180 Sudbury St + 48 Abell St (Queen West Triangle, Gov't Cda+Prov ON+City TO, 2x 19s)

[p5connex]

Looks pretty good for affordable housing. I like the lettering for th cafe, etc. The only thing I don't like is the rounded brickwork above the retail portions. Makes the building look too 80's/early 90's.

Kristopher, please! You cannot be serious, can you? Looks like the 80's, that is your concern? Jesus, this is brutal stuff and if anything many steps in the wrong direction from what should be even considered affordable housing. Just because the building doesn't look like a rundown shed, does not "pretty good for affordable housing" make.

We are discounting a large segment of the population and subjecting them to "that is good enough for THEM" type situations. This is definitely NOT pretty good for affordable housing, but the cheap and easy way to say you are providing affordable housing. Its a shame we do not see the benefit as well as necessity in making social housing a possibility to excel in design - it is afterall all of us who are paying, so is it not something we should be proud of? Instead we would rather hide it behind a tarp and bury our heads in shame for our lacklustre and uninterested approach to the problem.

p5

 

[maestro]

Sure this is an architecturally mediocre development but it's no reason to start ranting and raving on something unrelated and with little relevance. The planned market condominium looks no better and TCHC is building some of better look'n buildings around.

With that said, This is also a private not for profit who will own this building made possible through contributions from the various affordable housing initiatives and a discounted sales price from Verdiroc. I'm sure they are doing the best they can with the resources they have. Inspiration does come with a price tag and it's gonna take a helluva lot to convince me otherwise.

 

[Sir Novelty Fashion]

We are discounting a large segment of the population and subjecting them to "that is good enough for THEM" type situations. This is definitely NOT pretty good for affordable housing, but the cheap and easy way to say you are providing affordable housing.

Okay. So, affordable housing or not, what exactly is wrong with it?

(And let's leave aside, for the moment, the issue of the lettering on the café.)

 

[p5connex]

Its crap, that is what is wrong with it. It is social housing and should be built to higher standards than regular market condos. Why you ask? Because social housing is not a choice for those who live in it, but rather a necessity and a opportunity to live somewhere that is not a disgusting and dismal pile of shit. It is an opportunity to start, if not build on a past legacy of developing and building great architecture that happens to be social housing. In reality the argument or question should really be; what is wrong with the status-quo? Not what is truly wrong with this?

 

[urbandreamer]

^Although in the past, "social housing" was often just wooden shacks in a clearing. Those folks got off their asses and did pretty well.

Yes, this building is conservative, a c.1995 backward step in Toronto architectual history. Given the "hipster" location of wQw, stuff like this shouldn't be tolerated. We all agree Teeple's 60 Richmond E is gorgeous--why not just hire the Teeple gang again?

 

[Sir Novelty Fashion]

Its crap, that is what is wrong with it. It is social housing and should be built to higher standards than regular market condos. Why you ask? Because social housing is not a choice for those who live in it, but rather a necessity and a opportunity to live somewhere that is not a disgusting and dismal pile of shit. It is an opportunity to start, if not build on a past legacy of developing and building great architecture that happens to be social housing. In reality the argument or question should really be; what is wrong with the status-quo? Not what is truly wrong with this?

Wow.

I'm still curious: what's so wrong with this design that it's reduced you to sputtering? It's all well and good to spin this into some kind of metaphysical riddle, but I really just want to know what you don't like about it. Because if you've got nothing concrete to offer, it really does seem like you're just... saying stuff.

 

[arvelomcquaig]

Although it's certainly not hideous, it is a fairly boring, uninspired, unremarkable design. I don't think p5connex is saying that it's a particularly ugly building; rather, that it's unremarkable, and social housing should be exceptionally good.

 

[maestro]

I'm more of the mind that standing out in any way is not good for social housing. It should blend in seemlessly with any other type of housing. Ignorance is bliss.

 

[Toronto123]

There is no conspiracy to force people who will live in the affordable housing component into a hideous building. The affordable housing building will look exactly like the market condos. You may call the podium hideous and uninspired, but it was designed to mimic the existing building at 48 Abell Street. The podium is a tribute to the building that is being torn down to accommodate the new buildings. 48 Abell Street was built in 1886 and it’s design reflects the design of that era.

 

[Solaris]

Click to Enlarge

In addition to the above ... a new rendering (southwest elevation) for 180 Sudbury St:

source: http://www.180sudbury.com/

 

[interchange42]

Egads. Yuck.

This building is from an architectural era that is best not prolonged. This screams just slap something cheap together. There's certainly no attempt to make the building attractive to the eye in any way. Affordable housing does not need to be ugly. Recent TCHC buildings by Teeple and aA prove that.

42

 

[khris]

Okay after seeing that render, I've changed my mind. That's horrible. What are they thinking? It looks like the stuff built in the early 90's.

 

[Chiggly]

Before you all start ranting and raving and spewing conspiracy theories. Look at the façade of the current building and the facades of the new buildings. See anything similar? The new building podiums will look the way they do, to mimick the 1886 design of the current building. The arcs mimick the original main entrance to 48 Abell. The height of the podium is the same as the current building and the square windows also mimick the current windows at 48 Abell.

To the "khristopher" you’re right, looks like 80's design, you just got the century wrong. John Abell built his factory in 1886.

Mystery solved. No conspiracy here……….

 

[dob467]

You're kidding, right?

 

[UrbanFervour]

It still looks like 180 Sudbury's going to be a big stinking pile of EIFS dogsh*t. *BARF*