2 Carlton | 251.14m | 73s | Northam | IBI Group

Northern Light

Superstar
Member Bio
Joined
May 20, 2007
Messages
11,148
Reaction score
17,208
Location
Toronto/EY
Why must the choice be between preserving a building that most would rate somewhere between ugly and a shrug; and erecting more bland schlock that would be equally unappealing and probably less original?

Could we not insist on a better offer?

Yes, yes, I know the law .......but perhaps that's due to be revised.

In all sincerity. I don't care for the existing building. I don't find it attractive, I don't think it plays a positive role for the community in the way it appears at a distance, or the way it relates to its surroundings at grade.

There really isn't anything remarkable about it other than it's not exactly like everything else. Which is to its credit (or that of its architects) but which is somehow insufficient to me as grounds for preservation.

At the same time, I would not want it to be torn down to be replaced by something that is at best, no better, but less creative or distinct and at worst, a genuine devolvement of the site, and at greater scale no less.

I'd vote to sink the redevelopment, given a choice, until something better comes along; but I would do so less as defence of what is, than what could be.
 

Edward Skira

http://skyrisecities.com
Staff member
Member Bio
Joined
Apr 22, 2007
Messages
14,386
Reaction score
13,567
Location
Toronto
How does heritage protection have anything to do with what someone likes aesthetically is my question? I hate most of the old buildings that are protected. Doesn't mean I don't understand why they are protected. Their historical and cultural importance transcends what they actually look like.

I've always loved 2 Carlton. Not many buildings from this era still standing. It most certainly should be protected.
 

Northern Light

Superstar
Member Bio
Joined
May 20, 2007
Messages
11,148
Reaction score
17,208
Location
Toronto/EY
How does heritage protection have anything to do with what someone likes aesthetically is my question? I hate most of the old buildings that are protected. Doesn't mean I don't understand why they are protected. Their historical and cultural importance transcends what they actually look like.

I've always loved 2 Carlton. Not many buildings from this era still standing. It most certainly should be protected.

I would surmise that we very much disagree on this.

I don't believe in preserving anything merely because it's old; or because it is representative of something. We have pictures for that.

We preserve things because they have intrinsic value.

Put another way, money aside, if you wouldn't build it today, there's little or no reason to keep it.

Reasons for retention are both aesthetic and functional. If both are lost, I'm not sure why one would retain something in most cases.

There may be an argument if one is preserving something that affords critically important insight into history w/lessons for the future, say Auschwitz; or perhaps the very first building of a city/province/country/civilization for its extraordinary symbolism. I might even accept the argument of extreme novelty such as a 'pioneer village' that allows people to realize the benefits (and detriments) of a modern technological existence by having a point of comparison.

I fail to see where this building meets any of those attributes. It lacks extraordinary function, it lacks important novelty or historical lessons, it has no great symbolic value and its aesthetics are ho hum at best.

If this can be preserved so can condos by Huang & Danczkay.

We've demolished far more beautiful buildings, far more functional buildings, far more historical buildings and indeed several that were all three.
 

holographic plastic

Active Member
Member Bio
Joined
May 27, 2018
Messages
193
Reaction score
280
Location
Yorkville
I would surmise that we very much disagree on this.

I don't believe in preserving anything merely because it's old; or because it is representative of something. We have pictures for that.

We preserve things because they have intrinsic value.

Put another way, money aside, if you wouldn't build it today, there's little or no reason to keep it.

Reasons for retention are both aesthetic and functional. If both are lost, I'm not sure why one would retain something in most cases.

There may be an argument if one is preserving something that affords critically important insight into history w/lessons for the future, say Auschwitz; or perhaps the very first building of a city/province/country/civilization for its extraordinary symbolism. I might even accept the argument of extreme novelty such as a 'pioneer village' that allows people to realize the benefits (and detriments) of a modern technological existence by having a point of comparison.

I fail to see where this building meets any of those attributes. It lacks extraordinary function, it lacks important novelty or historical lessons, it has no great symbolic value and its aesthetics are ho hum at best.

If this can be preserved so can condos by Huang & Danczkay.

We've demolished far more beautiful buildings, far more functional buildings, far more historical buildings and indeed several that were all three.

It’s mediocre architecture from the late 20th century, so apparently it must be saved.
 

Thernan

Active Member
Member Bio
Joined
Aug 19, 2009
Messages
196
Reaction score
10
I know from speaking with tenants there that the owners have recently told them that the likelihood of the project proceeding soon is low. With the expansion of the Shoppers Drug Mart, they signed a 10 year lease and it has a very significant buyout clause in it that means it might only be economical near the end of said lease. Of course if the developer doesn't care but I doubt they're ready to fork over millions just to end a lease.
 

AlvinofDiaspar

Moderator
Member Bio
Joined
Apr 22, 2007
Messages
29,430
Reaction score
19,303
Location
Toronto
Enjoyable rip of read from the May DRP minutes:

https://www.toronto.ca/wp-content/u...gn-DesignReviewPanel-MtgMinutes-10May2018.pdf (p. 7-12)

Heritage Considerations & Built Form Context
The Panel felt that College/Carlton and Yonge was a very notable and distinct intersection in the city due to both the jog in the street and the significant existing architecture.

The Panel pointed out that the wall condition along Carlton St. was one of the few places where that type of "canyon" streetwall condition exists in Toronto. The Panel thought the intersection was a great, unique moment for the city and strongly felt its built character needed to be better considered by the design team when developing this proposal.
Given that the surrounding built form comes right down to the ground, the members thought it was strange to propose a built up podium and "stovepipe cap" tower. One member thought the design response was a "weird inversion" of the existing physical character and another member questioned the decision to emphasize the podium massing.

Amen.

AoD
 

.dwg

Active Member
Member Bio
Joined
Dec 28, 2017
Messages
572
Reaction score
987
I completely agree but unfortunately planning in Toronto does not allow for canyon buildings. A project without a podium and/or huge canopies and without tower setbacks is almost unthinkable to our planning department.
 

AlvinofDiaspar

Moderator
Member Bio
Joined
Apr 22, 2007
Messages
29,430
Reaction score
19,303
Location
Toronto
I completely agree but unfortunately planning in Toronto does not allow for canyon buildings. A project without a podium and/or huge canopies and without tower setbacks is almost unthinkable to our planning department.

Which is an odd thing considering this canyon (commonplace analogue in other cities) didn't create some unbearable urban condition to be avoided at all costs here and elsewhere -but produced instead a unique sense of place within the city.

AoD
 

canarob

Senior Member
Member Bio
Joined
Apr 24, 2007
Messages
1,422
Reaction score
492
Location
Markham
Build atop it in a sympathetic manner, if possible.

AoD

I think at most we might see the facade saved. Having worked in the building, the interior has no redeeming qualities and the sides of the building not facing the street are very plain. Even the exterior has been altered in the 90s with changes to the awnings and main floor retail.
 

Big Daddy

Senior Member
Member Bio
Joined
Nov 28, 2007
Messages
1,763
Reaction score
294
Location
El Toro
I
I think at most we might see the facade saved. Having worked in the building, the interior has no redeeming qualities and the sides of the building not facing the street are very plain. Even the exterior has been altered in the 90s with changes to the awnings and main floor retail.

It appears that “redeeming qualities” are not required as it pertains to heritage buildings.
 

mrxbombastic

Active Member
Member Bio
Joined
May 22, 2013
Messages
540
Reaction score
237
I don't even think think the facade necessarily needs to be preserved as such or in its current configuration, but referenced/incorporates/celebrated in the architectural language and character of the building or park
 

Top