Toronto Church of Scientology | ?m | 8s

thedeepend said:
i think it probably had something to do with the haste with which they seem to be moving...the building sustained quite a grievous blow. i can only imagine how much it would cost to repair that kind of damage, and the shattered marble is almost certainly irreplaceable....
Click to expand...

Isn't it possible that the quarry where the marble came from is still operational, or that there are surplus pieces somewhere in the world? You can replace all sorts of stone.
 
It's worth noting that a few years ago, a car rammed into the Sterling Tower at Richmond and Bay--you can see the tell-tale change in colour in the replacement marble panel at street level...
 
wow the discussion. It's a private building that's by no means a classic of any kind. I think in this regard unless one is prepared to pay for the changes, we should respect the owner's decisions. I like the new version much better than its current form.
 
UD2 said:
wow the discussion. It's a private building that's by no means a classic of any kind. I think in this regard unless one is prepared to pay for the changes, we should respect the owner's decisions. I like the new version much better than its current form.
Click to expand...

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...
 
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...

+1
 
UD2 said:
It's a private building that's by no means a classic of any kind...I like the new version much better than its current form.
Click to expand...

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.
 
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.
 
Automation Gallery said:
+1
Click to expand...

+1

I am kind of sick of the speech tyranny displayed by certain arrogrant members here who can't tolerate any different opinions about what is good and what is not. We should be less lenient about their personal attacks despite the amount of previous contribution to the forum or any personal acquaintance level. Members shouldn't be deterred from expressing their own opinions toward all matters, let it be considered stupid or tasteless. This is a public forum, not an expert panel.
 
balenciaga said:
I am kind of sick of the speech tyranny displayed by certain arrogrant members here who can't tolerate any different opinions about what is good and what is not.
Click to expand...

Everyone has a right to express their views, but they also have moral obligation to back them up. The proponents of this reno have had little to say other than: "The old building is so run down" and "I like red -- the street needs a little colour". There is no substance to their comments, no attempt to address the building as architecture or heritage, just an apparent fascination with the new.
 
Blovertis said:
Everyone has a right to express their views, but they also have moral obligation to back them up. The proponents of this reno have had little to say other than: "The old building is so run down" and "I like red -- the street needs a little colour". There is no substance to their comments, no attempt to address the building as architecture or heritage, just an apparent fascination with the new.
Click to expand...

I am sure educating them would be more effective than naming calling.
Will you call your children/friends "idiots" when they out of the lack of knowledge in certain field make senseless comments?
Plus just to express the desire of more color is legitimate as well. Not being an architecture doesn't mean one can't comment on buildings. How many of us here are professional architects who have ever designed a building anyway.
 
Blovertis said:
Everyone has a right to express their views, but they also have moral obligation to back them up. The proponents of this reno have had little to say other than: "The old building is so run down" and "I like red -- the street needs a little colour". There is no substance to their comments, no attempt to address the building as architecture or heritage, just an apparent fascination with the new.
Click to expand...

The most laughable thing about these kneejerk comments about ‘much needed’ colour is how uniformed they are about the reality of this stretch of the street.

I mean how much ‘red’ do we want in one block of buildings?

red_zps8c410a4c.gif
 
The reclad may be gaudy but anything is better than the 3rd world craphole that sits there now.

Those of you calling it elegant obviously don't have to walk past it every day.
 
You must log in or register to post here.

Back
Top