I don't know why, but I've always liked this building. It feels like it's necessary for that intersection, if that makes sense. I'm guessing that "designated building" means it's not getting redeveloped.
 
AlvinofDiaspar said:
I think it was a hotel converted into office.

AoD
Click to expand...

Actually, it's always been an office building--unless it was *originally planned* as a hotel (sort of the inverse of the Chelsea as a planned-condo-built-as-a-hotel). Maybe the "hotel" part is confusion with the Westbury to the north.

If anything, it's been historically most familiar as the "CAA building" (thanks to all the onetime signage at the bottom--and CAA endured there until about a decade ago). I've always admired the building's "Pop Midcentury" brio--of course even more marked in the days when everything from the mural (which I've heard murmurs about still being there) to the spinning Laura Secord sign at the corner were still there--as well as the clever oblique-corner urbanism. And even now after whatever street-level remuddling, it's remarkable how much of its original character remains: everything from the canopy to the garage podium to the ghost (if not actuality) of the clock, and even the original tower cladding and windows (which is *especially* refreshing alongside what happened to the Westbury in the 90s). And come to think of it, even the H&M banners continue the spirit of a building that's *always* been, from the CAA/Laura Secord days onward, ideally about lively signage--it's an "urban-spirited" 50s building like you'd find in many a Brazilian city, maybe a bit cheesy but adorably so. Look at it this way: it's a delightful backdrop to the Pride parade--and for that (fitting) matter, Pride (as well as TIFF, for that matter) long had its offices at 2 Carlton, right? Maybe you can call it the *queerest* 50s highrise in Toronto--hey, it ain't as polished as Peter Dickinson (and that's definitely clear from the rear, where the brick is unglazed and the concrete unpainted and it all looks kinda crude), but maybe it's better off for the fact. It feels *lively*, and (still, today) with just the right touch of period style (and camp). And BTW I don't feel the insides feel fatally "tired" at all--maybe it's so to those of you who feel that appreciating stuff like this is like clinging to tube monitors and floppies; but hey, that's your problem...
 
Last edited:
Waterloo_Guy said:
I don't know why, but I've always liked this building. It feels like it's necessary for that intersection, if that makes sense. I'm guessing that "designated building" means it's not getting redeveloped.
Click to expand...

Isn't its designated status related somehow to its falling within the boundaries of the Yonge St HCD? (Regardless: it's worthy, even if it took an HCD for it to get flagged for designation.)
 
What building are we talking about on richmond? The google offices? Didn't realize they are both peter dickinson.
Not the biggest fan of that building either, though I like it more than this one. I guess I am just not a dickinson fan.

The podium I think is neat, reminds me of that court building on jarvis. In MY opinion it is unattractive, but definitely interesting. The tower portion above is the part I don't personally enjoy. Reminds me of hotel towers in small cities. Just not my thing. But if people like it, that's cool to each their own.
 
Last edited:
Northern Light said:
I haven't been rude to you or anyone else.

I merely expressed a personal preference.

You are entitled to yours.
Click to expand...

Y'know, I can understand generic dissent re this particular building--but please consider that the way you're more broadly backing your "personal preference" through your posts in this thread actually does more to *undermine* your case against the building. I mean, you might as well be referring to the TD Centre architect as "Miles Van Der Rohe" at this rate...
 
adma said:
Isn't its designated status related somehow to its falling within the boundaries of the Yonge St HCD? (Regardless: it's worthy, even if it took an HCD for it to get flagged for designation.)
Click to expand...

Sadly, it's deemed a non-contributing property in the Historic Yonge Street Heritage Conservation District Plan.
 
stjames2queenwest said:
What building are we talking about on richmond? The google offices? Didn't realize they are both peter dickinson.
Not the biggest fan of that building either, though I like it more than this one. I guess I am just not a dickinson fan.

The podium I think is neat, reminds me of that court building on jarvis. In MY opinion it is unattractive, but definitely interesting. The tower portion above is the part I don't personally enjoy. Reminds me of hotel towers in small cities. Just not my thing. But if people like it, that's cool to each their own.
Click to expand...


2 Carlton is definitely not Dickinson.

At the very least, it should be seen as adding variety to the landscape; something two 72 storey (glass, extruded) towers crammed on this small site is unlikely to do. I don't see a lot room left over for articulation and stepbacks.
 
Last edited:
Adma used the phrase "ghost of the clock." What does that mean and what is still there? Thanks in advance.

I've always liked large public clocks. They are a feature of urban life going back to the late Middle Ages. I suppose the earlier equivalent would be public sundials. Who knows how far back they go! I can't think off the top of my head of a recent installation of a public clock in Toronto. Can anybody correct me on this?
 
Toronto needs a clock tower like this:

a0c4c91860ef22a4ac102887bbc0ce07.jpg


Now imagine how the locals would react if simply just the clock tower in the middle was proposed anywhere in the city :D
 
Well, ouch! Actually, I think the clock itself is probably fine. The arches above and below don't work for me though.
 
You must log in or register to post here.

Back
Top