This is the lowest, cheapest option. Obviously, they could have done better but, it's not FCP either. Even there , they went with glass over granite (not that I'm complaining)
 
maestro said:
This is the lowest, cheapest option. Obviously, they could have done better but, it's not FCP either. Even there , they went with glass over granite (not that I'm complaining)
Click to expand...

At least they have gone through the trouble of trying to come up with a system that would look respectable, coherent and comparable to the old cladding system in the case of FCP. This is not anything but that.

AoD
 
You misunderstood. FCP is Class AA building which is why they spent a little more on its reclad. This tower will never be more than it is no matter how much they threw at the reclad including going through the incredible costs of replacing the precast with matching new panels.
 
maestro said:
You misunderstood. FCP is Class AA building which is why they spent a little more on its reclad. This tower will never be more than it is no matter how much they threw at the reclad including going through the incredible costs of replacing the precast with matching new panels.
Click to expand...

Nope, well aware of that difference - just questioning the choice of colours.

AoD
 
I agree with you there. It wouldn't surprise me if the grey spandrel is meant as a homage to the precast. It would be very unfortunate if the city recommended the homage too.
 
Remember, what we're seeing now is nothing compared to the bastardisation that is coming to the top floors of this building. Brace yourselves.
 
Well it used to be an elegant 70s office building. On the bright side, hopefully not too much destruction is taking place and in a few decades this can be restored to its original condition. Most buildings are so horribly hacked to pieces that it's irreversible or there's nothing left to salvage.
 
There's nothing here to salvage. They are drilling many holes into the precast concrete so it doesn't matter whether you believe the deteriorating concrete panels can be refurbished or not.
 
isaidso said:
Well it used to be an elegant 70s office building. On the bright side, hopefully not too much destruction is taking place and in a few decades this can be restored to its original condition. Most buildings are so horribly hacked to pieces that it's irreversible or there's nothing left to salvage.
Click to expand...

Completed in 1968.
 
maestro said:
I agree with you there. It wouldn't surprise me if the grey spandrel is meant as a homage to the precast. It would be very unfortunate if the city recommended the homage too.
Click to expand...
The City didn't recommend anything, because the owners didn't talk to anyone other than the Building Department to get a permit: no architectural consultation, because the City has never required it. FCP could have gone that way too, but they elected to consult with Planinng (Urban Design specifically). In this case, neither Urban Design nor the head of Heritage Preservation knew that things were going to change here until UrbanToronto told them. Now things are in the works to require that re-claddings face the same scrutiny as initial plans.

42
 
And besides, re "very unfortunate", that's a little like the mentality that encourages developers to act fast with demolitions before hearings on heritage worth take place, no?
 
I was referring more to the city's occasional input on infill housing of a particular style that compliments the neighbourhood. I really don't know what their involvement was here and that's why it was implied that way.

I do appreciate the architecture and I'm not dismissing the bastardization just because I also appreciate the realities of the situation here. Theory is great but, it doesn't always translate into practice.

Safety will always win out. It's why the city conducts emergency demolitions of compromised heritage structures. A brand new owner doesn't decide to go through a re-skin for giggles.
 
Returning to the building / situation we have at hand, how do you suggest we avoid what's happening at Simpsons @adma? You've impugned @maestro's apparent lack of architectural / historical 'soul' but have proposed little in the way of a 'concrete' (yuk yuk) solution (be it policy or, well, anything really...) to right our current 'knuckle-dragging' course.

So, how do you convince / coerce / force an owner to see the light?
 
You must log in or register to post here.

Back
Top