mattelderca
Active Member
The owner of said MG, if not himself British, would have recieved some "attention" driving such a car downtown then!
I would have missed it entirley if not brought to attention, nice catch!
|
|
|
- Thread starter LowPolygon
- Start date
The owner of said MG, if not himself British, would have recieved some "attention" driving such a car downtown then!
I would have missed it entirley if not brought to attention, nice catch!
victor
New Member
(Love to give credit to the artist of the last pic; any help?)
Mathew Borrett.
http://www.flickr.com/photos/yonderbean/4585214367/in/photostream/
adma
Superstar
The 1967 north view shows it at its most banal (could that central portion be a subsequent addition?):
LI Mike: This pic is labelled as 1967 but the cars seem much earlier; any comments?
I'm wondering if those lean-to shelters on the right have something to do with University subway construction (pre-1963 IOW). Also noteworthy: the absence of Dominion Insurance at the SW corner of Adelaide (early-to-mid-60s by my estimation).
Otherwise: boy, the Lord Simcoe backside was awful, almost by way of affirming it to be a hackjob, a la those Bucklersbury Houses and Poulson concoctions in 50s/60s London. (NB: another crude-backsided Toronto building of this period is the Carlton Tower at 2 Carlton--compare the Carlton and Yonge faces to what you see from Wood St to the east. Though it's a little more forgivable as Mary Ann Backs go...)
Oh: and believe it or not, I remember that Libby's sign atop the Cyclorama.
thecharioteer
Senior Member
From a set in the Archives dated 1964-72:
Last edited:
Goldie
Senior Member
The puzzle that sticks in my mind regarding the Lord Simcoe Hotel is how there could be a justification for the demolition of such a huge (no doubt, expensive) building after just 25 years!
Today it might have been converted to condos.
Today it might have been converted to condos.
thecharioteer
Senior Member
Probably not, given the value of the land, the limited potential of the existing building in terms of ceiling heights, single glazing, no A/C etc. Also, on one hand you had an outdated hotel of 800+ rooms; on the other hand the potential of building 700,000 SF (my guess) Class A office space for Sun Life.
J T CUNNINGHAM
Senior Member
" how there could be a justification for the demolition of such a huge (no doubt, expensive) building" QUOTE Prof Goldie.
I dare say that Webster had lost so much money on his LORD SIMCOE, he just wanted it gone, Gone, GONE. (LOL)
Regards,
J T
I dare say that Webster had lost so much money on his LORD SIMCOE, he just wanted it gone, Gone, GONE. (LOL)
Regards,
J T
adma
Superstar
Sunoco. Me likey. (In classic 70s egg-yolk, yet.)
thecharioteer
Senior Member
Sunoco. Me likey. (In classic 70s egg-yolk, yet.)
And the original Sutton Place lettering:
Cast_Member
Active Member
I don't understand why "Lord" Simcoe Hotel doesn't have A/C.
J T CUNNINGHAM
Senior Member
"I don't understand why "Lord" Simcoe Hotel doesn't have A/C." QUOTE Cast_Member.
They probably had room A/C and heating, but not central air. (HVAC)
Regards,
J T
They probably had room A/C and heating, but not central air. (HVAC)
Regards,
J T
adma
Superstar
And in the post-"Mad Men" era, said lettering begs to be restored/reinstated. It soooo complimented the Brutalism--the present script is flimsy.
Oh, and the side in me that still digs Len's "Steal My Sunshine" would also like to see the "Sunoco" reinstated;-)
(Incidentally, the Sunoco building is underappreciated. And interestingly, its facade pattern echos that of MacDonald Block across the street--but with a "Breuer Brutalist" rather than limestone-clad neo-formalist net effect. (A few years made a difference.)
Edward
Senior Member
That Sunoco signage looks really cool.
College Park
Active Member
2 Carlton's ugly backside intrudes on what is otherwise a magnificant view. Not only is it big and bland and covered in splotchy patchwork sores, but this tragic wall is surmounted by a roof occupied by a ductwork-octopus. I swear that level of ugly has to be the outcome of mad design. But like you said, the rest of the building is just fine.
junctionist
Senior Member
I'm not so sure about the Sutton Place Hotel's signage. The current signage adds some elegance to its boxy near-Brutalism and compliments its Modern sleekness. The original signage looks a little too tough for the building and its Modernist matching of bands of concrete I-beams and sleek windows. The replacing of the signs must have been part of the renovation which saw the installation of those faux-arch windows and lanterns at street level and presumably a PoMo renovation of the lobby, which I'm not a fan of. Yet the signage still works, in my opinion.