News   Dec 20, 2024
UrbanToronto Year-End Poll: Vote on the Best Buildings of 2024, presented by Sapphire Balconies
 1.5K     7 
News   Dec 20, 2024
UrbanToronto's Social Media Presence Skyrocketed in 2024
 971     2 
News   Dec 20, 2024
Mattamy Homes Records A Year of Accomplishments
 1.8K     0 

TCHC: 501 Adelaide E / 288 King E (14s, aA)

I'm fond of some of the co-ops that were done in the 1990's (the golden age of new cooperative developments in Toronto). I've always thought it was obvious that architects could take greater risks with such buildings since they did not have to appeal to a wide audience of buyers. This is sometimes good; and sometimes bad - since for social housing some risks that were taken on behalf of the future clients did not pan out so much.

See here for some of the co-ops built in the 1990's. Margaret Laurence and that block is a mess, but some of the others are quite good.
 
Glass going up.
 

Attachments

  • IMG_1465.jpg
    IMG_1465.jpg
    76.5 KB · Views: 355
  • IMG_1466.jpg
    IMG_1466.jpg
    68.5 KB · Views: 299
Archivist said:
I'm fond of some of the co-ops that were done in the 1990's (the golden age of new cooperative developments in Toronto). I've always thought it was obvious that architects could take greater risks with such buildings since they did not have to appeal to a wide audience of buyers. This is sometimes good; and sometimes bad - since for social housing some risks that were taken on behalf of the future clients did not pan out so much.

See here for some of the co-ops built in the 1990's. Margaret Laurence and that block is a mess, but some of the others are quite good.
Click to expand...

The Older Women's Co-op and Old York Tower stuck out for me. Very nice and timeless. I notice the buildings liek to use brick alot on the facades, but if done correctly, it actually looks inviting and fitting within the surrounding urban landscape. I hope the current batch of TCHC housing with its glass panels will acheive the same effect.
 
While blank walls are not the most pleasing to look at, i like how they attempted to make the west wall a bit more appealing with the varying shades of grey
 
Very nice indeed ... unfortunately, I don't know if the future residents will appreciate its architecture as much as we do.
 
cdr108 said:
Very nice indeed ... unfortunately, I don't know if the future residents will appreciate its architecture as much as we do.
Click to expand...

I don't see why they wouldn't. Money and taste do not necessarily go hand in hand.

In general though, I think most people see they place they live first and foremost as "home." I can go for a walk and look at a building or see a picture of it on the internet and analyze its architecture, but I rarely do that when I'm walking up to my front door. Its like looking at a painting hanging in an art gallery vs. one hanging in my living room. In the first instance you know you're at the gallery to engage with the painting on a deeper level, to focus on it. In the second, you know its there and you know you like it (or don't for that matter), but it stays for the most part on the backburner.

People who work in the TD Centre probably don't appreciate the architecture there as much as we do on this forum. They see it primarily as a place of work and not as a work of art. That doesn't mean that they don't appreciate it, just not as much as a few architecture junkies on a forum about architecture.

The people who will live here will appreciate it in their own way that might not be the same as ours. I don't think that's unfortunate and I don't think it's tied to their socio-economic status at all as you seem to be suggesting (sorry if I misinterpretted your meaning).
 
Buildings like that little low rise are good for the city. I'm always pleased to see them stuck in the middle.
 
You must log in or register to post here.

Back
Top