Armour said:
What difference will that make? He doesn't have any authority to stop this.
Click to expand...

No, he doesn't have the authority to stop it but his audience is much larger compared to this forum. It wouldn't be the first time he's written about modernist buildings being threatened either through demolition or 'renovation' and it would help to educate and remind people that this is just plain wrong. .
 
I'm not entirely disappointed with the material change, but what does annoy me about this recladding is how the appearance of the concrete/solid portion of the building floating on a few columns over the glass portion of the building is about to be lost.

They could have easily kept that appearance with new materials.

Edit: Oh, and they are destroying the crown of this building with those extra office floors too.
 
While I'm glad people are looking into this, I can't see anything coming of it. The building was never designated and as such, is wide open to both aesthetic and performance 'upgrades.' Having dealt with some unloving re-clads myself in the past, I can say with some certainty that those behind this likely don't see it as a desecration of a brutalist icon, but rather a svelte updating of a piece of underperforming real estate (unfortunately) with which they can boost their overall NOI.
 
ProjectEnd said:
While I'm glad people are looking into this, I can't see anything coming of it. The building was never designated and as such, is wide open to both aesthetic and performance 'upgrades.' Having dealt with some unloving re-clads myself in the past, I can say with some certainty that those behind this likely don't see it as a desecration of a brutalist icon, but rather a svelte updating of a piece of underperforming real estate (unfortunately) with which they can boost their overall NOI.
Click to expand...

And the thing is: judging from their pitch, those behind it see it *strictly* in utilitarian commercial/office "real estate" terms. Like, "architecture" (or even "architects"), to say nothing of "heritage" or "context", is something that only geeks & nattering nellies'll get worked up about.

But here --make no mistake, but the context is what makes it of even more concern. Which is where a fine dance of heritage and planning should've had a voice.

Now, I can understand with cases like the Sutton Place-turned-Britt; because whatever objections one might have with the design, the urban context is basically generic. However, the Simpson Tower's context is anything but generic--in effect, it's like a visual cornerstone to the "City Hall precinct". Which should altogether be treated as a "zone of special concern" (I'm not saying HCD, though the Union Station "precinct" stands as a precedent in being so designated)--that is, if you're going to mess with anything, you're going to have to clear more hurdles and risk more vetoes than you're accustomed to.

On those comprehensive grounds...this scheme as presented and apparently(?) underway should have been gonged from the start. And it's all about context, people. Context.
 
Speaking of context... trying mightily here to decode, in terms of emphasis, what certain words and phrases that are variously bracketed in stars, or wrapped in quotes, or italicized, or bolded - or bolded and italicized! - are each meant to convey. Yikes.
 
Lenser said:
Speaking of context... trying mightily here to decode, in terms of emphasis, what certain words and phrases that are variously bracketed in stars, or wrapped in quotes, or italicized, or bolded - or bolded and italicized! - are each meant to convey. Yikes.
Click to expand...

Anything!
 
While the Simpson Tower may not be designated, it certainly was listed and is identified on the Inventory of Heritage Properties. If all the owner did was apply to the Buildings Department, with no input from Preservation Services, this further illustrates the dysfunctionality of the entire process. Is it too late? Not too late for all those who care to contact Councillor McConnell, Urban Design Director Harold Madi or Preservation Services head Mary MacDonald.

On the Inventory:

Address: 176 YONGE ST

Ward: 28
Status: Designated Part IV
List Date: Jun 20, 1973
Intention Date:
By-Law: 118-76
Part IV Date: Mar 31, 1976
Part V Date:
Heritage District: N/A
District Status: N/A
Heritage Easement Ag: CT991633
Registration Date: Nov 18, 1988
Building Type: Commercial
Architect/Builder:
Construction Yr.:
Details: The Simpson Departmental Store, burnt in 1894 and rebuilt in 1895, Burke & Horwood; add. 1900, Burke & Horwood; add. 1908, Burke & Horwood; add. 1912, Burke, Horwood & White; add. 1923, Horwood & White; add. 1928, Chapman & Oxley; alt. 1968-69, John B. Parkin Associates and Bregman & Hamann -adopted by City Council on June 20, 1973 DESIGNATION BY-LAW PASSED BY CITY COUNCIL on March 31, 1976 (heritage easement agreement, Registered, CT991633, Nov. 18, 1988) (designation plaque 1978)
Demolition Date:
Primary Address: 176 YONGE ST
 
Good catch charioteer! It would be interesting to see what the heritage attributes are and if they inform protection to the Bay building alone or if the extend to the tower as well.
 
ProjectEnd said:
Good catch charioteer! It would be interesting to see what the heritage attributes are and if they inform protection to the Bay building alone or if the extend to the tower as well.
Click to expand...

Don't know--for starters, a 1976 designation is a little early to properly account for the tower. And it does refer to 1968-69 in terms of alterations, rather than additions--that is, the condition "as found" in 1976, which may not precisely equate with "reasons for designation". Also don't know what the 1988 heritage easement was all about.

What'd *really* matter here is if the 401 Bay address is in the Inventory. And beyond that...this is all a reminder of how easy it is for heritage listings/designations to be filed at a particular date in time, accepted as a "final word" and then forgotten, unmonitored--without accounting for changes in status or standards of heritage judgment. And that's *especially* when it comes to artifacts of the once-too-recent past. Sad to say, a 70s designation can ultimately wind up being a "historical artifact" in its own right (and let's not forget that in 1976, the old *Eatons* store was still operating across the street--that's how long ago it is)
 
ProjectEnd said:
While I'm glad people are looking into this, I can't see anything coming of it. The building was never designated and as such, is wide open to both aesthetic and performance 'upgrades.' Having dealt with some unloving re-clads myself in the past, I can say with some certainty that those behind this likely don't see it as a desecration of a brutalist icon, but rather a svelte updating of a piece of underperforming real estate (unfortunately) with which they can boost their overall NOI.
Click to expand...

That's rather cold. I've dealt with my share of developers. They do care about more than the bottom line. Many just have poor tastes.
 
Holy crap that re-clad looks awful.
 
Okay, Mary MacDonald at Heritage Preservation has gotten back to me, and here is the answer that none of us will be very happy to read:

I have double-checked everything. When the designation was done for the property (1976), explicit reference was made that the Simpson's Tower was not included. The original listing (1973) was for the older portions only as well. Given that in 1973 the Simpson's Tower was only 4 years old (7 in 1976) it is understandable that there wasn't enough perspective on the modernist movement to inform an understanding of value. Of course, the designation could have been amended to include it after time had passed, but the necessity to do so wasn't on anyone's radar.

All Hudson's Bay needed was a building permit. They applied for one and got one. No other planning process was necessary. I cannot speak to the matter of the design review panel, though it would be atypical for a building permit application to be reviewed, and no link with the planning division to facilitate.​

Essentially we have a system that when a building is first proposed, it includes some checks along the way to give us a certain quality of architecture, but then once it is built, there is no assurance that that quality will remain if the owner wants to make changes, unless of course the building has been identified as worthy of heritage listing or designation. Given that we seem to be unwilling to fund Preservation Services to the degree that they can take every worthy building through the process of listing or designating, then maybe we need to apply a new hurdle to any owner who wants to fundamentally change the cladding, requiring them to appear before a DRP with their plans. I can tell you that no panel in the city would have let this offensive clunker through if that were the case.

42
 
I'll also agree that there should be a Heritage Conservation District in place around Nathan Phillips Square that should cause any major plans for buildings surrounding it to trigger an architectural review.

42
 
Finally—and I probably shouldn't post when I'm pissed off—but I may be looking for a voodoo doll to name 'Pellow'.

42
 
You must log in or register to post here.

Back
Top