The building is a gem and is worth saving. Those of you who don't agree really don't know that much about architecture. That is why I have stopped commenting about most of the threads on this website. 99 percent of you really haven't got a clue.
 
barit said:
The building is a gem and is worth saving. Those of you who don't agree really don't know that much about architecture. That is why I have stopped commenting about most of the threads on this website. 99 percent of you really haven't got a clue.
Click to expand...

+1
 
barit said:
The building is a gem and is worth saving. Those of you who don't agree really don't know that much about architecture. That is why I have stopped commenting about most of the threads on this website. 99 percent of you really haven't got a clue.
Click to expand...

You're Right, 99 percent of us really haven't got a clue of how much you appreciate the architecture of this building and probably many other structures appreciated by you that have bit the dust...
But its strange that it would stop you from speaking your mind of all places, on this website... when so many of us on UT have the same appreciation for the same architecture and heritage.
 
If this is worthy of a heritage designation then there is something wrong.
17-Dundonald-Street-July-8-2011-IMG_1646.jpg

It is not heritage in any shape way or form.
 
barit said:
The building is a gem and is worth saving. Those of you who don't agree really don't know that much about architecture. That is why I have stopped commenting about most of the threads on this website. 99 percent of you really haven't got a clue.
Click to expand...

I'm on the fence regarding this possible redevelopment but that is a very elitist opinion of yours. Architectural taste does not necessarily have a right or wrong like mathematics. Everyone is entitled to their personal opinions. There's no need to bash those who don't find this special.
 
Travis said:
I'm on the fence regarding this possible redevelopment but that is a very elitist opinion of yours. Architectural taste does not necessarily have a right or wrong like mathematics. Everyone is entitled to their personal opinions. There's no need to bash those who don't find this special.
Click to expand...

This is true, however comments like "it is not heritage in any way shape or form" are completely off-base and uninformed. I can understand the frustration with the "taste" of a lot of people around here, and with the public in general regarding our modern heritage.
 
urbandreamer said:
Build an aA condo here then. Sure, the existing building is nice, but what beauty did it replace?

I once lived on a farm...now it has a bus route! #progress.
Click to expand...


This is a good point, My grandfather lit part of his old house with oil lamps. Now theys has 'lectricity. The old lamps were nice but no longer practical.

Coming back to this building - given the increasing density is saving this building a practical option?

Take lots of pictures and put them in a museum somewhere (or shoebox).

That's what we did with gramps.
 
Yeah and we might as well tear down all of our Victorian buildings, as they're outdated and require lots of upkeep (and probably replaced something else as well). As long as we put a bunch of keystones and prefab Corinthian columns from Home Depot everywhere, what difference does it make? I mean newer=better, right?
 
Beyond my observation of how "protectionist" has become a, uh, hater's code language along the lines of "homosexualist", "feminazi", Mammoliti-style "Communist", et al, I'm wondering if we turned UT back some 38 years and I'll betcha these Traynors, Big Daddys, Automation Gallerys would be grousing about the Crombie mayoralty the way certain people (albeit from a different perspective) grouse about the Ford mayoralty today.

And judging from the profile shots of those three examples, they seem *awfully* filled with testosterone, no estrogen at all. (Which is nothing to do with sexual orientation.)
 
Though it's a beautiful little bit of mid-century infill, I'm with adma and would rather see it removed entirely, not awkwardly retained a la some facade hatchet job.
 
adma said:
Beyond my observation of how "protectionist" has become a, uh, hater's code language along the lines of "homosexualist", "feminazi", Mammoliti-style "Communist", et al, I'm wondering if we turned UT back some 38 years and I'll betcha these Traynors, Big Daddys, Automation Gallerys would be grousing about the Crombie mayoralty the way certain people (albeit from a different perspective) grouse about the Ford mayoralty today.

And judging from the profile shots of those three examples, they seem *awfully* filled with testosterone, no estrogen at all. (Which is nothing to do with sexual orientation.)
Click to expand...


Great, so you don't like my opinion so you make it personal and take shots at me and anyone who doesn’t share your personal opinion.

Very open minded of you.

But your constant reference to everything having sexual overtones is more than a little disturbing.

Stay focused dude!
 
There's no accounting for taste, but there's even less accountability on internet forums.

Preferences are always, at their core, an intimate thing, no?

Personally I've always like this building, and hope it stays. It has evident skill and care to it's design, juxtaposes with the neighbourhood well without causing upset, and always makes my mind pleasingly wonder a bit about it's life and origins.

I'd rather not see it replaced by something less dapper.
 
Last edited:
You must log in or register to post here.

Back
Top