It's been like totally kinda forever since anyone has shot construction work on this. If anyone's in the area with a camera, we'd love an update!
42
42
Toronto 25-55 St Clair Avenue East Building Rehabilitation | ?m | 11s | PSPC | DIALOG
- Thread starter gregv
- Start date
Brother Jonathan
New Member
If nothing else, I can confirm it's still wrapped in plastic, front and back.(rear view attached) So there might not be much to see. But I'll try to remember to take a photo next time I'm in front of it.
AlbertC
Superstar
Yeah, it's more or less the same in terms of exterior progress visible to the public:
Aug 1, 2020
Aug 1, 2020
gregv
Active Member
October 20, partially unwrapped:
AlbertC
Superstar
Nov 18, 2020
Brother Jonathan
New Member
Pattern on the glass
ProjectEnd
Superstar
AlbertC
Superstar
April 2, 2021
AlexBozikovic
Active Member
Well. This manages to be both bland and oppressive.
Northern Light
Superstar
Setting aside, for one moment, any merits of the original architecture.............
Setting aside for one moment, any shortcomings in the initial renders...............
How does the above compare with this render?
it seems to me, that there are problems in this this initial render.............regardless, what we are getting doesn't seem at all like that render to me. I can't say it was materially improved on either.
This is not a condo............you're not supposed to get one thing promised and another delivered.
In this case, I could have lived with a bait and switch, were it an upgrade.............but this, is not that.
****
I'm a bit less attached to the original that some here; though I saw some merit in it, to be sure.
But if we were going to take that facade down, in order to rehab the building for sustainability reasons, surely we could have put something better than this back up!
****
A look back at @mcornett 's pic of the original from the previous page.
I can see positive design attributes that either could have been brought back in something close to their original form; or thoughtfully alluded to in a new design.
Didn't happen.
Really a need to break up the bulk here. As @AlexBozikovic notes, this thing really is oppressive.
You can see how that bulk was broken up in the original.
There was a reason for that!
Setting aside for one moment, any shortcomings in the initial renders...............
How does the above compare with this render?
it seems to me, that there are problems in this this initial render.............regardless, what we are getting doesn't seem at all like that render to me. I can't say it was materially improved on either.
This is not a condo............you're not supposed to get one thing promised and another delivered.
In this case, I could have lived with a bait and switch, were it an upgrade.............but this, is not that.
****
I'm a bit less attached to the original that some here; though I saw some merit in it, to be sure.
But if we were going to take that facade down, in order to rehab the building for sustainability reasons, surely we could have put something better than this back up!
****
A look back at @mcornett 's pic of the original from the previous page.
I can see positive design attributes that either could have been brought back in something close to their original form; or thoughtfully alluded to in a new design.
Didn't happen.
Really a need to break up the bulk here. As @AlexBozikovic notes, this thing really is oppressive.
You can see how that bulk was broken up in the original.
There was a reason for that!
Last edited:
Brother Jonathan
New Member
You actually can't see the facade in those pics (well, aside from the substantial glass portions). What I assume to be the final facade for the whole building appears to have been put up on the south west corner. It's... nothing to write home about. But it looks more like the render.
Brother Jonathan
New Member
Brother Jonathan
New Member
Maybe an evening photo would turn out better. It's all in shadow now.
Too early for me to want to weigh in: this will hinge on the quality of the masonry, none of which has been affixed yet.
42
42
