- Thread starter interchange42
- Start date
ProjectEnd
Superstar
No.
Northern Light
Superstar
I'm curious PE, no snark intended at all, what is is that you particularly like about the existing structure? I know there's a few UT'ers who do. I've read the Heritage Report. To me it misses the mark because I see Heritage preservation, generally,
as an aesthetic matter, as opposed to use/function, first this/that or what may or may not have happened there. There should always room to consider exceptions, but I digress.
On this building, I'm not clamoring for its alteration, or for its demolition, but I must admit to finding it quite unremarkable.
I assume you see it differently.
ProjectEnd
Superstar
Have a look at what Toronto looked like in 1958 when Sun Life and Parkin undertook this project. This was a starship enterprise in a dowdy, dirty, brick, provincial town...
Northern Light
Superstar
So its the fact that it was innovative for its time that give it merit in your mind?
AnnetteMeetsJane
Active Member
But now almost 70 years later, the building is looking dowdy and dirty... @ProjectEnd what is it that you actually like about the structure...? I'm with @Northern Light on this one.
70Challenger
Active Member
It doesn’t, it’s held up well. Particularly the silver glass and metal pieces which still look crisp.
Doppleganger
Active Member
I'm all for preserving the very best buildings representative of our architectural heritage, but is this one really in that category? Rather than starting with a blank slate and building something truly spectacular at one of the city's premiere intersections, we're instead dropping a mediocre new build atop a mediocre older one, and the net result, this bizarre-looking architectural 'chimera', strikes me as thoroughly underwhelming. In a city of countless lost opportunities, it looks as though this is yet another one to add to that list!
ProjectEnd
Superstar
Yes.
Northern Light
Superstar
Interesting to look above and see this one is very divisive. A number of you see merit in the building and a number of us find that more challenging. Its not a hate for it by any means, but there just isn't a next-level here that merits the effort
to many of us.
to many of us.
taal
Senior Member
I believe there are two main aspects to consider here. First, I firmly believe it's worth preserving, and I don't quite understand the comments about it not holding up well—it looks great to me.
That said, someone brought up a valid point earlier: what if we could build on this site from scratch? Some of us who support preservation might be open to new development if it resulted in something truly unique, grand, or a masterpiece. However, we know that's unlikely, especially since most new developments nowadays lack any commercial component.
That said, someone brought up a valid point earlier: what if we could build on this site from scratch? Some of us who support preservation might be open to new development if it resulted in something truly unique, grand, or a masterpiece. However, we know that's unlikely, especially since most new developments nowadays lack any commercial component.
ComptoirGeneral
New Member
I think that's exactly why it should be preserved. It was a landmark tower for it's time and was one of the first examples of modernist architecture in the city. If that's not worthy of heritage protection I don't know what is.
I think the mindset that simply because it's kind of old, and slightly outdated by 2024 standards, isn't a reason to demolish it. This is the same logic that has let so many iconic skyscrapers in New York and Chicago bite the dust for a similar reason. The Singer Tower in Manhattan was torn down for similar reasons, yet it would be an absolute gem to still have in the city today.
I think 200 University would be very special for architecture and heritage enthusiasts to still be able to see in 60 years.
Last edited:
egotrippin
Senior Member
What about a compromise. Instead of this clunky hat that attempts to "preserve" the original volume, why not recreate it at the new proposed height. The strong vertical lines and crisp metal cladding seem to be more important to the design than the proportions here. Not long ago it wasn't uncommon to increase the height of older buildings by simply building additional floors in a matching style, and nothing here seems too difficult to match with today's materials.
Perhaps that's sacrilege? I think it'd look better than this mutant proposal though.
edit to add: If it were up to me I'd preserve as-is. While I'm not the biggest lover of glassy modernism, I have always liked this building. It's elegant and there is a historical importance to it.
Perhaps that's sacrilege? I think it'd look better than this mutant proposal though.
edit to add: If it were up to me I'd preserve as-is. While I'm not the biggest lover of glassy modernism, I have always liked this building. It's elegant and there is a historical importance to it.
AlexBozikovic
Active Member
ComptoirGeneral
New Member
I believe the current bylaws make it so that there must be a significant demarcation in style from the original preserved building and the new addition. The two portions must be easily identifiable as original and addition