decorated and personalized soon so that we will barely notice it within the greater fabric of the street.
 
I think any well designed building could have fit in nicely. The problem isn't about it looking modern or old school because I think a beautifully designed modern building would have been just as good as a brick structure. The problem here is that it's just a terrible design by any standard that appears to be trying to trick the average person just enough to remind them of something old without having to spend any extra time or money on the materials to truly look like those old buildings.

Very disappointing and angering.
 
Because of the building, I now refuse to ever visit Duke's for any cycling needs. I'd be too embarrassed to enter that thing anyway.
 
You must log in or register to post here.

Back
Top