Amare said:
It's pretty astonishing how drab buildings like the Union Station Bush Shed can get left untouched since it's somehow historic due to the fact of being the only surviving "bush shed" in North America, while beautiful pieces of architecture like this can be touched as dismantled by whomever pleases. And sadly this is not the only example with this kind of non-sense going on. The way we have the word "historic" defined in Toronto is backwards, plain and simple.
Click to expand...

The Union Station bush trainshed is hardly the only one left. Winnipeg Union Station still has its shed intact, and so does NJ Transit's Hoboken Terminal.
 
Skeezix said:
Well, that's not true.
Click to expand...
Unfortunately I think the trend has just started.

ShonTron said:
The Union Station bush trainshed is hardly the only one left. Winnipeg Union Station still has its shed intact, and so does NJ Transit's Hoboken Terminal.
Click to expand...
Fair enough, but it was the key rational and reason for not dismantling the entire train shed since that's where the historic importance of the shed stems from.
 
Amare said:
Unfortunately I think the trend has just started.


Fair enough, but it was the key rational and reason for not dismantling the entire train shed since that's where the historic importance of the shed stems from.
Click to expand...
That's what I heard as well.. Guess it was a lie. Either way, I always thought to myself there's a reason why it's the only surviving example. It's ghastly, dark, dank and unpleasant, but heritage!

I heard the reason the Bush shed was built was because it was the cheapest way of decking over the tracks at Union. Original plans called for a more cathedral looking shed, but being Toronto (even way back when) they went for the Dollarama version that we're still stuck with.

Going back to this building.. Horrific. If you're going to deface a beautiful example of mid century modernism (with its wonderful detailing and scale) you better put something worthy of it on top. This bargain basement architecture needs to stop. I really ask myself do some of these developers and architects have any higher calling than ROI? You just don't see this kind of crap in most of the world's great cities - Toronto really seems to be an outlier at putting up really crappy towers.
 
If only they could do something like the Hearst Building.

stringio.jpg
Hearst_Tower_(Manhattan,_New_York)_002.jpg
 

Attachments

  • stringio.jpg
    stringio.jpg
    101 KB · Views: 775
  • Hearst_Tower_(Manhattan,_New_York)_002.jpg
    Hearst_Tower_(Manhattan,_New_York)_002.jpg
    238.5 KB · Views: 836
Automation Gallery said:
lol greed?, the little building you love will still be there, it's progress
Click to expand...

Allied made more progress when they were buying up historic blocks to renovate into modern usage than these REITs strictly capitalizing on unused air rights. The building shines now. It won't incorporated into a larger Frankenstein. It doesn't really matter if the facade is to remain. What's really one less 50 storey condo tower to preserve something far rarer?
 
I'm also not happy with that horrible looking condo bldg. over top,
.. i'd be happier to see a 25-30 storey office bldg replicate the original architecture in the tower.
 
I'd be more accommodating to that. It wouldn't make me happy. You're still demolishing a classic modernist block. For what purpose? The owner/developer? Height?
 
Skeezix said:
No, I was being more specific. Legally these buildings cannot be dismantled by "whomever pleases".
Click to expand...
You're right I should have corrected that, more like anyone/any firm with deep enough pockets. Legally, of course not.
 
You must log in or register to post here.

Back
Top