junctionist said:
Sure, they wanted to freshen a tower that was never that remarkable. That wasn't difficult on its own.
Click to expand...
In a case like this, when the initial operating principle is that of the tower being "never that remarkable", that's when the alarm bells go off.

By comparison, from that same period, 1 St Clair W might be argued as even *more* "never that remarkable"; yet look at what they're planning for it now...
 
Were the specs for this building re-cladding done by the contractors that spec mini mansions infills in the suburbs? Where homes are clad in 3-5 different materials, that have little to do with good design and everything to do with costs and bad taste. Unfortunately, most people probably don't care about or even notice how poor most of TO's street level builtform is.
 
I can remember this tower going up from my vantage point on Bloor Street near Varsity Stadium, and thinking what a nice addition to the skyline with its illuminated top. How the times change.
 
old boy said:
I can remember this tower going up from my vantage point on Bloor Street near Varsity Stadium, and thinking what a nice addition to the skyline with its illuminated top. How the times change.
Click to expand...
Yes, the illuminated crown was a good addition to our skyline. It was a pity they did not repair it as it might have distracted one's eyes from the new base.
 
adma said:
In a case like this, when the initial operating principle is that of the tower being "never that remarkable", that's when the alarm bells go off.

By comparison, from that same period, 1 St Clair W might be argued as even *more* "never that remarkable"; yet look at what they're planning for it now...
Click to expand...

It honestly always felt like a concrete background building next to the much more illustrious buildings immediately surrounding it, despite its prominent corner. It was the kind of building that if reclad in an architecturally meritorious manner, perhaps with some sort of adventurous neo high-tech design, it would have easily been an improvement over the original.
 
junctionist said:
It honestly always felt like a concrete background building next to the much more illustrious buildings immediately surrounding it, despite its prominent corner. It was the kind of building that if reclad in an architecturally meritorious manner, perhaps with some sort of adventurous neo high-tech design, it would have easily been an improvement over the original.
Click to expand...
Particularly in its illuminated-crown heyday, it was always more than just a "concrete background building"--and again, as per what's happening at 1 St Clair W, background-buildingdom doesn't preclude respect, even if 1 St Clair's neighbours aren't anywhere near as illustrious. But in this case, the illustrious neighbours are *all the more reason* they should have respected the preexisting--or, the only thing that could have forced the issue is if they commissioned a starchitect..

And while re 60s-era "background buildings" in the environs, the 120 Adelaide reclad turned out more harmonious, IMO when it comes to the bigger picture it really would have been better if they left well enough re the original aesthetic of *both* 120 *and* 130. But we're getting ahead of ourselves here--but still, that's the issue; when are we going to stop viewing post-WWII aesthetic statements as merely "dated" and to be churned on behalf of a new look? (And that includes apartment tower rehabs w/their smoked glass balconies and the like)
 
The Queen side belongs in a washroom in the Eaton Centre, the Bay side is not as bad

Edit: They're both bad, now I see the picture in the previous page was an edit 😭
 
Shockingly horrible. All one can hope for is a restoration 20-30 years down the road. They've absolutely butchered this building. They must have hired the same woman who did this below. The kicker is they almost certainly think they did a wonderful job and got paid handsomely for their efforts.

jesus1.jpg


 
Last edited:
You must log in or register to post here.

Back
Top