Duke's Cycle (623-625 Queen St. W, Form, 3s)

[junctionist]

Most buildings which try to recreate a historical style that is disconnected from modern architecture end up quite inadequate. But those who build them just want to impress the consumer to sell the property.

A historic building can be rebuilt to such a fine degree of detail that in terms of its aesthetics, even architecture enthusiasts might not be able to notice. If a building is meaningful like a Victorian block is to Queen Street, the extra investment in recreating original details can be justified. (We're not even talking about a European palace; these brick blocks didn't have very advanced ornamentation.)

Ordinarily, it makes no sense to recreate past architecture when a great new aesthetic is available for an ordinary price, but when buildings are important to an area's identity and meaningful in some way, they can be rebuilt well, with some internal modifications reflecting modern safety regulations.

 

[Urban Shocker]

The meaning will have changed, however, as it did when KPMB recreated the front of a small red brick building that was to have been a facadectomy at their King James Place but which was too fragile to re-install. They designed the rest of that development in a contemporary yet sympathetic way to meld with the architecture of the Old Town, and I think a similar approach could be taken elsewhere.

The recreated Windsor Arms Hotel facade, done about ten years ago, is another funny one.

 

[greenleaf]

I appreciate the extended answer Sir Novelty. I do understand your point of view and why you have it.

I have a problem with a couple of things though:

Who decided that you have to look at architecture and say there's the old part and there's the new part? I just don't buy it. Perhaps I have fundamental issues with the philosophy of modern architecture. Styles in music are recycled all the time. Why can't another art form (architecture) do it?

Why can't an element of our architectural history be the reintroduction of victorian-style brick architecture? A new building built in this style would also be up front with its origin and pay proper respect to its original incarnation. To me, this building is also telling a story. What burned down was rebuilt.

And how do you reconcile Victorian, Edwardian, etc homes being gutted and refinished on the interior? How would this project be any different from the thousands of homes in Toronto that have undergone this process in the past decade? Using your logic, having one's home redone is being dishonest. In this particular case the front facade is being remade, but if it looks like the old one, what's wrong with that?

 

[Sir Novelty Fashion]

Who decided that you have to look at architecture and say there's the old part and there's the new part? I just don't buy it. Perhaps I have fundamental issues with the philosophy of modern architecture. Styles in music are recycled all the time. Why can't another art form (architecture) do it?

Good points. And sure enough, it wasn't the received word of God that declared that you should be able to see the difference between the old part and the new part. (Actually, it's something I picked up from my father, who's a heritage architect. I'm sure he has better sources.) But as a philosophy, it does make sense to me.

There are other reasons for it, too. Distinguishing old from new, as I was saying before, helps democratise the process of reading buildings. It also helps preserve the integrity of the original design. It's not that buildings are sacrosanct and can never be altered, but if one architect designs a building, and 40 years later another architect imperceptibly alters the original design, he's kind of passing himself off as the original architect in much the same was as the new building is passing itself off as the old building.

Also, it pretends that no time has passed, instead of acknowledging that things change and styles progress and that today isn't yesterday. I'm not arguing against the recycling of styles. It happens in architecture all the time too. In fact, except for the most hardcore cases (like the TD Centre), most buildings are a mishmash of different ideas and styles. My concern is with the attempt to pass off a new building as an exact replica of an old one, when it's really not.

But at the end of the day, I think you're right - this is just a philosophy, one that's open to debate, and I sometimes argue I with myself too. Sometimes I wonder why we can't just build more Annex-style Victorian duplexes just like the old ones. It's an appealing thought. But at the end - to make an exact replica still seems disingenuous.

To me, this building is also telling a story. What burned down was rebuilt.

Yeah, and that's a story worth telling. But if there's no visual clue to this fact, how will people ever get a hint? I mean, we don't have to build a 200-foot doorknob in its place, or, uh, a giant crystal. There are a lot of subtler ways of doing it, even in the context of a building that might even have an Edwardian feel. Again, it's the exact-replica thing that bugs me.

And how do you reconcile Victorian, Edwardian, etc homes being gutted and refinished on the interior? How would this project be any different from the thousands of homes in Toronto that have undergone this process in the past decade? Using your logic, having one's home redone is being dishonest. In this particular case the front facade is being remade, but if it looks like the old one, what's wrong with that?

Right, and I bet an interior designer will tell you that not all gutting-and-restoring jobs are created equal either. (Though truthfully I can't speak to this so much myself.) You could replace the inside of an old house with a replica of the Starship Voyager, which would reflect both historic insensitivity and terrible taste in television. At any rate, you raise an interesting point. I'mma think about that one.

 

[urbandreamer]

What I find pathetic, other than the crappy architecture that is guaranteed to happen here, is the small-town 3 storey height limit. Surely the Burroughs' building should serve as a template for height limit. Design should be red brick and glass lofts, something like East. Eight floors here.

 

[MetroMan]

^ You're forgetting this is not a developer building here, it's the owner of a burned down building who's insurance is paying to rebuild what was there before.

 

[adma]

Re the recreation part: you have to remember the "symbolism" the Duke's block acquired, i.e. I know what a lot of you are saying about fauxdom, but here it's almost more like a postwar-rebuilding-of-Warsaw situation...

 

[greenleaf]

And great points to you Sir Novelty! As someone who is coming to architecture and urban planning with no formal training, it is really interesting to me to learn how these philosophies evolved and to try to understand how and why do got to where we are.

Coming from a musical background, I often think of parallels between that art form and architecture to try to reconcile ideas. For example, if an artist chooses to do a cover song, I would much prefer the artist to put their own spin on it and make it their own. To hear, say, Broken Social Scene do an exact cover of Neil Young's Helpless would just be kind of creepy and weird. Thus, looking at an exact replica of a building of a building would be like hearing that song. I get it.

I don't have a picture on hand, but the 3/4-story Hotel on Queen being built near Beverley street seems to be doing a pretty good job of wedding Queen Street's old brick style with modern windows and modern interiors. Perhaps something along these lines will work its way into this part of Queen.

 

[grey]

I don't have a picture on hand, but the 3/4-story Hotel on Queen being built near Beverley street seems to be doing a pretty good job of wedding Queen Street's old brick style with modern windows and modern interiors. Perhaps something along these lines will work its way into this part of Queen.

That's what I'm hoping for. Something that respects the context of the street (i.e. brick rather than a metal box like H&M a few blocks east), but with contemporary design principles. Not a faux-victorian with 2010 proportions (out of scale) and ridiculous pippy-poos and do-dads.

 

[taal]

Speaking of which is that hotel even under construction? I've seen no progress at the site for last while.
The older building still exists and no demolition seems to be going on.

 

[Towered]

I don't have a picture on hand, but the 3/4-story Hotel on Queen being built near Beverley street seems to be doing a pretty good job of wedding Queen Street's old brick style with modern windows and modern interiors. Perhaps something along these lines will work its way into this part of Queen.

Keep in mind that that hotel is a rare exception - all of the other post-war modern infill on Queen has been utterly awful, which is why so many are clamouring to see this block rebuilt very similar to how it was before.

 

[Urban Shocker]

Who decided that you have to look at architecture and say there's the old part and there's the new part? I just don't buy it. Perhaps I have fundamental issues with the philosophy of modern architecture. Styles in music are recycled all the time. Why can't another art form (architecture) do it?

I don't see how there can not be differences between the "old part" and the "new part" of buildings - even groups of contemporary buildings that are promoted as being a matching set. For instance, the TD Centre towers look the same at a superficial level ... but on closer inspection they're not, their cohesiveness betrayed by the passage of time ( in this case less than 25 years ), design decisions, and materials. Lyle's Bank of Nova Scotia building, kitty corner to the TD, is a particularly interesting and almost zen-like variant of the idea of time as traitor - a building designed with an art deco spirit but built almost 20 years later in a stripped-down version that maroons it in a new/old limbo that's about style and authenticity.

I agree with you about recycling. I'm all for plundering the past for great ideas and doing something exciting and new with those existing forms. One rarely sees it done well, though - usually we get lame faux. The alternative to both of those approaches, as well as to the "reconstruction" of lost facades that you're keen on, is something like KPMB's King James Place or Jerome Markson's nearbye Market Square - buildings that capture the spirit of Victorian/Edwardian Toronto while being clearly of our time.

 

[grey]

Speaking of which is that hotel even under construction? I've seen no progress at the site for last while.
The older building still exists and no demolition seems to be going on.

Yeah, it's almost complete. It's the narrow building next to the older building that's being demolished, just to be clear. I think they're working on interiors at this point, but it doesn't seem to be moving any more quickly than Templar.

 

[Braddale]

I wonder if there is any chance the other lots that were affected by the fire would have a chance of rebuilding too?

When I first read the post I thought it was the whole area that was burned down, then came to realize it is just the Dukes site, still it is very positive news.

Would love to see a rendering of what it might look like.

 

[egotrippin]

I'd say that a reconstruction as it was is acceptable if it's done with the utmost attention to detail. I'm talking about the post-war European rebuilding level of detail, to ensure that the final structure is not just a cheap facsimile of what once existed. However, I do like urbandreamer's (gasp!) suggestion to use the Burroughes Building as a guideline for scale, in a red brick and glass faced loft.