Toronto Church of Scientology | ?m | 8s

cruzin4u said:
If you have looked at my photo updates, I post far more than "sleep-inducing updates" that you speak of. I have covered everything from Sync Lofts in the East end to Fuzion King in the West end. I have covered projects that often times have not been covered and even photographed some of our favourite projects. If you do not like my photo updates, no problem at all.

I simply do not like adma's self righteous attitude. Judging by his visitor messages, a good amount of people don't. We are all entitled to our opinions about the Scientology building, but unfortunately adma's opinion seems to matter the most. With that said, I do not like the updated render of the building, nor am I a fan of the building in it's current form. There - that's my opinion. And just because you may have over 12,000 posts does not mean that you are free to roam the forums like some sort of god. I only have 900 posts, most of which are photo updates. I guess that makes me sub-human?
Click to expand...

i'd just like to point out that it was you who chose to attack Adma, not the other way around.
and you know what? when it comes to issues related to preservation, history, urbanism, modernism and any number of other things, his opinion on the forum does matter more than a lot of others, for the simple reason that he knows a great deal more. deal with it.
 
adma said:
Y'know, I remember a few years ago when UT regulars were devastatingly (if maybe sometimes overzealously) merciless re a lot of the cheap claptrap proposed and/or executed in the Y-D Square zone--primary stuff like Toronto Life Square and the Torch, secondary stuff like Hakim, etc. Now, I'm encountering oodles of defence of this, er, rancid and destructive piece of third-rate architectural sewage simply on amateurishly-untutored-BlogTO-commenter grounds of "freshening up" and "adding colour" and whatnot. I shake my head--no wonder people like Urban Shocker et al have given up on the forum, when these kinds of taste-yokels hog the scenery...
Click to expand...

Art/aesthetics is subjective and divisive, and way it affects people and why it affects people has nothing to do with their knowledge or lack thereof. The idea that there can be a consensus about architecture and that you belong to that consensus simply because you are an "expert" is laughable. Even if you are truly an "expert" on architecture, you obviously know nothing about art or aesthetics. You are a philistine.

Btw, this reno is garbage.
 
Any more personal attacks in this thread will result in temporary bans for those pursuing that line. Sorry, but that's how it is. Discuss the buildings' faults, not each other's.

42
 
cruzin4u said:
I edited my post to put this in. Perhaps I was a bit out of line and I do apologize for that. I really am not one to create conflict, especially on a forum. In the end, I do not want people to be afraid to post on this forum. I'll be the first to admit, I do not know much about architecture, but that shouldn't stop me from posting how I feel about buildings - should it? If I were to say, "I do not like the Scientology building in it's current form with it's sexy AC units hanging out the windows and I'd much rather see the building torn down" - then I should have the right to say that and not feel guilty about it. In the end, let's continue on with discussion about the building. Once again, my apologies.
Click to expand...

Though if you do notice btw/the lines, the counter-argument is more or less "even if there's a certain grotty sexiness to the Scientology building in it's current form with AC units hanging out the windows, it'd be much better for all parties considered if the building were sensitively rehabilitated and restored". Then we wouldn't be having these tear-it-down choruses.

Which may be where "knowing something about architecture"--or for that matter, a broader, inherently "informed" appreciation of existing urban fabric as something other than an obtuse blank slate for neato new construction and transformation--helps. All the more so when the proposed reclad/reconstruction is on this tinpot aesthetic level--no better than the EIFS rebuild of the Victorian shops at the other end of the block on Yonge (not that *their* previous status quo was worth retaining, of course).

And big deal if it's Scientology--after all, one may offer (however snarkily) that they have enough arts/cultural-field people within their grip that ought to motivate them to "try better"...
 
Last edited:
urbandreamer said:
It's like taking an aA building and spraying it in EIFS. Offensive.
Click to expand...

I was on the fence at first, because the existing building is dull but basically fine. This comment decided it for me: bring on the new look!

The best thing about the render is the hint of a spire in the canted top floor. Of course that's the kind of thing that often looks good in the render but is shite in reality, so we'll see...
 
Last edited:
Bogtrotter said:
They're both equally prosaic, however I do agree the new one with the red panellions does have more shite potential.
Click to expand...

Paradoxically, the decades of deliriously un-reno'd physical stasis has taken Scientology out of the realm of the "prosaic"--as it stands, it's like the Early Toronto Modern office building version of Grey Gardens. Like, all that once might have seemed "prosaic" is now larger-than-life in its sheer survival--we probably wouldn't be having *quite* this discussion had the building been *harrumph* "freshened up" in the 80s or 90s...
 
Ugly. It looks like something from a teenage boy's imagination.

The grey and black will be as (in)effective as Trump's grey and green.

Send it off to Markham.

The building would look great with a good cleaning, new windows, and windows in lieu of marble at the ground floor. I hate the swap of bricks for aluminum in this city. These buildings look like pop cans.
 
I can't believe all the jabs from members towards Scientology and Christianity. Let people believe what they want to believe. Not your job to say what a certain religion is.

About the building, I actually love it. Major improvement! Some may call it bland since it uses the same materials that every other building uses, but adding the red accent really sets it apart so the building doesn't look "drabby" and "boring". I also love the diagonal curve on the roof near the corner of the building. Looks like they are adding some ceiling space on the top floor!

Is anyone else getting CBC vibes from the rendering?

toronto050-225x300.jpg
 
The folks here slamming this proposal strike me as a little bit knee-jerk reactionaries. Honestly, I am all for preservation. This proposal is to preserve the building, in a way that maintains and enhances its classic modernist lines.

I mean, how much difference can you see in the design aesthetic behind this:

scientology1.jpg


and say this?

6013519528_151f0c43ca_z.jpg
 
Dude, the proposed changes for the building are not "Modernist" lines whatsoever. It doesn't preserve the building's character at all, removing its horizontal bands and chopping the building up with those vertical features and adding that vaulted corner.

You can't just compare those two photos and claim that because the aesthetics of the pictured buildings look similar to you, that both are examples of modernism.
 
k10ery said:
The folks here slamming this proposal strike me as a little bit knee-jerk reactionaries. Honestly, I am all for preservation. This proposal is to preserve the building, in a way that maintains and enhances its classic modernist lines.

I mean, how much difference can you see in the design aesthetic behind this:

and say this?
Click to expand...

how much time do you have?
 
devjohnson said:
About the building, I actually love it. Major improvement! Some may call it bland since it uses the same materials that every other building uses, but adding the red accent really sets it apart so the building doesn't look "drabby" and "boring". I also love the diagonal curve on the roof near the corner of the building. Looks like they are adding some ceiling space on the top floor!
Click to expand...

adma said:
Y'know, I remember a few years ago when UT regulars were devastatingly (if maybe sometimes overzealously) merciless re a lot of the cheap claptrap proposed and/or executed in the Y-D Square zone--primary stuff like Toronto Life Square and the Torch, secondary stuff like Hakim, etc. Now, I'm encountering oodles of defence of this, er, rancid and destructive piece of third-rate architectural sewage simply on amateurishly-untutored-BlogTO-commenter grounds of "freshening up" and "adding colour" and whatnot. I shake my head--no wonder people like Urban Shocker et al have given up on the forum, when these kinds of taste-yokels hog the scenery...
Click to expand...

devjohnson said:
Is anyone else getting CBC vibes from the rendering?
Click to expand...

no.
 
thedeepend said:
how much time do you have?
Click to expand...

I'm posting in the middle of the day on a Monday. Clearly I have all the time in the world! Seriously, I would like to hear the reasoned case against the building. Without another flamewar hopefully.

SP!RE said:
Dude, the proposed changes for the building are not "Modernist" lines whatsoever. It doesn't preserve the building's character at all, removing its horizontal bands and chopping the building up with those vertical features and adding that vaulted corner.

You can't just compare those two photos and claim that because the aesthetics of the pictured buildings look similar to you, that both are examples of modernism.
Click to expand...

You know you've struck a chord when you get "duded" around here. I'll let the logic of this post speak for itself.
 
You must log in or register to post here.

Back
Top