Joe R.
Banned
Is there anything that could be applied to the brick that would prevent grime from accumulating, ala self cleaning glass?
- Thread starter Braddale
- Start date
Urban Shocker
Doyenne
The transition, where the rounded corner - which is a natural point of interest - suddenly becomes squared-off at street level, is clumsy. There might have been a more sympathetic and thoughtful way of doing the entire ground floor renovation too, aligning the large window panes with the windows or pilasters above, maybe. When it was a Pearle Vision store the entrance was at the corner and they adopted the form of the arched windows, however clumsily.
Joe R.
Banned
Sure, it would have been nice if the glass was curved, at the corner base, but that is such a minor flaw. Let's just be thankful a restoration was done, otherwise, who knows what the future might have held for this building...
GenericUser
Banned
This is a prime example of why heritage restoration in Toronto is not an area of concern for me. If Toronto was a bigger city during the 20s-60s, things would've been different. However, the reality is that this building is probably one of the best heritage structures in Toronto, and it is only 4s. It just doesn't make as big of a difference as the restorations in Chicago/NY/etc where 20s+ buildings are restored. Don't get me wrong, this building looks great, but it just doesn't have much of an impact. Maybe a nicely done condo/office addition (think a 1-St.-Thomas-esque addition) would've changed that. Then again, with the greediness of developers these days, we would've probably seen something more like Market Wharf. A box with wraparound balconies that has no relationship whatsoever with its podium.
Edit: I came off as sounding negative about Toronto, but what I was trying to say is that Toronto should embrace modernism, not lament our lack of heritage architecture. Besides, IMO, many new structures that have come up in this building boom are a lot nicer than this building, which is one of the best heritage structures in the city.
Edit: I came off as sounding negative about Toronto, but what I was trying to say is that Toronto should embrace modernism, not lament our lack of heritage architecture. Besides, IMO, many new structures that have come up in this building boom are a lot nicer than this building, which is one of the best heritage structures in the city.
Last edited:
neubilder
Banned
If Toronto produced more than the occasional good modern building you might have a point. Btw, Toronto has a long history of demolishing remarkable and imposing historic buildings to make way for downright awful 'modern' buildings.
FAC33
Active Member
I am assuming you mean it's one of the best (until now) unrestored heritage structures. There's a lot that has vanished, but we still have Commerce Court, Union Station, the Canada Permanent, the Sterling, the Canada Life building, Osgoode Hall, Old City Hall, the Montreal Trust building, the BMO branch that now has the Hockey Hall of Fame, and the heritage structures married with newer structures at the old BNS building and 1 King West (and that's just the CBD) One of our better unrestored heritage buildings is the Concourse, which is certainly more than four stories.
But I can see from my window two very dull modern buildings that replaced distinctive heritage buildings--the Thompson building, which replaced the Temple building, and whatever they call that building that replaced the Toronto Arcade.
Good modernism should be embraced and celebrated, and I think we do with the TD Centre and Commerce Court. Sadly, we've even lost some nicely-done examples of modernism to the wrecking ball already.
adma
Superstar
Y'know something, even heritage buffs in Chicago/NY/etc aren't worked up over whether something is "only" 4s or 20s+. And they'd think your judgment sounds very adolescent and untutored...
k10ery
Senior Member
^This seems a bit unfair to the poster. The point is: If Toronto's nice old buildings had been built taller, then the economic case for knocking them down would be weaker, and the preservation job would be easier.
Presumably this is why turn of the century buildings survive on the Upper East Side - they were built as skyscrapers. Presumably this is why Canadian Pacific and Traders Bank survive when their neighbours did not. Presumably this is why developers are going through the Entertainment District destroying beautiful buildings, while that Holiday Inn excrescence remains untouched!
I mean, developers are not just PURE evil, are they?
Presumably this is why turn of the century buildings survive on the Upper East Side - they were built as skyscrapers. Presumably this is why Canadian Pacific and Traders Bank survive when their neighbours did not. Presumably this is why developers are going through the Entertainment District destroying beautiful buildings, while that Holiday Inn excrescence remains untouched!
I mean, developers are not just PURE evil, are they?
someMidTowner
¯\_(ツ)_/¯
That logic doesn't explain why we lost the Temple building, the Toronto Star building and the Beard building. I think that there are a lot more factors [than height] that save heritage buildings in older cities - primarily the fact that they have many more heritage buildings than Toronto (designated or otherwise). We lost heritage buildings because of our unchanged attitude towards architecture in this city. Knock it down because its old, replace it with something modern and massive - make lots of money - repeat. The Dineen building is a testament to what I hope is a changing trend: Work with what you already have. At the corner of Yonge and Temperance - mere feet away from proposed skyscrapers - they fix the old instead of pitching us some bland tower. Good for them.
Last edited:
maestro
Senior Member
The Beard building was demolished 80 years ago. Most older centres have demolished well north of a dozen high-rises and several dozen in the case of New York and Chicago. Despite recent heritage intiatives, the numbers were rapidly rising everywhere rising before the crash of 2008. Both the Star and Temple Building were vacated by their main tenants, in serious need of upgrades, and of a design that was out of touch with potential tenants.
The demolished pre-war Financial District towers were all meant to be replaced by much larger developments
Foresters Temple Building - Munich RE Building
Star Building - First Canadian Place
Royal Trust Building - First Canadian Place
Bank of Montreal Building - First Canadian Place
Eagle Star Insurance Building - Commerce Court
Central Building - Bay Adelaide Centre North
National Building - Bay Adelaide Centre West
G. A. Stimson & Co. Building - Brookfield Place
The demolished pre-war Financial District towers were all meant to be replaced by much larger developments
Foresters Temple Building - Munich RE Building
Star Building - First Canadian Place
Royal Trust Building - First Canadian Place
Bank of Montreal Building - First Canadian Place
Eagle Star Insurance Building - Commerce Court
Central Building - Bay Adelaide Centre North
National Building - Bay Adelaide Centre West
G. A. Stimson & Co. Building - Brookfield Place
RC8
Senior Member
I disagree. Restoring a long row of at least 10 3 story buildings, say on Yonge north of College, would cost a similar amount to what restoring a taller old building would, and have even more of an effect on the way we experience our city.
adma
Superstar
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)
thecharioteer
Senior Member
Yet in many cases, the demolished building could have been saved by a slight adjustment of the site planning of the modern building, but weren't, due to lack of appreciation of the older building and modernist theories on "starting with a clean slate" (a la Corbusier's vision of Paris).
Cases in point: the Adelaide Street Post Office at the top of Toronto Street, the Bank of Montreal at King and Bay and the Ontario Club on Wellington west of Bay.
Cases in point: the Adelaide Street Post Office at the top of Toronto Street, the Bank of Montreal at King and Bay and the Ontario Club on Wellington west of Bay.
k10ery
Senior Member
Sure, other factors too. The dumbest one, I think, is that when a developer knocks down a historic office/warehouse building to put up a condo, the City responds by ... giving them a 67% tax cut! Ten years ago, the tax difference was almost twice as bad. Commercial property tax rates can and should immediately be changed to make preservation possible.
And there will always be pressures. The Beard Bldg. was seen as a lemon, and it was taken down in the Depression when the office vacancy rate was 12.21%. The destruction of the Temple Bldg. myself I'll never understand.
k10ery
Senior Member
it is hard for me to imagine the Eighth Post Office successfully incorporated into the middle of the Mackenzie Building. Quite a clash of styles. Can you?