Toronto The Berczy | 41.76m | 13s | Concert | Arcadis

Bah. An overly wrought crap-assed modernist hat on one hll of an imposter of a podium. Granted, the podium lines up well with its neighbours, but I can't say I'm a fan of this historicist babble. Nouvel's (and others) buildings in Berlin, for example, are a far better example in my opinion of how to fit a building of the current age into a historical context.
A pox on all second-rate architects and developers, who sell historicist sanke oil to the masses.
 
Junglab, what you say echoes through my head like a rallying cry. I'll meet you at the barricades, lit torch in hand!

42
 
Why does everyone think that using Brick is just some historicist babble? Last time i checked Mozo was mostly brick on the first 7 floors.
 
I also don't understand why the Papillon/Keg buildings need to be demolished.
Click to expand...

Because there is money to be made. If Toronto Street was expendable, then surely Church Street doesn't stand a chance. It's too bad, it has a cute old Bostonish feel too it. Say bye bye...


 
one of the building facing the wrecking ball is a drab mid century lowrise with a cheesy faux- historical paint job and another, a 5 storey turn-of-the-century loft building, will have its ass end removed (probably another in there too)
 
Interchange42 - I'll bring the pitchforks!
Jayomatic - bricks do not equal historicist babble - using them to construct a building that pretends to derive from an age long past, however, does. Mozo and others merely prove my point - you can make buildings (even brick buildings) look good without resorting to tripe like this.
Just don't get me started again on the hack-job modernist component...
 
unimaginative2 said:
Haha. That's what they said about Pennsylvania Station.

I phoned the planner's number on the sign out front as soon as this project was announced a year or so ago. I'm glad to see it has been revised to something a little less terrible. I'd love to see this building on any other site. The problem is that the rendering is very sharply cut off. What comes to the south of that mid-rise section? I also think that the mid-rise area is too tall right across from the Flatiron which is the focal point of the neighbourhood. I also don't understand why the Papillon/Keg buildings need to be demolished. They're in perfectly good shape; as good as any other older building in the city.
Click to expand...

I agree. The Papelbon and Keg buildings should stay.
 
Ed007Toronto said:
The Papillon/Keg buildings are only interesting IMHO due to the vines growing on their facades.
Click to expand...

You're right that they aren't of any great architectural significance in and of themselves, but they are significant as part of a heritage district. They contribute to the feel of Toronto's oldest neighbourhood in a way that a condo never could.
 
You must log in or register to post here.

Back
Top