DtTO said:
What, you mean the "/addition" that made the "renovation/restoration" economically viable?

Ah, that "/addition"
Click to expand...

So to you, compromising/disfiguring a building is excusable in the name of "economic viability"? Then again, given the old Trump's-aesthetically-superior-to-Osgoode-Hall stance of yours, such philistinism is to be expected...
 
To be fair though, in this case (i.e. exterior) it is the addition that "compromised" (I find it too strong a word in any case) the original structure - which is a far lesser transgression in my books than wholesale removing of exterior elements, which is a far more common practice. The awkward addition is a reasonable price to pay, considering the likely alternative of further degradation by neglect, or facadectomy.

AoD
 
I suspect it's a question of what one wants: an adaptive reuse of an older building for our current time, or a complete restoration of an older building to museum quality standards, which would make it a lovely ornament, but possibly not all that viable as a piece of commercial real estate.

Personally, I prefer the former, at least in cases where, as in this case, the building is old and attractive, but not a location of any particular historic importance. It the original interior had been intact (which it wasn't - and which is unlikely ever to be the case in commercial buildings) I might have thought differently.
 
Last edited:
adma said:
So to you, compromising/disfiguring a building is excusable in the name of "economic viability"?
Click to expand...

You misunderstood. I was saying that the addition made the renovation/restoration economically viable. Care to take a guess where this building would be in a few years had this economically viable solution not happened?

Then again, given the old Trump's-aesthetically-superior-to-Osgoode-Hall stance of yours, such philistinism is to be expected...
Click to expand...

:)
 
DtTO said:
You misunderstood. I was saying that the addition made the renovation/restoration economically viable. Care to take a guess where this building would be in a few years had this economically viable solution not happened?
Click to expand...

Except that if we want to talk about the concerns I was acknowledging in the first place, this isn't about economics, this is about aesthetics--and even AoD admits to the addition-as-executed being "awkward". Whereas the way you're going about it, you might as well be defending something even less sympathetic.

:)
Click to expand...

Then again, I've been thinking this whole Trump-vs-Osgoode aesthetic argument over since reading this quote of yours from another thread...

My family arrived in Canada legally through my parent's hard work and education. We had no money when we came, so I don't understand how some people can actually think you need a lot of money to get here.
Click to expand...

Which, well, could explain something--that is, to so-called "new Canadians" who, understandably enough, aren't (and don't feel obligated to be) all that instilled-in-the-blood in Toronto/Ontario/Canada history/heritage/culture/whatever, both by way of background and by way of their "hard work and earning a living", the niceties of such historically-based "canonical" aesthetic judgment are, well, rather remote: sort of like an elitish architectural/urban-aesthetic "Laurentian Consensus", I suppose. Instead, their aesthetic judgment is based upon more of a subjective immediacy, that of obvious and/or contemporary everyday landmarks and, well, stuff they can call "their own"--which is why they can feel peeved and even racially-discriminated-against when others implicitly knock their pride and joy which they worked very hard to make build and create, be it a McMansion-rebuild or an quoins'n'keystones EIFS reno.

For all I know, maybe that's where DtTO's coming from.
 
adma said:
Which, well, could explain something--that is, to so-called "new Canadians" who, understandably enough, aren't (and don't feel obligated to be) all that instilled-in-the-blood in Toronto/Ontario/Canada history/heritage/culture/whatever, both by way of background and by way of their "hard work and earning a living", the niceties of such historically-based "canonical" aesthetic judgment are, well, rather remote: sort of like an elitish architectural/urban-aesthetic "Laurentian Consensus", I suppose. Instead, their aesthetic judgment is based upon more of a subjective immediacy, that of obvious and/or contemporary everyday landmarks and, well, stuff they can call "their own"--which is why they can feel peeved and even racially-discriminated-against when others implicitly knock their pride and joy which they worked very hard to make build and create, be it a McMansion-rebuild or an quoins'n'keystones EIFS reno.

For all I know, maybe that's where DtTO's coming from.
Click to expand...

This is exactly why I will never respect you. Do you think you know who I am because of a few comments I made on a public forum? For your information, my family is well versed in Canadian history. We love Canada, and that includes its history. We've lived in Calgary, Halifax, Mississauga, and Toronto. We're as Canadian as anyone else, and your attempt to undermine that should not be accepted by anyone.

By your logic, someone whose family was originally in Calgary, and later moved to Toronto would also not place any significance to its heritage and history. Also, that every single native Torontonian is as interested in heritage as a university professor who specializes in the topic. Both ridiculous assertions, and I think you will find yourself very alone in this discriminatory mentality that makes you superior for being here by birth vs persevering to be able to move here.
 
adma said:
Which, well, could explain something--that is, to so-called "new Canadians" who, understandably enough, aren't (and don't feel obligated to be) all that instilled-in-the-blood in Toronto/Ontario/Canada history/heritage/culture/whatever, both by way of background and by way of their "hard work and earning a living", the niceties of such historically-based "canonical" aesthetic judgment are, well, rather remote: sort of like an elitish architectural/urban-aesthetic "Laurentian Consensus", I suppose. Instead, their aesthetic judgment is based upon more of a subjective immediacy, that of obvious and/or contemporary everyday landmarks and, well, stuff they can call "their own"--which is why they can feel peeved and even racially-discriminated-against when others implicitly knock their pride and joy which they worked very hard to make build and create, be it a McMansion-rebuild or an quoins'n'keystones EIFS reno.

For all I know, maybe that's where DtTO's coming from.
Click to expand...

Please stop.
 
DtTO said:
By your logic, someone whose family was originally in Calgary, and later moved to Toronto would also not place any significance to its heritage and history. Also, that every single native Torontonian is as interested in heritage as a university professor who specializes in the topic. Both ridiculous assertions, and I think you will find yourself very alone in this discriminatory mentality that makes you superior for being here by birth vs persevering to be able to move here.
Click to expand...

Well, honestly, you have a point there. After all, Rob Ford's a self-styled proud Etobicoke boy through and through; and yet, when it comes to architectural/urban/heritage/aesthetic matters in Etobicoke, I'd gladly privilege a reasonably sensitive "New Etobian" (or even "New Canadian") over him...
 
AndreaPalladio said:
I suspect it's a question of what one wants: an adaptive reuse of an older building for our current time, or a complete restoration of an older building to museum quality standards, which would make it a lovely ornament, but possibly not all that viable as a piece of commercial real estate.

Personally, I prefer the former, at least in cases where, as in this case, the building is old and attractive, but not a location of any particular historic importance. It the original interior had been intact (which it wasn't - and which is unlikely ever to be the case in commercial buildings) I might have thought differently.
Click to expand...

Well, I don't agree entirely. The exterior of the building was restored reasonably well (not completely) to its condition in the 1890s. The interior could have been restored say to its condition in the 1950s. This is often done in restoration and works well IMO. But of course it is not what the market wants.

But I agree with those who say we shouldn't complain too much. We're lucky to have it. With a developer who thinks it's a good idea to have exposed brick in the interior and black glass on the roof, I'd say we're very lucky that the exterior masonry was treated so well as it was. Overall, a huge gain, just not what it could have been.
 
k10ery said:
Well, I don't agree entirely. The exterior of the building was restored reasonably well (not completely) to its condition in the 1890s. The interior could have been restored say to its condition in the 1950s. This is often done in restoration and works well IMO. But of course it is not what the market wants.

But I agree with those who say we shouldn't complain too much. We're lucky to have it. With a developer who thinks it's a good idea to have exposed brick in the interior and black glass on the roof, I'd say we're very lucky that the exterior masonry was treated so well as it was. Overall, a huge gain, just not what it could have been.
Click to expand...

Actually, the interior *was* in reasonably original or original-esque condition--though definitely chipping-paint/stained-wall tattered to the max, Sam Spade Gone Gonzo, I suppose. (IOW arguably "original to a fault", and presumably too cubbyholed and picayune to justify, at least in the developer's eyes, adaptation.)
 
Today:

Resto is open on the southwest side of the building

90v4K7m.jpg


MxJnolb.jpg
 
You must log in or register to post here.

Back
Top