Toronto Church of Scientology | ?m | 8s

adma said:
Would you be saying that if you didn't "like the new version much better than its current form"? Because if you happen to peruse a lot of this thread, you're basically framing yourself as akin to a tasteless idiot defending his right to build a McMansion...
Click to expand...

amusing. and you, through this response are framing your self as a what?

1. it's a private building and the owners can change it as they want as long they get approval from the city.
2. I think it's better than what it currently looks like, and if I didn't think so, then that's my own personal opinion isn't it?

anything wrong with my statements? or are facts, in the eyes of some members, idiotic?

PS. McMansions builders are idiots? Then why are McMansions home to so many?
 
Last edited:
Blovertis said:
It's a "private" building... is that supposed to be an argument-ender?

Even if we lived in an imaginary world in which property holders had unfettered rights to do as they pleased, we would still be free to criticize the ugly crap that they put up. I've walked past the Scientology building every day for nearly 30 years, so, yeah, of course I have an opinion on it. And here is UD2, who has joined a forum on urban affairs, yet nonetheless seems surprised that others feel they have right to judge the architecture of our main street.
Click to expand...


interesting post from someone advocating the right to have an opinion.

yes. Private property means the owner is usually allowed to have the first opinion on what to do with it. So yes it certainly is an argument changer. For example, if you had owned the building, you would be free to not change a thing.

You can have your opinion, certainly, and so can I.

But hey, don't take it out on me. Go voice your opinion at the city. I know you might be upset at this change but I didn't make it. I'm simply choosing to accept it. Go protest outside the building or something. Get it a heritage designation. I'll throw my support behind you if you do.
 
Last edited:
thedeepend said:
Well you would say that, wouldn’t you?

These boorish and predictable patterns of response from reactionary corners of the forum are as common as dirt.

Unfortunately, there is a queue for these kinds of 'opinions', so please get in line behind all the posters who have mindlessly opined about the building on this thread, and all the other threads that pertain to protecting modernist heritage buildings in this city.
Click to expand...

I'm sincerely sorry if I have offended you. I fully sympathize with what you're saying. I mean that's the annoying thing with these internet forums; So many different views that I don't agree with. Sometimes it's so frustrating being forced to listen to differing opinions. I usually just flip out and yell at people.

But seriously though. I'm so sorry. I will in the future uphold my moral obligations and back-up my personal tastes and preferences.
 
Last edited:
UD2 said:
I'm sincerely sorry if I have offended you. I fully sympathize with what you're saying. I mean that's the annoying thing with these internet forums; So many different views that I don't agree with. Sometimes it's so frustrating being forced to listen to differing opinions. I usually just flip out and yell at people.

But seriously though. I'm so sorry. I will in the future uphold my moral obligations and back-up my personal tastes and preferences.
Click to expand...


wow, so many rebuttals, so little time.

anyway, the problem isn't that your opinion 'differs' from other people on the forum. it's that the exact same opinion gets expressed ad nauseum on this forum by a particular and peculiar minority of posters who are completely uninterested in the entire corpus of questions raised by the destruction of our modernist heritage, and yet for some odd reason known only to themselves feel the need to weigh in, in the form of some banal 'tell it like it is' riposte that only serves to underscore the fact that they know exactly nothing about modernist architecture, and have never invested a single brain cell thinking about the issues being raised. and yet, somehow they feel that their 'opinion' should have some kind of weight on a forum populated by many people who have spent years of their lives thinking about these things. its a rather odd phenomenon.
 
Thanks. I was a little too hasty in trying to be first with an early pic. The styles are similar.
 
Given the season, guys, let's all lighten up!

cartoon.jpg
bernard-schoenbaum-elderly-couple-in-modern-apartment-with-old-fashioned-porch-new-yorker-cartoon.jpg


cartoon5.jpg
cartoon6.jpg
 
Last edited:
thecharioteer said:
Good point, adma. Similar to the two Dickinson buildings at College and Bay, the Continental Can Building on the SW corner and the British-American Oil Co. On the NW corner.
Click to expand...


And at one point, *three* Dickinson buildings--and the lost one at the NE corner might be more pertinent, since it was roughly contemporary in date and stylistic approach to Continental Can. (B-A was a decade older, and still a had a touch of "Forsey Page" retardataire-Classical-Moderne in massing and material and detail. By 111 Richmond and Benvenuto, all of that retardataire was gone.)
 
adma said:
And at one point, *three* Dickinson buildings--and the lost one at the NE corner might be more pertinent, since it was roughly contemporary in date and stylistic approach to Continental Can. (B-A was a decade older, and still a had a touch of "Forsey Page" retardataire-Classical-Moderne in massing and material and detail. By 111 Richmond and Benvenuto, all of that retardataire was gone.)
Click to expand...

The central entrance and overall symmetry for example. The Dominion Modern book on Dickinson has a great analysis of the evolution of his style within Page + Steele - it would be wise and healthy reading for some on this board.
 
Last edited:
Yes it is an improvement on the present structure, remove the Christian Cross

sixrings said:
I know this might sound silly to some because they think religion is silly to begin with... That being said as a Christian I do not appreciate the "scientologists" using the Christian symbol of a Cross as its logo and I don't appreciate the use of the word "Church" in their title. They don't believe in Jesus and every religion except scientology has its own term for their religious places, mosque, temple, synagogue, church. Its not right that they are using socially accepted names and symbols to make their religion appear like its on the up and up..

The building is an improvement though.
Click to expand...


Agreed. Remove the Cross as it is a Christian symbol and that organization doesn't believe in Christ.
 
Last edited:
Xenu, please return in time to save us from this reno.

42
 
Getting ready for the big makeover. Fingers crossed they use quality materials. If so, the new building should fit in quite nicely with all the shiny new condos nearby.

scientologyj8.jpg
 
Application: Building Additions/Alterations Status: Not Started

Location: 696 YONGE ST
TORONTO ON M4Y 2A7

Ward 27: Toronto Centre-Rosedale

Application#: 13 106154 BLD 00 BA Accepted Date: Jan 15, 2013

Project: Place of Worship Interior Demolition

Description: Proposal for interior demolition in existing building "Church of Scientology" (5594m2). Fit-up drawings to come in on a later date.
 
Carlin left us way too soon, one of the most important (and quotable) comedians of our time.
 
You must log in or register to post here.

Back
Top