It could have sat quite nicely atop the 5-storey podium, IMHO.

But in all seriousness, they could have done something to preserve the building while still redeveloping the site. Boston's Old City Hall is a similar Second Empire style building that was converted into commercial + retail space, while the four-storey addition to the Printemps department store in Paris worked out pretty well. The tower portion of the Mackenzie building is already recessed far enough back that they could have kept the front of the post office while still getting the height for the tower portion.
 
thecharioteer said:
Sneak preview?

1.jpg
Click to expand...

While a corner entrance as shown in the rendering wasn't the only way to go, it is unfortunate that neither the Yonge Street nor the Temperance Street entrances that were actually built align with the original architectural features above them. The Yonge Street one could quite easily have been located slightly to the south, with two large windowpanes of equal dimensions on either side, and the Temperance one located beneath the balconied windows.
 
AlexCorey said:
It could have sat quite nicely atop the 5-storey podium, IMHO.

But in all seriousness, they could have done something to preserve the building while still redeveloping the site. Boston's Old City Hall is a similar Second Empire style building that was converted into commercial + retail space, while the four-storey addition to the Printemps department store in Paris worked out pretty well. The tower portion of the Mackenzie building is already recessed far enough back that they could have kept the front of the post office while still getting the height for the tower portion.
Click to expand...

I agree. I also think of Alison and Peter Smithson's iconic 1964 Economist Building in London, which preserved the heritage Boodle's Club building [side note: the inspiration for the University Club on Unversity Avenue], and massed the new buildings to match and complement its scale. The Adelaide/Victoria/Lombard block could have done the same:

smithsonseconomist2.jpg


Smithsons-522x400px.jpg


5402914560_3572bd84ab_z.jpg


london_building_aw230607_3245.jpg


3238934947_0c49ae6f76_o.jpg
 
adma said:
When you say "meant to be", I hope you don't mean "advocating in principle". (Though even I'm one to urge caution in castigating past demolitions, as if 2012 values pertained in 1972.)

I suppose a few newer cases involving newer buildings might count, too (eg. Chaz replacing 45 Charles E)
Click to expand...

'Meant to be" refers to the fire damaged destruction of the 10 storey Central Building in the early 1990s for the unbuilt Bay Adelaide Centre.
 
charioteer: good answer. Googling, I see that the St James's Conservation Trust HATES the Economist Building: "It is surprising
how offensive a building can be in this historic context, especially when of excessive height and bulk. Elsewhere and out of context it may
be considered a good building." Clearly, a modernist tower is not "clubbable".
 
Interesting how tastes change, k10ery. In the 60's and 70's, the Smithson design was seen as the latest in contextualism. Today, some may find it somewhat "brutal" (pun-intended). One can only fantasize about how the Adelaide Post Office block would be laid out today by our current masters of contextualism KPMB and HPA...
 
k10ery said:
charioteer: good answer. Googling, I see that the St James's Conservation Trust HATES the Economist Building: "It is surprising
how offensive a building can be in this historic context, especially when of excessive height and bulk. Elsewhere and out of context it may
be considered a good building." Clearly, a modernist tower is not "clubbable".
Click to expand...

Something tells me that the St James's Conservation Trust is probably *really* in deep with the Prince Charles/INTBAU crowd, if they're to pass this kind of judgment...
 
Not a great shot (I didn't really capture the light very well, sorry) but I was struck by the juxtaposition with the Confederation Life building on Richmond.

attachment.php
 
adma said:
Something tells me that the St James's Conservation Trust is probably *really* in deep with the Prince Charles/INTBAU crowd, if they're to pass this kind of judgment...
Click to expand...

Good point. Actually Charles can probably see it from his bedroom window, which can't help.
 
maestro said:
The demolished pre-war Financial District towers were all meant to be replaced by much larger developments

Bank of Montreal Building - First Canadian Place
Click to expand...

Interestingly enough, the FCP tower was erected beside the old BMO building before it was torn down. With a little creativity, the developers actually could have retained it, incorporated it into the new design, and not built the rather dull "pavillion" structure that stands there today. That's essentially what happened across the street at Scotia.
 
FAC33:

They probably would have (to) if the project happened in the 80s (to have any chance of getting through council) - you'd probably see something like BCE Place. Mind you, it wasn't like saving old buildings in these block sized projects is unheard of even in the 70s - e.g. Commerce Court.

AoD
 
AlvinofDiaspar said:
Ironically, Confed Life is an example of an imperfectly done heritage restoration/preservation project - they've never replaced the conical roofs atop the turret after the fire gutted the building, for example.

http://tayloronhistory.com/2012/04/...tural-gems-1890s-confederation-life-building/

AoD
Click to expand...

Though to be fair, IIRC said conical roofs, together with the much more elaborate original central tower, etc were removed/"simplified" decades before the fire. So what was restored was the exterior largely "as found"--yeah, I know, a cheap short cut in its own way; but, hey. (And they did a token making-up-for-it in the 90s by "finishing" the copper peaks to the towers--thus the change in appearance from oxidized to non-oxidized.)
 
adma said:
Though to be fair, IIRC said conical roofs, together with the much more elaborate original central tower, etc were removed/"simplified" decades before the fire. So what was restored was the exterior largely "as found"--yeah, I know, a cheap short cut in its own way; but, hey. (And they did a token making-up-for-it in the 90s by "finishing" the copper peaks to the towers--thus the change in appearance from oxidized to non-oxidized.)
Click to expand...

Why was the central tower truncated?
 
You must log in or register to post here.

Back
Top