maestro said:
Clay bricks can last several hundred years. Precast exterior panels will last at most 50 years. Brick weighs 5 pounds. A precast panel is around 5 tons. Many more options with damaged brick as well. It can be reversed or replaced with brick forming the inner layer ( for solid brick walls) .

The only option is to recreate which isn't preservation. Costly as well for something that isn't too popular.
Click to expand...

Though judging from what I figured through the Simpson Tower thread, you're generally pretty unversed, disinterested, and amateurishly ignorant t/w Toronto's architectural history (and not just that of the recent past) as it stands. (And this is less apropos *this* particular example, than of your implicit write-off in toto of precast panelling a la the 1960s.)

Besides, I get a whiff of this from your argument...

http://torontolife.com/city/mcmansion-wars-neighbour-versus-neighbourh-forest-hill/
The teardown craze in Forest Hill began roughly around the time that North and South Rosedale became Heritage Conservation Districts. These designations came about due to protectionist residents committed to defending the neighbourhood’s “clearly discernible character as a picturesque suburb with varied architectural styles” (as stated in the group’s heritage guidelines). It’s now next to impossible to build a new house in Rosedale, unless you’re willing to spend tens of thousands of dollars at the OMB. Real estate agents and builders actively discourage their clients from buying there. As a result, anyone looking to build a new home in a wealthy neighbourhood close to downtown heads west. Over the past decade, 171 new homes have been built in Forest Hill; in Rosedale, 38. One high-end Toronto builder tells me Rosedale’s historical designations have backfired, particularly in North Rosedale. “The guidelines aren’t creating better streetscapes. They’re saving a lot of houses that aren’t worth saving.”
Click to expand...

Yeah, I get the picture: to a certain mentality, those "aren't worth saving" houses are obsolete albatrosses just like 60s precast panelling. And just like maestro seeks to play off "recreation ain't preservation", those who decry HCDs gripe hyperbolically about not being able to do nuthin' with their houses, y'can't even bring them up to code, replace knob & tube wiring or make the place post-Y2K *livable* without leaping a whole lot of pesty "protectionist" hurdles, bla bla etc etc. And even if you *could*, it's still, uh, costly for something "that isn't too popular"--at least, among a certain class of agents and builders and clients...
 
Oh, adma. I absolutely adore how you conclude that I'm disinterest, unaware because I view things from a practical standpoint. These are private ventures. Costs do matter. It's people like you with your unwavering derogatory stance that holds back the broader movement. All they see is some nutjob.
 
The bottom line is if it cost so much to build these iconic buildings from the past today. Then they should preserved them like in Europe for North America's future. Because the materials used to construct these building's facades are looking cheaper every decade because of cost, supply and demand . Maybe the city can give some extra height variances insensitives in more units balancing the cost for preserving the facades.
The 1200 Bay street building would look great with this facade for a podium. And a 40 storey glass iconic tower on top!
 
maestro said:
Oh, adma. I absolutely adore how you conclude that I'm disinterest, unaware because I view things from a practical standpoint. These are private ventures. Costs do matter. It's people like you with your unwavering derogatory stance that holds back the broader movement. All they see is some nutjob.
Click to expand...

Yeah, just like how my quoted "certain class of agents and builders and clients" view the "protectionist residents" behind the Rosedale HCDs. Get my drift?
 
This isn't a case of neglect or greed. It's about a facade that is in need of replacing. It's a dangerous proposition to force owners to replace with potentially costly replicas and the outcome won't end up preserving anything. Even in Toronto, people will walk if costs exceed market value. That doesn't mean there isn't room to negotiate if part of larger development proposal.
 
maestro said:
This isn't a case of neglect or greed. It's about a facade that is in need of replacing. It's a dangerous proposition to force owners to replace with potentially costly replicas and the outcome won't end up preserving anything. Even in Toronto, people will walk if costs exceed market value. That doesn't mean there isn't room to negotiate if part of larger development proposal.
Click to expand...

Again, just like the Rosedale HCDs were "dangerous propositions" that led to "people" walking--not that they're the kind of "people" mindset we should be privileging in the first place...
 
$86.75m for +/- 100,000sf reports Biznow. The article states that it was a 3.24% cap. which works out to a blended rate of $28/ft. I wonder what the split between office and retail was/is.

@adma will be particularly interested in this quote:
While 1200 Bay's new owners aren’t planning to demolish the tower, a repositioning of both its office and retail—in the heart of Toronto’s famed Mink Mile—promises to deliver considerable upside, according to Jordan. “This is a prime corner, coming up Bay Street the sightlines for retailers are impeccable.” Meantime, 1200 Bay’s new owners will invest in common area upgrades to give the building a more contemporary feel.
Click to expand...

The question is will this be 'Scientology / Simpsons Contemporary' or Allied King West 'Contemporary'...
 
Here's hoping for the latter.

42
 
This must be part of an assembly. the property is too narrow to construct anything that would justify the cost of the property and its demolition. Yes, demolition. Perhaps Mizrahi is working with this group in Amsterdam and Mizrahi is purchasing the adjacent property (for demolition). Who knows. It's a great location for an office tower, although there are already so many office building proposals that would seem unlikely - it must be another condo project
 
adma said:
Again, just like the Rosedale HCDs were "dangerous propositions" that led to "people" walking--not that they're the kind of "people" mindset we should be privileging in the first place...
Click to expand...

Well? what are you proposing? Concrete has a limited lifespan. It's created through a chemical reaction. It can't be repaired. The value here is in the land. The building isn't worth much. You put restrictions on it, the land becomes worthless too. You end up in situation where nothing is done and the 5 ton panels slowly crash onto the street. It's no where near the same story as Rosedale. Of course, you had bring knob and tube earlier. Shows how deluded you are.
 
Big Daddy said:
This must be part of an assembly. the property is too narrow to construct anything that would justify the cost of the property and it's demolition. Yes, demolition. Perhaps Mizrahi is working with this group in Amsterdam and Mizrahi is purchasing the adjacent property (for demolition). Who knows. It's a great location for an office tower, although there are already so many office building proposals that would seem unlikely - it must be another condo project
Click to expand...

Where did Mizrahi come from? He can't afford to purchase this property.
 
maestro said:
Well? what are you proposing? Concrete has a limited lifespan. It's created through a chemical reaction. It can't be repaired. The value here is in the land. The building isn't worth much. You put restrictions on it, the land becomes worthless too. You end up in situation where nothing is done and the 5 ton panels slowly crash onto the street. It's no where near the same story as Rosedale. Of course, you had bring knob and tube earlier. Shows how deluded you are.
Click to expand...

Okay, if you're so insistent upon universal concrete-bashing, what about this earlier--and actually *designated*--case nearby?

http://torontoist.com/2010/09/historicist_the_colonnades_city_within_a_city/

2010_09_11_Globe-October16-1963.jpg
 
No surprise you offer no resolution to dealing with deteriorated precast or wiring that has become a safety issue. Just continue to spew nonsense that I have no interest in the city's architectural legacy because I put safety first. Yeah, profit and loss correlates with safety. I believe The Colonnade is cast in place. You do know the difference?
 
adma said:
Okay, if you're so insistent upon universal concrete-bashing, what about this earlier--and actually *designated*--case nearby?

http://torontoist.com/2010/09/historicist_the_colonnades_city_within_a_city/
Click to expand...

I see no "universal concrete-bashing."

I'm also not sure how that article relates to this situation. The Colonnade is primarily a residential building while 1200 Bay is office. There are different pressures on office buildings remaining 'attractive' and income generating to their owners. This is precisely why they're more susceptible to 'revitalization' / 'contemporization' schemes than are residential towers. In those cases, the most we can hope for is that the owner and the architect they hire are enlightened enough to capitalize on a building's existing strengths and not try and reinvent the thing in the name of 'capital-D Design' (hence my earlier Allied vs. Simpson & Scientology comparison).
 
You must log in or register to post here.

Back
Top