I thought the city was going to scale down on all glass walls facades. And add more solid cladding around the windows because of weather related problems etc. . And yet we still see new proposals having the same amount of glass in my opinion. Getting rid of nice solid looking facade buildings like this. I can see this developer slowly knocking all three buildings to build two more glass towers. Are these buildings that ugly and cheap not to be incorporated in . If the can save Victorian facades it should be easy to save these younger buildings. Using the same out side metal bracing technique for the podiums. Or at least rebuild the same kind of facade for the podium.
 
cd concept said:
If the can save Victorian facades it should be easy to save these younger buildings. Using the same out side metal bracing technique for the podiums. Or at least rebuild the same kind of facade for the podium.
Click to expand...
Facade retentions are typically a case of a building being protected/listed for its heritage value. Very late 20th-century architecture like this isn't given the same protective status, and developers are unlikely to drive up costs significantly to preserve something that they aren't bound to keep.
 
cd concept said:
I thought the city was going to scale down on all glass walls facades. And add more solid cladding around the windows because of weather related problems etc. . And yet we still see new proposals having the same amount of glass in my opinion. Getting rid of nice solid looking facade buildings like this. I can see this developer slowly knocking all three buildings to build two more glass towers. Are these buildings that ugly and cheap not to be incorporated in . If the can save Victorian facades it should be easy to save these younger buildings. Using the same out side metal bracing technique for the podiums. Or at least rebuild the same kind of facade for the podium.
Click to expand...

You...want a facadectomy for a generic building from 1989?
 
someMidTowner said:
Facade retentions are typically a case of a building being protected/listed for its heritage value. Very late 20th-century architecture like this isn't given the same protective status, and developers are unlikely to drive up costs significantly to preserve something that they aren't bound to keep.
Click to expand...
I got the idea how this monopoly board work only Victorian structures and silos saved nothing else what a joke. This gives the developer the advantage to knock down anything . And go cheap with all glass building. Boy that's all we need is an asteroid to pass through Toronto creating a sonic blast. Blowing out all the windows just like what happened in Russia. To teach these developers and the city that there's a price pay in such an occasion! Bottom line blowing out these windows is like blowing out walls.
 
cd concept said:
I got the idea how this monopoly board work only Victorian structures and silos saved nothing else what a joke.
Click to expand...
That is quite the oversimplification. If you take a look at the Heritage Register you'll see much more than Victorians and silos.
 
someMidTowner said:
That is quite the oversimplification. If you take a look at the Heritage Register you'll see much more than Victorians and silos.
Click to expand...
Okey statues too ! I'm not here to argue. But every decade creates some top unique looking buildings that should be worth preserving, or recreated again on the new development . One building was the facade on Residences of 488 tower on University Ave that should have at least incorporated some of the old clading design on the new podium .
 
Just what this neighborhood needs, another entirely blue-glass skyscraper. Is there some development rule that every tall building south of queen and west of university must be made of blue or blue-green glass?

This is just west of Union Park, which is also basically blue glass. And both are south of Mirvish - Gehry, which, while interesting, also appear to be blue-grey glass.
 
Front page story up here, while a database has been created for this one and attached at the top of the page. Nothing new in there yet you haven't already seen if you've read the article.

42
 
Don't like it as much as their 55 Yonge proposal, but a definite improvement on what's there now.
 
You must log in or register to post here.

Back
Top