"Negate" is a subjective interpretation of change. "Replace" would be far more objective.

But once it's about "replace", then...in the end, what's the point of retention at all? Might as well bow to the replacement crowd, then...

NYC, last time I checked, has some demanding planning regs, not least the height and setback and how that must be made to fit with existing and proposed zoning.

https://www1.nyc.gov/site/planning/zoning/districts-tools/commercial-districts-c1-c8.page

Y'know, the fact that you thusly responded to this statement of mine


Also, to those of you who might utter "I wouldn't give it a second thought if it were in NYC"--actually, I, myself, *would*. (Hey, if garish and long-loathed "out of place" Morris Lapidus hotels are now cherishable landmarks, why not this)

shows that you just don't get what I was talking about.
 
But once it's about "replace", then...in the end, what's the point of retention at all? Might as well bow to the replacement crowd, then...
Errr...no. Re-use is a common theme in a lot of urban renewal. You might wish to Google on the subject. In all fairness, I didn't fully qualify my use of the term "replace". I meant in terms of facade. And that really only pertains to the lower section, the upper section just needs a facile touch-up and perhaps more modern, efficient windows.

Y'know, the fact that you thusly responded to this statement of mine
"Thusly"? lol....careful you don't trip over your pretense. The term is "thus" and you really haven't used it in the right context, but whatever...

shows that you just don't get what I was talking about.
Mmmm...you're right there.
 
Last edited:
Errr...no. Re-use is a common theme in a lot of urban renewal. You might wish to Google on the subject. In all fairness, I didn't fully qualify my use of the term "replace". I meant in terms of facade. And that really only pertains to the lower section, the upper section just needs a facile touch-up and perhaps more modern, efficient windows.

If it's about "facile touch-ups", you might as well include the parking podium with the "upper section", given how the criss-cross garage openings have been essential to the existing building's public presence, particularly since the days of Pride spectators peeping out from said openings.

Mmmm...you're right there.

I meant my statement as a jab at the sorts who'd say "if it were in NYC rather than Toronto, nobody would give that sort of architectural crap a second look". And you responded with a dull thing about rigorous planning regs in NYC that has absolutely *nothing* to do with everyday architectural/urban appreciation. Get the hint?
 
Since you're so busy having a hissy fit, let me make my impressions clear: The present facade doesn't do much for me, it never has, but compared to ripping it down to put up something even worse of a fit, and not suited to the corner in terms of land-use, density and visual form, my position remains to re-use it.
Reusing Buildings and Components
DR. MARK GORGOLEWSKI
1305689646_4.jpg

The University of Waterloo School of Architecture in Cambridge, ON. Levitt Goodman Architects Ltd. Photo: Ben Rahn / A Frame Inc.


Originally published in OAA Profiles 2009.

ONE OF THE FUNDAMENTAL ASPECTS of sustainable design is a focus on getting more out of the resources we use. Be it energy, water, materials, components, whole buildings or urban infrastructures, we need to get more useful service from the resources we put in. At present we have a mentality of consumerism which leads to massive use of nonrenewable, primary resources, which are often extracted with great environmental damage, and create a huge amount of waste. Construction and demolition waste (C&D) contributes about 35% of the total waste stream in Canada1, and the Worldwatch Institute estimates that by the year 2030 the world will have run out of many raw building materials and we will be reliant on recycling and mining landfills.

Yet the concept of waste does not really exist in nature. In a biological ecosystem all material is used in some way; the residual products from one species or process are utilized by another. In an ideal industrial ecosystem, resources would not be depleted any more than those in a biological ecosystem; a piece of steel could potentially show up one year in a drinks can, the next year in an automobile and 10 years later in the structural frame of a building.

Existing buildings and infrastructure are a huge store of potential resources, not something to be thrown away. In Europe, the expected life of a building is usually at least 60 to 100 years and many buildings last considerably longer. In North America, much shorter time periods are typical! Buildings are long-term resources that need to be allowed to evolve and change with societies’[...]
http://www.oaa.on.ca/professional resources/sustainable design/reusing buildings and components
 
This is unfortunate. There are a lot of businesses in the existing building that will need to find new space. They should start requiring a third of the units be retained as business units.
 
Agreed. There are lots of small companies and health providers, not to mention government offices in there. It is one of the few decent options in teh area for these types of businesses, not to mention teh Shoppers and the Bulk Barn.

They could may think of having retail on teh ground floor, then the parking garage, then the offices and finally the residential towers. A shame they aren't going for the single tower model. As it stands, there will be three double tower models right in a row (this one, MArriot, Teahouse) all in a row, which could make the stretch a bit monotonous.
 
Something to consider about heritage buildings is that architectural styles seem to fall out of favour for a while before people begin to appreciate them again. Currently people can't find enough bad things to say about brutalist architecture, but I imagine within a few decades any example of it will become much more beloved and valued. It's the same phenomenon that allowed for huge amounts of pre-war architecture to be torn down for parking lots in the 60s-70s with little public outcry.
 
Last edited:
This building deserves saving, but most people I've talked to about it are of the opinion of "what is so great about it?". It is sitting in that mid life stage where it is an obsolete building but not recognized as historically relevant. This thing needs saving, it is one of the better modernist structures in the downtown if you ask me.
 
Something to consider about heritage buildings is that architectural styles seem to fall out of favour for a while before people begin to appreciate them again. Currently people can't find enough bad things to say about brutalist architecture, but I imagine within a few decades any example of it will become much more beloved and valued. It's the same phenomenon that allowed for huge amounts of pre-war architecture to be torn down for parking lots in the 60s-70s with little public outcry.

I love thoughtful brutalist architecture, as well as 1950's modern. 2 Carleton, however, looks like someone stacked a motel on top of an elevated parking garage. It would be right at home in a Southern California suburb.

Sad to see the current uses go, but.... knock this pile down, please.
 
I don't know anything about architecture (and don't care either), but I always liked how this building feels at this intersection. I've been hoping that it doesn't get redeveloped. If this happens, I hope they at least build a strong base that maintains the streetwall.
 
P23 said:
Something to consider about heritage buildings is that architectural styles seem to fall out of favour for a while before people begin to appreciate them again. Currently people can't find enough bad things to say about brutalist architecture, but I imagine within a few decades any example of it will become much more beloved and valued. It's the same phenomenon that allowed for huge amounts of pre-war architecture to be torn down for parking lots in the 60s-70s with little public outcry.
Very analogous, but a valid case in point when catering to whim over function in design: (there are some ergonomic studies on-line, I'll find and reference them later, that make the case against island kitchens, and how incredibly inefficient they are, both for human exertion and cost of utilities to run them )
The closed separate kitchen makes a comeback


Lloyd Alter (@lloydalter)
Design / Kitchen Design
June 1, 2016

The New York Times real estate section says the closed kitchen is making a comeback. After a couple of decades where every new apartment had big open kitchens,


Kitchen size aside, the pendulum has started to swing back toward enclosed kitchens. Several new residential buildings in Manhattan have offered separated kitchens — a nod to prewar apartment design, but also to the growing demand from potential buyers looking for separate cooking and entertaining spaces.
[...]
It's healthier
As Ellen Himelfarb noted in her article on eat-in kitchens, quoted in TreeHugger:

Dr. Brian Wansink, director of the Food and Brand Lab at Cornell University, argues that our eating habits are much more influenced by our surroundings than our appetite, and some modern kitchen comforts are the biggest culprits. Families with comfortable seating and TVs in the kitchen tend to snack more...“The first thing I suggest if you’re giving your kitchen a makeover – make it less loungeable,” he says. “Recent research shows that one of the biggest determinants of low BMI in children is sitting at a table with the TV off.”

In a separate, closed off kitchen, the food is out of sight and out of mind.

glass-kitchen.jpg.838x0_q80.jpg
© In China, even open kitchens are closed because of air quality

The air quality is better
In an MNN post, Worrying about kitchen fans is exhausting, I quote engineer Robert Bean:

Since there are no environmental protection regulations governing indoor residential kitchens, your lungs, skin and digestive systems have become the de facto filter for a soufflé of carbon monoxide, nitrogen dioxide, formaldehydes, volatile organic compounds, polycyclic aromatic hydrocarbons, fine and ultra fine particles and other pollutants associated with meal preparation. Toss in the exposed interior design features and what is left behind is an accumulation of contaminants in the form of chemical films, soot and odours on surfaces, similar in affect to what one finds in the homes of smokers.

A closed kitchen can keep all that stuff in the closed kitchen and can design the appropriate ventilation system that doesn't have to change all the air in the house or apartment.

f424a1133e8ff54634786020db6db51f.jpg
Wolf/ There is no way that range hood is going to anything. /Promo image

You don't get those silly giant islands with useless hanging exhaust hoods
These just don't work. A stove should be against a wall, an exhaust hood should be not much more than 30 inches from the range, and properly sized for the appliance. Read more on MNN: Hyperventilation about kitchen ventilation, where I learned that there is no real consensus on this issue. But in the absence of one, it still makes sense that a big stove should be in its own space.
[...]
http://www.treehugger.com/kitchen-design/closed-separate-kitchen-makes-comeback.html

A well designed Mercedes Benz is always in style...
 
Very analogous, but a valid case in point when catering to whim over function in design: (there are some ergonomic studies on-line, I'll find and reference them later, that make the case against island kitchens, and how incredibly inefficient they are, both for human exertion and cost of utilities to run them )

http://www.treehugger.com/kitchen-design/closed-separate-kitchen-makes-comeback.html

A well designed Mercedes Benz is always in style...

Open kitchen has got to be the worst fad ever - kitchens for people who barely cooks.

AoD
 

Back
Top