He got the photographer to shoot from the only angle that hides the monstrosity on top. I wonder if he's feeling sheepish that he ruined it.

bw_dineenbldg04jpg.jpg.size.xxlarge.letterbox.jpg
 
k10ery said:
He got the photographer to shoot from the only angle that hides the monstrosity on top. I wonder if he's feeling sheepish that he ruined it.
Click to expand...

The client rarely picks the angle. The photographer chooses 90% of the time. The other 10% of the time, it is because either there is little to no option in angles or because the client/subject is an egomaniac. I would wager the photog picked the angle because of personal aesthetic opinion. And for the record - if we could get a bunch of other busted up heritage buildings restored simply by having a floor added to them, that would probably be a good thing
 
adma said:
Though the interior-gutting part can be a dicey matter in some more stringent heritage-minded circles. (And it's nothing new; the Cabbagetown-style sandblast/gut/rebuild formula became a byword for ironically insensitive overgentrification in the 1970s.)
Click to expand...

Gutting the interiors of heritage buildings down to the brick walls has become fashionable. I wonder if future generations will look at such buildings and assume that Victorian interiors in Toronto were mostly poor and undistinguished. That's not a slight against contemporary interior design, but minimalism isn't associated with high design in the Victorian era.
 
someMidTowner said:
The client rarely picks the angle. The photographer chooses 90% of the time. The other 10% of the time, it is because either there is little to no option in angles or because the client/subject is an egomaniac. I would wager the photog picked the angle because of personal aesthetic opinion. And for the record - if we could get a bunch of other busted up heritage buildings restored simply by having a floor added to them, that would probably be a good thing
Click to expand...

This project was renovation, not restoration.
 
I think this one looks better in person. The new top floor gives it a nice horizontal symmetry, but doesn't detract from the main structure. It was never going to be easy to tack a new floor on top of this, but I think they did a pretty good job. No matter how you feel about it, take a look back at what was there on Google Streetview, and you'll feel a lot better!
 
k10ery said:
This project was renovation, not restoration.
Click to expand...

Technically both. The exterior of the building was restored while the interior was renovated (plus the addition).
 
Why do you people care if the guy added the glass or renovated the interior? Fact is he managed to do something that most developers wouldn't look twice at doing. The building looks amazing after being restored and the black glass doesn't take away from that at all. Also, the top will be used as an atrium for restaurants so that he can actually make a profit and this also allows us to go inside and actually enjoy the building. Pick your battles people, because this certainly is not something to quibble over.
 
Critique:

The building looks amazing after being restored - yes.
The black glass doesn't take way from that - not really.

Just because we are appreciative of the overall project doesn't mean there isn't room for aesthetic improvements - and it really isn't much of a battle in any case since it is all said and done at this point. Surely, given your namesake, you can appreciate this take?

AoD
 
True, but I just don't think that the bashing against the building is deserved. Like you said the overall project seems to be a success but it feels like a lot are under the impression that a small addition ruins the entire project. Considering all the other historic buildings being torn down, why bash this? (To be more specific I am talking to those like k10ery, who apparently thinks this entire project is dead because of the glass.
 
It's definitely worth pointing out any issues with the nearly finished project even if there was some amazing work done with the facade restoration. It's through discussion that other people realize these issues, possibly going about the same project (the addition of a floor to a heritage commercial building) in a different way like with different architecture or a wider setback where more space is available.
 
wmedia said:
I think this one looks better in person. The new top floor gives it a nice horizontal symmetry, but doesn't detract from the main structure. It was never going to be easy to tack a new floor on top of this, but I think they did a pretty good job. No matter how you feel about it, take a look back at what was there on Google Streetview, and you'll feel a lot better!
Click to expand...

Re "what was there": that's more about the building's condition, not the building's skyline.
 
adma said:
Re "what was there": that's more about the building's condition, not the building's skyline.
Click to expand...

That's the point. The building would've been in an incredibly poor condition had it not been for this renovation/restoration/addition. Arguing over the difference between architecture and condition (in this case) is pretty moot anyways, since as a heritage building, its aesthetics are as related to its condition as they are to its architecture.
 
DtTO said:
That's the point. The building would've been in an incredibly poor condition had it not been for this renovation/restoration/addition.
Click to expand...

Ah, but delete the "/addition" part, and you'll know what the critics of the penthouse are getting at.

That's the point.

Ah
 
What, you mean the "/addition" that made the "renovation/restoration" economically viable?

Ah, that "/addition"
 
You must log in or register to post here.

Back
Top