Toronto 1140 Yonge Street | 44.95m | 10s | Devron Developments | AUDAX

I too am curious about this. There are municipal, provincial and even federal guidelines for the treatment of historic structures and all of them basically boil down to: 'don't make the new look like the old.' 1140 Yonge is in fact a listed structure, so I'm left wondering how HPS is going to evaluate this proposal.

City of Toronto's Heritage Property Search

A source for published information on Toronto Heritage Buildings.
app.toronto.ca
 
JT20 said:
I wonder if putting a glass box is a better compliment by way of contrast or a design that is consistent.
Click to expand...
I would say that this is a false dichotomy. The choices aren't just "faux heritage" or "glass box" -- it's possible to design something here with solidity that still reads as modern. Given the Passivhaus goals here, a glass box wouldn't be on the table anyway.
 
smably said:
I've been pondering this building, and while it promises a more competently executed version of faux heritage than most attempts (One St Thomas being the other standout example), the thing that's bugging me is that there is an *actual* heritage building on this site that this design renders illegible. Don't get me wrong, I'm thrilled that they are restoring the original heritage facade, which is currently butchered almost beyond recognition. But respectful adaptive reuse of heritage buildings draws a clear distinction between what is old and what is new, and this design does not do that. When I saw the renders, I didn't even register at first that the first two storeys were a heritage facade.
Click to expand...
Thank you for putting into words what I was a bit fearful to say here. /bows
 
smably said:
I would say that this is a false dichotomy. The choices aren't just "faux heritage" or "glass box" -- it's possible to design something here with solidity that still reads as modern. Given the Passivhaus goals here, a glass box wouldn't be on the table anyway.
Click to expand...

I disagree that you can't tell the heritage part from the modern part. The materials and colours are different. But does it have to be "Modern" in style as in Modernist or Neo Modern?

The heritage building was once a modern building. "Modern" simply refers to whatever we feel like building today. There is no moral obligation to choose Modernism.
 
I'm not opposed to historicism in architecture, though to be honest it's not usually my cup of tea. My concern here is specifically the relationship between the heritage building and a modern addition that tries to imitate it. On the site for this project, there's a quote from the architect --
...Inspired by beautifully proportioned and detailed turn of the century apartment buildings, the design derives its language from the context and from the existing Pierce Arrow building below... The building is crowned with east and west loggias comprised of three vaulted arches of the same scale and proportion as the arches of the original building at street level.
Click to expand...

Sure, the materials and colours are different. But that's often the case with the tower-on-podium form, even when there is no heritage involved. Just this morning, I saw some renderings for a building with brick on the first two storeys, followed by a setback and change of materials above. Reproducing the scale and proportion of the ground-floor arches ten storeys up in the same volume just muddies the waters further.

This is an unusually deep lot -- measuring on Google, it seems to be about 70m deep with around 40m of frontage on Yonge. If the architectural style is non-negotiable, I'd much rather see it pulled back from Yonge so the Pierce-Arrow building stands on its own, with the new structure behind it. I'm sure the neighbours wouldn't be happy, but this is within a block of Yonge, steps from a subway station, so I can't say I have much sympathy.
 
Last edited:
I concur. Where the heritage building ends and where the new building starts is difficult to tell to those who don't know about the original structure....which is likely most everyone. I find that both problematic and distracting to the heritage part that should be showcased, IMO.
 
smably said:
I'm not opposed to historicism in architecture, though to be honest it's not usually my cup of tea. My concern here is specifically the relationship between the heritage building and a modern addition that tries to imitate it. On the site for this project, there's a quote from the architect --


Sure, the materials and colours are different. But that's often the case with the tower-on-podium form, even when there is no heritage involved. Just this morning, I saw some renderings for a building with brick on the first two storeys, followed by a setback and change of materials above. Reproducing the scale and proportion of the ground-floor arches ten storeys up in the same volume implies just muddies the waters further.

This is an unusually deep lot -- measuring on Google, it seems to be about 70m deep with around 40m of frontage on Yonge. If the architectural style is non-negotiable, I'd much rather see it pulled back from Yonge so the Pierce-Arrow building stands on its own, with the new structure behind it. I'm sure the neighbours wouldn't be happy, but this is within a block of Yonge, steps from a subway station, so I can't say I have much sympathy.
Click to expand...
The standard that Heritage Preservation Services usually uses is a 5m setback above a heritage facade, though that varies on a site-by-site basis (i.e. Burano, Waterworks, KING Toronto). I think they will also ask for a more faithful replication of the original windows, which were much more elegant than the rather chunky mullions version shown here.
 
smably said:
I've been pondering this building, and while it promises a more competently executed version of faux heritage than most attempts (One St Thomas being the other standout example), the thing that's bugging me is that there is an *actual* heritage building on this site that this design renders illegible. Don't get me wrong, I'm thrilled that they are restoring the original heritage facade, which is currently butchered almost beyond recognition. But respectful adaptive reuse of heritage buildings draws a clear distinction between what is old and what is new, and this design does not do that. When I saw the renders, I didn't even register at first that the first two storeys were a heritage facade.
Click to expand...
smably said:
I would say that this is a false dichotomy. The choices aren't just "faux heritage" or "glass box" -- it's possible to design something here with solidity that still reads as modern. Given the Passivhaus goals here, a glass box wouldn't be on the table anyway.
Click to expand...
Looking around the web, what I see as criticisms of this building are that it's not contextual, that it lacks Toronto precedents, or that it doesn't distinguish itself enough from the original building.

IMO- this policy of architectural separation is a policy that emerged out of the late crises of modernism (a loss of faith in its ability to inherently improve its context, rather than to sidestep/banalize), and the consequently obsessive nature in both preserving the 'old, dead architectures' while 'respectfully' distancing them from the 'new, alive, modern forms'- a courtesy ironically often not extended to dated modern architectural works which get subsumed into newer, trendier designs.

Furthermore, the insistence of 'faux' is again revealing of the current discourse in the architectural field- I am not insisting on the mimicry of 'traditional' elements like the fussy dictatorial neo-traditionalists, but 'faux' vs 'modern', implies another dichotomy that has long presumed a Fukuyama-esque 'end-of-history' scenario where modernist architecture and its outgrowths are the only acceptable 'progressive' forms of architecture going forward, while any other architectural elements or ornamentation are perpetually relegated as being 'fake', 'pastiche', or 'inauthentic'- essentially creating forbidden classes of architectural forms within the current architectural zeitgeist.

junctionist said:
I disagree that you can't tell the heritage part from the modern part. The materials and colours are different. But does it have to be "Modern" in style as in Modernist or Neo Modern?

The heritage building was once a modern building. "Modern" simply refers to whatever we feel like building today. There is no moral obligation to choose Modernism.
Click to expand...
Like what junctionist said- what dictates 'modernism' in 'modern'?

I say live and let live- no need to fuss about ideological purity if the design is a considered one! The building seems to have already gone through consultation with its neighbours and councillor (https://1140yonge.com/timeline/) in 2019, who likely have commented on its design. But for those who might be surprised to see this building for the first time, IMO- if this building lacked the arches and cornices, and was clad in metal, it would not be generating the hand-wringing it is right now (i.e. see the lack of fuss most midrises in Toronto generate- even those integrating historical elements in far less respectful manners). Yet if we conversely loosen the preconceptions and the historicizing mindset in how we approach 'heritage' and what constitutes 'realness', then this building is no longer disturbing in the first place!

UtakataNoAnnex said:
Thank you for putting into words what I was a bit fearful to say here. /bows
Click to expand...
You should never be afraid to say what you think- a forum is for discussion after all.
 
Last edited:
jje1000 said:
Looking around the web, what I see as criticisms of this building are that it's not contextual, that it lacks Toronto precedents, or that it doesn't distinguish itself enough from the original building.
Click to expand...
I hope we're on the same page that the only argument among these that I've advanced is the last one!

jje1000 said:
Like what junctionist said- what dictates 'modernism' in 'modern'?
Click to expand...
I regret using the word "modern", when what I really meant was "distinct". I will leave the debate about historicism vs. modernism to others as it's already been debated pretty extensively both on this forum and elsewhere and feels only tangentially related to my concerns about legibility of heritage.

jje1000 said:
But for those who might be surprised to see this building for the first time, IMO- if this building lacked the arches and cornices, and was clad in metal, it would not be generating the hand-wringing it is right now (i.e. see the lack of fuss most midrises in Toronto generate- even those integrating historical elements in far less respectful manners).
Click to expand...
Maybe you're referring to reactions from elsewhere around the web, but I haven't seen any evidence of "hand-wringing" in this thread. The majority of the reactions to this design were positive, many of them effusively so! (And conversely, I've seen plenty of fuss about facadism on this forum, and rightly so, for more typical midrise designs that take a lazy approach to heritage preservation.)
 
I appreciate the point @smably is making about distinguishing new and old, though. Part of the point of heritage preservation is to keep physical connections to our past in existence in our public spaces, so that people can think about our history as they go about their daily lives. If passersby are unlikely to realize a facade is historic because the lines between new and old have been blurred so much, then heritage preservation is being turned into a mere "pretty wallpaper" for new buildings.

It's supposed to be more than just an aesthetic exercise. Heritage buildings are supposed to engage people with the history of the place they're located in. Otherwise, there's the risk that the facades will be neglected and removed as they start to appear rundown again.

I think this building is probably on the right track for several reasons, but it's also walking a thin line. It's on the right track because the new facade has different materials and a different colour than the old. The new facade is also set back from the old facade along Yonge Street. There's a three-dimensional distinction of old and new. On the other hand, the arches around the windows on the heritage facade are similar in colour to the new facade. The windows are almost identical. You have to maintain the distinction between new and old in the finer details, while still harmonizing new and old.
 
Devron are hosting a virtual open house for this project on Wednesday, July 8th at 6 PM:

Link:

1140yonge.com

Home Page - 1140 Yonge

Modal Popup – ID Click here to edit the "Modal Popup" settings. This text will not be visible on frontend. Welcome to 1140 Yonge, our proposal for a new residence where Rosedale and Summerhill meet Connect with the team A building befitting 1140 Yonge’s Legacy We are committed to realizing a...
1140yonge.com 1140yonge.com


 
Last edited:
20200712_083050.jpg
20200712_083102.jpg
20200712_083805.jpg
20200712_083813.jpg
 
You must log in or register to post here.

Back
Top