Toronto 401 Bay Street | 143.86m | 33s | Cadillac Fairview | WZMH

Yup.

Policy wouldn't do a thing unless there's a monetary incentive for the funds and trusts that own the building.
 
Last edited:
ProjectEnd said:
Returning to the building / situation we have at hand, how do you suggest we avoid what's happening at Simpsons @adma? You've impugned @maestro's apparent lack of architectural / historical 'soul' but have proposed little in the way of a 'concrete' (yuk yuk) solution (be it policy or, well, anything really...) to right our current 'knuckle-dragging' course.

So, how do you convince / coerce / force an owner to see the light?
Click to expand...

Well, it may be baby steps, but take note of I42's post above

interchange42 said:
The City didn't recommend anything, because the owners didn't talk to anyone other than the Building Department to get a permit: no architectural consultation, because the City has never required it. FCP could have gone that way too, but they elected to consult with Planinng (Urban Design specifically). In this case, neither Urban Design nor the head of Heritage Preservation knew that things were going to change here until UrbanToronto told them. Now things are in the works to require that re-claddings face the same scrutiny as initial plans.

42
Click to expand...

Going by the last sentence especially, that's a path to progress. Remember: it's not always about the goal-scoring, it's also about the assist, or the team strategy. Which sometimes might involve overriding rather than bending to, well, "philistine" interests. "These are the conditions in place--deal with it.". Yes, there's still flexibility for variances (just as in historical restoration, fiberglass can often be substituted for plaster when it comes to relief sculpture); but the ship is tighter, and for the better.

Same way the Rosedale HCDs pulled through--by overriding the hack real estate interests that'd declare such measures to be a "disaster".

And incidentally, the "until UrbanToronto told them" didn't come through the Forum--it came through the UT main page. Which actually holds more authority, much as (to take a crass example) newspaper articles contain more authority than comment threads. Sure, the conclusions here might *derive* (however selectively) from comment thread/Forum discussions, but...
 
You keeping bring up Rosedale as if this is remotely comparable.

This is a costly job with little value gained for the owners. It is only being done because of the deteriorated facade's unsalvageable state. No one goes through re-skins to update the aesthetics which is the impression you keep giving us . Your answer also doesn't provide any better solution to what is happening. One could have been to use a EIFS type panel system with a light weight concrete finish instead of the usual stucco, glass spandrel and, aluminum sandwich panels
 
maestro said:
You keeping bring up Rosedale as if this is remotely comparable.

This is a costly job with little value gained for the owners. It is only being done because of the deteriorated facade's unsalvageable state. No one goes through re-skins to update the aesthetics which is the impression you keep giving us . Your answer also doesn't provide any better solution to what is happening. One could have been to use a EIFS type panel system with a light weight concrete finish instead of the usual stucco, glass spandrel and, aluminum sandwich panels
Click to expand...

Yes, why not re something like the latter? ("EIFS type" isn't evil, it's just the matter in which it's applied.) And try to arrive at a solution that's a reasonable aesthetic match/equivalent to what's already there. (A variation of my fibreglass-replacing-plaster argument.)

Look: my answer "doesn't provide any better solution" ***because I am not a technical expert***. *However*, laws and provisos in place can generate the incentive to *seek and generate* such solutions. So--you're offering a constructive cue there. I mean, it's not going to remedy *this* at the present; but when it comes to the if-one-had-to-start-all-over-again hypothetical, that's how sensitive solutions are arrived at.

In fact, when I think of it and of how you dismiss my bringing up Rosedale, it seems that you bring a particular technical/economic bias to your arguments (even when generically discussing old buildings, never mind this case in particular), whereas my bias is more architectural/urbanistic/historical. And our respective strengths are, in effect, the other side's weaknesses--that's why Rosedale doesn't compute for you; you don't speak "my" (or rather "that", if I may keep myself out of this) lingo.

Though when it comes to "historically-minded" perspectives, this reasoned-enough argument I recently came across might be more congruent to your natural bias.
http://activehistory.ca/2017/02/history-and-historical-preservation/
 
Fair article but, it still doesn't quite separate the tearing down of plaster walls to increase bedroom sizes over opening up walls to replace knob and tube wiring, lead pipes, to preform abatements and, a greyer area, add insulation to improve efficiency.

There are many renovated, copper filled households in Toronto that have been informed not to drink their tap water because of the remnants of a lead supply pipe in the short distance between the city owned boundary and the basement wall of their homes. It's not just an aesthetic upgrade as the article makes it out to be.
 
An apropos tweet from the Toronto Archives today:

image.jpeg
 

Attachments

  • image.jpeg
    image.jpeg
    193.8 KB · Views: 577
So far it's not as bad as the rendering:

dr2ko0.jpg


The blue cladding is what robbed it of much of its unique character. Instead, they've been closely matching the glass to its previous colour, including the cement portions. Standalone, that colour is ugly but in a large span, it might end up looking good.

To play devil's advocate, First Canadian Place replaced its Italian Carrera marble with glass and the result is a much nicer looking tower in my opinion.

Where I think they're going overboard is in modifying the crown. If they left that alone, they could have been delivering a hansom modernization of this tower. I'm curious how they're going to handle the concrete columns.
 
I quite like the revamp of 488 University so far, the cross bracing and glass work well for me. The rising tower above is another question however- but might work ok. What puzzles me more than anything about the Simpsons project is the redesign of the top. Why not just reclad which matching colour scheme and keep the same lighting fixture. FirstCan was refreshed successfully without dramatically altering the appearance of the building. The top of the Simpsons building in the redesign just looks clumsy and ill considered, I would like to know what the thought process was to arrive at this.. it truly is bizarre.
 
You must log in or register to post here.

Back
Top