Toronto Burano | ?m | 48s | Lanterra | a—A

[dt_toronto_geek]

The remaining south end of the McLaughlin building today

 

[CanadianNational]

October 9, 2008

A few more shots...

 

[yyzer]

Fabulous pics, CN!

 

[Dan416]

Facades don't stay standing up all on their own; if you don't take it down, you have to prop it up with an elaborate steel rig. (We saw this on Gerrard East, I think, and at Ryerson, and in Yorkville.) If you're digging a giant pit beneath it, it can become impractical.

B/A was a preservation clusterfuck, in my humble opinion. The problem wasn't so much that the brick was new (on its own, perhaps forgivable), or that the heritage facade stuck to the bottom of an unsympathetic tower like a postage stamp (the streetwall effect *is* nice, and at least you can't accuse the old and new buildings of competing), but that they actually changed the old building's design, removing a storey and heightening the remaining ones so that the old floor height matches B/A's floor height.

And which point, it's hard not to ask: why even bother? What we're left with is so far removed from the original building, in design, material, and context, that it really is not much more than a Disneyland simulation of a generic old-timey building. It's not heritage, it's just an approximation.

Which explains all the positive comments whenever pictures of the BA facade are posted right?

Personally I don't think the changes to the BA facade were significant. I once posted the old beside the new side by side and one would be hard pressed to notice the differences casually.

Matching the height of the facade to the new floorplates...um, did you expect anything different? As if the facade would have different floor heights. Come one!!!

The use of new brick: I can see this being an issue, but it's brick: it'll age. You think the brick they built the facade with was old when it was built? If they're using new brick they're using it for a reason: they might not have been able to salvage enough of the old brick to redo the whole thing.

Overall I think the facade is quite honest. And I'm sure they'll have pictures of how the old building looked

 

[ganjavih]

Which explains all the positive comments whenever pictures of the BA facade are posted right?

I took a look at the reconstructed facade the other day and it's generally OK except for the new cheap-looking concrete decorative details in between the windows. It looks like the kind of junk that gets tacked onto faux historic condos. Why on earth where those fake turds put on?

 

[Mike in TO]

 

[3Dementia]

They better start pouring some concrete... the window wall ain't far behind!

 

[Sir Novelty Fashion]

Which explains all the positive comments whenever pictures of the BA facade are posted right?

*Shudder*

Personally I don't think the changes to the BA facade were significant. I once posted the old beside the new side by side and one would be hard pressed to notice the differences casually.

You're right, and that's exactly the problem. The point of heritage buildings isn't to give people the feeling of generic old-timeyness. "That could pass for history" is not the same as history.

This isn't to say that any and all change is bad, or that old structures can never be touched. But the changes have to be respectful to the heritage building - because respect for heritage buildings is the same as respect for our heritage itself. Respect means honesty and transparancy, not trying to seamlessly blend old and new; the addition has to have a distinct voice, and not try to pass itself off as the original.

In that regard, B/A is trying to pass a new building as an old building. To be blunt, it's a lie. A very smoothly-told lie, but a lie nonetheless. Passerby will walk by and think they're looking at a piece of history. But what they'll really be looking at is an Urban Decoder curio, something that's not what it appears to be. People need to be able to discern the truth of a building without a guidebook.

Matching the height of the facade to the new floorplates...um, did you expect anything different? As if the facade would have different floor heights. Come one!!!

Come all!!! An expedient solution is not always a good one. It might have been better to do away with the building entirely. Or, while we're at it, why not reconstruct a second phoney building next to it on B/A (maybe based on some building that was there in the past), so we have a contiguous phoney street-wall?

The use of new brick: I can see this being an issue, but it's brick: it'll age.

Actually, that's the least of my worries. Same thing would happen in a straight-up restoration, no?

 

[Dan416]

*Shudder*



You're right, and that's exactly the problem. The point of heritage buildings isn't to give people the feeling of generic old-timeyness. "That could pass for history" is not the same as history.

This isn't to say that any and all change is bad, or that old structures can never be touched. But the changes have to be respectful to the heritage building - because respect for heritage buildings is the same as respect for our heritage itself. Respect means honesty and transparancy, not trying to seamlessly blend old and new; the addition has to have a distinct voice, and not try to pass itself off as the original.

In that regard, B/A is trying to pass a new building as an old building. To be blunt, it's a lie. A very smoothly-told lie, but a lie nonetheless. Passerby will walk by and think they're looking at a piece of history. But what they'll really be looking at is an Urban Decoder curio, something that's not what it appears to be. People need to be able to discern the truth of a building without a guidebook.



Come all!!! An expedient solution is not always a good one. It might have been better to do away with the building entirely. Or, while we're at it, why not reconstruct a second phoney building next to it on B/A (maybe based on some building that was there in the past), so we have a contiguous phoney street-wall?



Actually, that's the least of my worries. Same thing would happen in a straight-up restoration, no?

I don't feel like responding to every single line, as many people on many boards would. So I'll keep my response short.

I disagree.

 

[Sir Novelty Fashion]

I don't feel like responding to every single line, as many people on many boards would. So I'll keep my response short.

I disagree.

I accept your apology.

 

[grey]

Using BA silver glass in the facade windows is a mistake that was also made at Festival Hall (the Scotiabank theatre building with one of the worst facadectomies ever). The facade there looks terrible. SNF is spot on with his Disney analogy. It looks like something at Canada's Wonderland or a tacky Vegas recreation.

I think the McLaughlin facade will be pretty good.

 

[confusion]

Looks like the building is going to come down soon since they are working on removing the doorway. Noticed Global TV had a van sitting across the road. So I'm throwing a wild guess out that it might be coming down today (emphasis on wild guess).

 

[current]

November 4

 

[Edward]

Just walked by and most of that rubble is now gone.

 

[khris]

I thought they were keeping part of the facade of the old building? Did I miss something?