[isaidso]

Looks terrific and works well with the existing structure. Love that they've gone with that warm reddish-brown hue too. What a relief that it's not glass.

 

[DSC]

Looks terrific and works well with the existing structure. Love that they've gone with that warm reddish-brown hue too. What a relief that it's not glass.

You are aware it's a speculative rendering and very unlikely to be done?

 

[condovo]

The proposed tower at the northwest corner is ugly, unwieldy and completely disrespectful to Berczy Park directly across the street and the rest of the neighbourhood too. The SLC is a mediocre building that only elitists can love and doesn't deserve the hoops being jumped through to save it. Get rid of it and then there's no need for the added carbuncle either. Two birds with one stone.

 

[ProjectEnd]

The proposed tower at the northwest corner is ugly, unwieldy and completely disrespectful to Berczy Park directly across the street and the rest of the neighbourhood too. The SLC is a mediocre building that only elitists can love and doesn't deserve the hoops being jumped through to save it. Get rid of it and then there's no need for the added carbuncle either. Two birds with one stone.

There's a lot of 'wrong' in there, but I'll bite. What should go here instead?

 

[Northern Light]

There's a lot of 'wrong' in there, but I'll bite. What should go here instead?

I'm with @condovo on his post.

****

Speaking only for myself; after meeting the functional needs of the tenants, the question is one of building form and materiality.

The building should take one of two directions.

1) Build something as sympathetic as possible to the adjacent heritage properties making use of complimentary brick, matching the existing roofline etc. Additional height is ok, to a point, but should be substantially setback from Front Street.

Or

2) Go as translucent as possible on the exterior, making extensive use of glass, have the building itself slightly setback on Front so as to let the heritage properties shine.

Additional square footage can be gained either through well set back height; or through excavation. ( a windowless theatre can go underground)

*****

The issue w/the existing building (aesthetically); and with the above proposal is that they aren't particularly attractive as is; they are jarringly dissonant from the adjacent properties, they are on the loud side (the buildings are imposing); they are cold and engage poorly w/their surroundings.

You don't need historical pastiche, but you need something that doesn't detract from the adjacent heritage, and something that doesn't feel overwhelming, and which the majority of the public would find distasteful.

 

[UtakataNoAnnex]

The proposed tower at the northwest corner is ugly, unwieldy and completely disrespectful to Berczy Park directly across the street and the rest of the neighbourhood too. The SLC is a mediocre building that only elitists can love and doesn't deserve the hoops being jumped through to save it. Get rid of it and then there's no need for the added carbuncle either. Two birds with one stone.

...you almost forgot to say "it does not reflect the Queen Anne bedroom community" in there.

 

[condovo]

...you almost forgot to say "it does not reflect the Queen Anne bedroom community" in there.

"The Queen Anne bedroom community" maybe better applies to other neighbourhoods but that doesn't mean St. Lawrence has no context to respect, historical or otherwise.

The St. Lawrence Centre is universally unloved except for a few, self-appointed tastemakers. I say get rid of it. If the demand and funding are there for a new theatre, I'm all for it. And, as Northern Light pointed out, it doesn't need cutesy, pastiche architecture to fit in. But it doesn't need to be obnoxious either.

If there's not enough demand or funding for a new theatre, there are plenty of other things the neighbourhood does need, like a new library.

 

[DSC]

If there's not enough demand or funding for a new theatre, there are plenty of other things the neighbourhood does need, like a new library.

The theatre is not really for the local neighbourhood but is for the whole City. The new District Library is, however, a real neighbourhood need. If it can't go on the First Parliament site (or can't go go there for a decade), I suppose it could be combined with a new Fire Station on Front & Princess - maybe with affordable housing above?

 

[condovo]

The theatre is not really for the local neighbourhood but is for the whole City. The new District Library is, however, a real neighbourhood need. If it can't go on the First Parliament site (or can't go go there for a decade), I suppose it could be combined with a new Fire Station on Front & Princess - maybe with affordable housing above?

Point well-taken about the St. Lawrence Centre serving the whole city. It's still a lump of sh*t though. Lol

That said, there's no reason why a new district library couldn't serve the whole city if there's something to draw people in. Maybe a library with a beautiful reading room combined with Toronto's version of Pointe-à-Callière, kind of like Boston's Central Library in Copley Square. If the First Parliament site falls through, the St. Lawrence Centre site would be the perfect spot, assuming purpose and funding couldn't be found to demolish and re-build the theatre.

 

[UtakataNoAnnex]

"The Queen Anne bedroom community" maybe better applies to other neighbourhoods but that doesn't mean St. Lawrence has no context to respect, historical or otherwise.

The St. Lawrence Centre is universally unloved except for a few, self-appointed tastemakers. I say get rid of it. If the demand and funding are there for a new theatre, I'm all for it. And, as Northern Light pointed out, it doesn't need cutesy, pastiche architecture to fit in. But it doesn't need to be obnoxious either.

If there's not enough demand or funding for a new theatre, there are plenty of other things the neighbourhood does need, like a new library.

Respect to what? There are myriad of buildings around there from different eras representing different styles. So this building in question or its alt proposal are not really that out of place as being claimed beyond the opinions of it.

As for the love-in or hate-on for this building, you are claiming this wildly popular view without citation and/or evidence of any proper survey. Thus this may not be really any different than a few, self-appointed tastemakers who want this place bulldozed to the ground. And this is outside of those who couldn't care less either way and the clueless who have no idea this is a thing. So I am not sure where you are getting this from.

And finally, it would be interesting to see how folks would react if in the end this building was refitted as a library. I gotta feeling though this isn't about the need for a library...

 

[condovo]

Who on earth has any affection for the St. Lawrence Centre other than a few eccentrics in the local Can-Con community and teeny architecture-critic scene? How is this building of global import? Where are the copious articles over the decades that have bothered with it? Which international Brutalist inventory is it on? Who the heck even knows about this building outside Toronto, maybe even outside downtown Toronto? It's a big, fat zero.

 

[AlexBozikovic]

I’m glad to see this discussion addressing (sort of) the heritage value of the building.

There are literally thousands of buildings on Toronto’s heritage register. Many of them are ordinary houses being protected for neighbourhood-character reasons. I have seen most of them.

This building has more social history attached to it and more architectural significance than 95% of those.

The fact that it doesn’t have a strong constituency.. well, that is the entire point of professional heritage planning, to identify and protect things of value even if they are not presently popular.

 

[evandyk]

If the Tim Hortons at Front and Sherbourne is worth protecting, I don't see how the St. Lawrence Centre isn't.

 

[condovo]

I’m glad to see this discussion addressing (sort of) the heritage value of the building.

There are literally thousands of buildings on Toronto’s heritage register. Many of them are ordinary houses being protected for neighbourhood-character reasons. I have seen most of them.

This building has more social history attached to it and more architectural significance than 95% of those.

The fact that it doesn’t have a strong constituency.. well, that is the entire point of professional heritage planning, to identify and protect things of value even if they are not presently popular.

Social history? Whose? And now add an odious protrusion to preserve social history?

This building's been giving the middle finger to its neighbours for 51 years. Enough already. Demolition should be the final chapter of its social history.

 

[UtakataNoAnnex]

Who on earth has any affection for the St. Lawrence Centre other than a few eccentrics in the local Can-Con community and teeny architecture-critic scene? How is this building of global import? Where are the copious articles over the decades that have bothered with it? Which international Brutalist inventory is it on? Who the heck even knows about this building outside Toronto, maybe even outside downtown Toronto? It's a big, fat zero.

I dunno. You'll have to do the research to find out. But suddenly moving this argument to those who are clueless about this building likely won't change facts about that.

This building has more social history attached to it and more architectural significance than 95% of those.

I'm not sure I would go that far. But the quality, interesting angles and dynamics of the building is certainly darn sight better better than a lot of things going up of late, IMO. I think it's worth keeping around and/or building upon it, even if its function is changed to better serve the area.