News   GLOBAL  |  Apr 02, 2020
 9.7K     0 
News   GLOBAL  |  Apr 01, 2020
 41K     0 
News   GLOBAL  |  Apr 01, 2020
 5.5K     0 

THOUGH...as one of the notorious Huang & Danczkays of the late 80s, some would say it was already more "architectural scar" than "dignified"; just sayin'...
 
One advantage that seems to be lacking is the conservative use of colours. In Europe, the colours are variable and vibrant.

eifs.JPGE233CE34-3E9A-4C67-9ACC2B50B7B878CF.jpgLarger.jpg
 
One advantage that seems to be lacking is the conservative use of colours. In Europe, the colours are variable and vibrant.

eifs.JPGE233CE34-3E9A-4C67-9ACC2B50B7B878CF.jpgLarger.jpg


it's true that one of the largest problems with EIFS is the stultifyingly stupid and ugly "yellow beige" colour that is the default. but the largest and most egregious issue, and the thing that makes EIFS such a destructive menace, is the asinine use of styrofoam "decorative mouldings" that contractors foist on their unwitting and ignorant clients...

$_35.JPG
 

Attachments

  • $_35.JPG
    $_35.JPG
    15.1 KB · Views: 1,111
There may still be time to stop the whole thing and save this dignified high-profile waterfront building from becoming a an architectural scar.

Those buildings are among Toronto's biggest planning mistakes of the last fifty years. Under any other circumstances I would agree with you that the owners are defacing their property. However, in this case, I don't think the paint makes them any uglier; they were already hideous. In fact, they may be doing us all a favour by destroying their property values and hastening their demise. Maybe the paint will take 20 years off their lifespan?
 

Attachments

  • 2121_Bathurst_02.jpg
    2121_Bathurst_02.jpg
    91.3 KB · Views: 1,116
  • 2121_Bathurst_01.jpg
    2121_Bathurst_01.jpg
    54.3 KB · Views: 1,355
  • 2121_Bathurst_03.jpg
    2121_Bathurst_03.jpg
    84.1 KB · Views: 1,349
  • 101_roehampton2_03.jpg
    101_roehampton2_03.jpg
    41.8 KB · Views: 976
  • 101_roehampton2_01.jpg
    101_roehampton2_01.jpg
    28.6 KB · Views: 978
  • 101_roehampton2_02.jpg
    101_roehampton2_02.jpg
    36.1 KB · Views: 951
Last edited:
they have got to be kidding. this stuff is SUCH a menace. sadly, the companies hawking it are as relentless as zebra mussels, and about as welcome to anyone with taste.

The sad thing is that 2121 Bathurst (called La Marquesa) was one of the first grand Modernist apartment buildings on Bathurst in the early 60's, heavily influenced by Morris Lapidus' Fontainbleu in Miami Beach.
 
The sad thing is that 2121 Bathurst (called La Marquesa) was one of the first grand Modernist apartment buildings on Bathurst in the early 60's, heavily influenced by Morris Lapidus' Fontainbleu in Miami Beach.

oh my God, not that one...with the fountain....what an absolute tragedy.
i keep waiting for someone somewhere to start seriously agitating against the use of this crap, but it's like no one cares enough.
 
Early 60's view of the Marquesa (note the sign for air-conditioning and dishwashers):

marquesa.jpg
 

Attachments

  • marquesa.jpg
    marquesa.jpg
    94.6 KB · Views: 996
The EIFS menace aside, take a look at how bad they've screwed up the pattern on the left side vs right side - unless it's intentional?????

Horrific. At least high rises were safe from Insulbrick and aluminum siding, but this is truly insidious. The hideous colours and "decorative detailing" are even more nausea-inducing when applied to an apartment building like this. I can't see that offset to the pattern being intentional but if so, then nothing is beyond the reach of screwing up.
 
Horrific. At least high rises were safe from Insulbrick and aluminum siding, but this is truly insidious. The hideous colours and "decorative detailing" are even more nausea-inducing when applied to an apartment building like this. I can't see that offset to the pattern being intentional but if so, then nothing is beyond the reach of screwing up.

A number of low-rent highrises and low-rise rentals were partially or fully defaced by layer of overclad metal in the 1970s or 1980s. Here's a random example: 3400 Keele Street. 1 Canyon Avenue is particuarly bad.

EFIS seems to be the new wave of that.
 
Last edited:
A number of low-rent highrises and low-rise rentals were partially or fully defaced by layer of overclad metal in the 1970s or 1980s. Here's a random example: 3400 Keele Street. 1 Canyon Avenue is particuarly bad.

EFIS seems to be the new wave of that.

I was confused by that statement as well. Whole lot of it in Scarborough too - and recent as well.
 
The EIFS menace aside, take a look at how bad they've screwed up the pattern on the left side vs right side - unless it's intentional?????
Not that I like it but surely they are only part-way through this process. To date they seem only to have put the Styrofoam on the edges and I assume will soon fill in the middle and cover it with cheap stucco. (Though I hate the look and it won't last, it DOES actually offer a way to insulate buildings from the outside. )
 
A number of low-rent highrises and low-rise rentals were partially or fully defaced by layer of overclad metal in the 1970s or 1980s. Here's a random example: 3400 Keele Street. 1 Canyon Avenue is particuarly bad.

EFIS seems to be the new wave of that.

So you don't like steel sidings, aluminum sidings, vinyl sidings, and EIFS. So just brick and/or glass?
 

Back
Top