Toronto Blue Diamond Condos and Foxbar Towns at Imperial Village | 88.08m | 28s | Camrost-Felcorp | Diamond Schmitt

General info on the proposal:
  • Site purchased by the Whitecastle New Urban Fund
  • Fund is managed by Diamondcorp (Steve Diamond)
  • 32s Tower to be built where parish hall is located (this is not part of original church)
  • Five 3s townhomes to be added to the rear of site on Foxbar Road
  • 220 proposed units in total
  • Church to be converted to residential units
  • Residents association wants tower moved closer to St. Clair
  • Diamont + Schmitt achitect Don Schmitt designed the project
  • Very slim floor-plate for tower portion of project
  • Site will share service lane with neighbouring Camrost Imperial Plaza project
 
Rendering:

5375264647_6e450aa923_o.jpg
 
It time to start looking at all the proposal that were made for Absolute contrest years ago as there are a fair number that would help to change the look of the current class of designs hitting the market these days.

I coack on seeing this one as it not a nice looking building at all.

Where have all the good designer gone to??
 
although this is by a different architect .... for some reason this building screams MURANO to me ~
 
Five years ago many of us would have loved this.

Really though, it's third-rate neo-modernism sticking out like a sore thumb between two great international style towers.
 
Five years ago many of us would have loved this.

Really though, it's third-rate neo-modernism sticking out like a sore thumb between two great international style towers.

Imperial Oil building is one. Where is the second?
 
I completely disagree with your assessment. 135 St. Clair is bland, banal and boxy. Nothing interesting about it. Perfect for say a government building. Hey, wait a second!

I'm kind of in-between about 135 St Clair. I wouldn't call it "great"--it's standard-enough for its time--but having survived blessedly un-reclad and un-built-out, it's easier to appreciate now than it ever has been...
 
CN Tower said:
I completely disagree with your assessment. 135 St. Clair is bland, banal and boxy. Nothing interesting about it. Perfect for say a government building. Hey, wait a second!

It's a pure expression of the International Style it is. But is it bland? It uses a high-lustre black cladding that achieves an incredibly sleek look interspersed with matching lustre curtain wall. The thin, vertical aluminum strips further enhance the sleek look. The top is nicely defined by more densely placed aluminum strips amidst a discrete horizontal strip of windows, a curious part of the facade that strongly indicates a change of interior function and uses it as an opportunity for additional detail. It also incorporates nicely landscaped green space.

The tower really stands out in this neighbourhood, especially given its architecturally conservative past of revival styles. Admittedly, it's somewhat derivative Modernism and hardly groundbreaking, but it's polished and incredibly sleek to this day.

I'm kind of in-between about 135 St Clair. I wouldn't call it "great"--it's standard-enough for its time--but having survived blessedly un-reclad and un-built-out, it's easier to appreciate now than it ever has been...

I'd be proud to have such a building in my neighbourhood. (Though I can't imagine where it would fit...perhaps the current Heintzman Place site.) I think its sleekness and attention to Modern details, like the emphasis on landscaping and greenery showed a side to Modernism that could make many an observer feel optimistic.
 
Though isn't the forecourt greenery an adulteration occasioned by the present/recent provincial-ministry tenant (Environment?)? Not that that's bad; in fact, it's quite respectfully complimentary.

Indeed, viewed through the prism of such ministerial tenancy, the building's actually a quite precocious programmatic demonstration of the "green" argument for building retention...with the "green" goals achieved here not through massive overhauls (which can so often be aluminum-siding-salesman greenwash quackery), but through leaving well enough alone beyond whatever behind-the-scenes technical upgrades necessary. Which also subtly (subversively?) helps us to appreciate the architecture for what it is, regardless of whether it's "important" or "fashionable" or "heritage" or "urbanistically correct". You don't need any of that hack justification; just take the stuff you have and love it for what it is, and we're *all* richer for it...
 
Indeed, viewed through the prism of such ministerial tenancy, the building's actually a quite precocious programmatic demonstration of the "green" argument for building retention...with the "green" goals achieved here not through massive overhauls (which can so often be aluminum-siding-salesman greenwash quackery), but through leaving well enough alone beyond whatever behind-the-scenes technical upgrades necessary. Which also subtly (subversively?) helps us to appreciate the architecture for what it is, regardless of whether it's "important" or "fashionable" or "heritage" or "urbanistically correct". You don't need any of that hack justification; just take the stuff you have and love it for what it is, and we're *all* richer for it...

Sometimes, the love has to be put in words so that others may understand it. It could be good insight or hack justification, but ordinary people talking about it is a step in the right direction.
 
Nice to see another condo at Yonge and St. Clair. Between this, the new tower(s) proposed for the Imperial Oil parking lot, and the Green P lot at Heath, there are going to be lots of new people living here soon! It will be nice to have some younger people moving in!
 

Back
Top