The tower takes no inspiration from the church and looks like it's wearing a church Halloween mask. That aside, I like all the offset boxes. Reminds me of Core.
 
Wow. What a terrible proposal. I'm not opposed to development of the site or the placement of a tower at this location. But this proposal is both too big by half and very disrespectful to the existing site and it's neighbours. I hope the NIMBY dogs come out in full force. If I lived in this area I would join them.
 
Its interesting how none of the renders show the true height of the building (all the renders focus on the church facade).
 
TrickyRicky said:
Wow. What a terrible proposal. I'm not opposed to development of the site or the placement of a tower at this location. But this proposal is both too big by half and very disrespectful to the existing site and it's neighbours. I hope the NIMBY dogs come out in full force. If I lived in this area I would join them.
Click to expand...

Yeah, the render doesn't outright offend me, but it ain't great. You're no doubt spot on that people in this neighborhood--especially the ones living north of Bloor on Huron, which is much more upscale Annex than, say, south of Bloor on Robert where the United church is--won't be having this. I don't blame them.

Oh, but I will note that, although this example is considerably different, mixing 'church-architecture' with this more modern, glass look, can be great. Consider the Anglican Church of Canada on Bloor b/t Church and Ted Rogers way. Looks really good.
 
AlvinofDiaspar said:
The proposal and its' evisceration of the church is obscene. If it is for the Metro lot I'd have much less issue with it, but as it stands now, the project is an affront to heritage preservation.

AoD
Click to expand...

I don't know if you were thinking of the right church when you posted this comment, but I agree. The proposal is obscene and one of the worst I've seen. The inappropriate height, the incredible destruction of heritage, the name--it's like all good judgment has gone out the window. It has to be rejected and modified significantly.
 
Last edited:
This proposal is a degrading insult to both the church building and the word and concept 'preservation'. It is a full-on travesty.
If there is such a thing as the crucifixion of a church, we are looking at it.

The building planned to be put around the church might be insensitive, it might be too tall, it might be awkward, it might be ugly. We are used to all of these problems with the way we deal with our heritage in Toronto.

But surely, we can spare the church building itself a fate worse than death? This awful, partial taxidermy is some kind of lingering insult - one consciously designed to last.

It's not enough to encroach on the original building, lord the 'modern' over it and keep it forever shrunken in the shadow of the new: these developers have to destroy most of it as well. Not all of it - just enough to make sure we'll be forever reminded of what was willingly destroyed, and what never can be recovered.

Horrible.

I hope the proposal is turned down outright. The preservation of the Church Building entire must be mandatory, and a sensitive and considerate restoration be on the books before anything else is allowed to proceed.
 
Last edited:
That was well said, CanadianNational. It would make for a wonderful space for the condo's amenities or community uses. Even conversion to lofts would be a better fate.
 
It does strike me as self-consciously "anti-preservationist"--albeit more of a Rem Koolhaas nature than of an Ed Glaeser nature. (Maybe that's what it is: the advent of "Cronocaos" logic hitting Toronto's heritage urbanism flat in the face)
 
Here are some larger renderings. The new addition podium reminds me a lot of the latest revised version of D+S's College Street student residence, I saw at the February community meeting.

The attempt to only retain the south and east facades is pathetic. As I've said earlier, that podium portion along Huron is brutal. And this is even without revealing the full extent of the tower. That massive bulk from the first setback looks clumsy and needs to be broken down to be less overwhelming on the area. And of course, a corresponding reduction in height on the tower.


http://www.flickr.com/photos/roxxstarr/6949523128/


http://www.flickr.com/photos/roxxstarr/6949523178/


http://www.flickr.com/photos/roxxstarr/7095594527/
 
Last edited:
Sounds like its going to be called.. 300 Bloor West

From DCN.........http://dcnonl.com/cgi-bin/top10.pl?...dc5ea942fc86&projectid=9155238&region=ontario

CONDOMINIUM APARTMENT BLDG
Proj: 9155238-2
Toronto, Metro Toronto Reg ON
PREPARING PLANS
300 Bloor St W, M5S 2R7
$25,000,000 est
Note: This project is very preliminary. Applications have not yet been submitted to the city. There are schedules at this time for design, tender or construction. Further update fall 2012.
Kasian Architects performed early design work on this project.
Project: proposed construction of a 38-storey condominium apartment building.
Scope: 38 storeys
Development:...New
Category:..Apartment bldgs
 
This is an absolutely horrible design and completely inapporpriate for the neighbourhood.
 
marsh said:
This is an absolutely horrible design and completely inapporpriate for the neighbourhood.
Click to expand...

Ahh come-on, how can it be any worse than that 20s toronto student co-op residence (Tartu) next door, and the Rochdale 18 storey commie slab across the street:confused:
This stretch of street needs help, maybe not as tall, but... Please! give me a break .
 
I wouldn't mind it if they took out the first 'box' that would be in place of the church proper; then the rest of the design I could live with. That way, with most of the church retained, it wouldn't look like some ironic statement on preservationism--like post-preservationism :p
 
You must log in or register to post here.

Back
Top