Toronto Church of Scientology | ?m | 8s

Blovertis said:
Case in point.
Click to expand...

Why thank you very much for singling me out.

I don't address the building as heritage because it isn't heritage, and don't address the building as architecture because there is nothing special about it. It is a generic 60's/70's modernist midrise box that is a dime a dozen, kept in such terrible shape that 1970's Bronx would reject it. I spent way too many walks from work to Union being abused by this repulsive eyesore to even consider this thing worth a penny. Also anybody with any knowledge of my posting history (or any clue at all) would know that I am not on with "an apparent fascination with the new", and am in fact the complete opposite.

So again, thank you very much, have a nice day on that high horse of yours, and enjoy my ignore list.
 
Last edited:
The_Architect said:
I don't address the building as heritage because it isn't heritage,
Click to expand...

not true.

The_Architect said:
and don't address the building as architecture because there is nothing special about it.
Click to expand...

not true.

The_Architect said:
It is a generic 60's/70's modernist midrise box
Click to expand...

building is from 1954.

The_Architect said:
that is a dime a dozen,
Click to expand...

please direct us to the dozens of other early modernist buildings like this one in the city.

The_Architect said:
kept in such terrible shape that 1970's Bronx would reject it.
Click to expand...

not sure what '1970's Bronx' has to do with anything. nor am i sure of the means by which they 'would reject it'.

The_Architect said:
I spent way too many walks from work to Union being abused by this repulsive eyesore to even consider this thing worth a penny.
Click to expand...

i'm sorry to hear that you feel you have been abused by this building.
 
thedeepend said:
i'm sorry to hear that you feel you have been abused by this building.
Click to expand...

I'm sorry to hear that you are such a miserable human being.

Why do you feel the need to continually harass people that don't feel the same way you do in regards to the Scientology building? You literally sit here refreshing this thread just to take a stab at someone that has a different opinion than you. I am sure the building appreciates the devotion you have to it - perhaps you will find a piece of marble under your Christmas tree. But being the Grinch that you are, you will probably not have any gifts at all.

Not everyone has the same hard on for the building as you do. Why can't you learn to accept that?
 
thedeepend said:
...please direct us to the dozens of other early modernist buildings like this one in the city.
Click to expand...

Right. This building is special because it came a good ten years before modernism completely took over in this city and became the default style. By the sixties and seventies, they were stamping out boxes by the dozen and they came to have a generic look. This one has a warmer, almost "craftsy" feel -- it has something to do with the windows, and I'm sure that design was anything but off-the-shelf back then.
 
Last edited:
cruzin4u said:
I am sure the building appreciates the devotion you have to it - perhaps you will find a piece of marble under your Christmas tree. But being the Grinch that you are, you will probably not have any gifts at all.
Click to expand...

#sarcasmfail there man.
 
thecharioteer said:
You're right.

Reading list Number 1:

1384.jpg


Case Study Number 1: Schocken Department Store by Erich Mendelsohn, Chiemnitz, 1926-28:

Let's discuss!
Click to expand...


http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Columbushaus

Potsdamer_Platz_mit_Columbushaus_1932_zps74b7b1d8.jpg
 
Great example.

An oddly-missed point in this thread has been that if we all seem to agree that Scientology / Scientologists are 'somewhat nutty' (to put it politely), why are some defending the way they're 'rehabilitating' their home. E.g. Aren't the person(s) with the fewest eggs in their 'brain basket' the one(s) most unqualified to undertake something of this unfortunate magnitude? Or, for a more 'local' example, how someone with the most ostentatious, "I'M-AN-ARCHITECT" handle seems to be the one least in the know when it comes to...well...anything architectural?
 
balenciaga said:
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.
Click to expand...

Except that the same "freedom of speech" that allows for such possibly ignorant judgment can also allow for the judgment of said judgment, no? Otherwise, such opinions would disappear in an unchecked "have your say" haze. I mean, it may not be literally a show-your-credential-badge "expert panel"; but experts of one sort or another linger here, like it or not. And if they happen to "define" a lot of the discourse...well, the cream will rise. Otherwise, you'd get the blathering trollfests that are newspaper comments pages, realms where "experts" bailed long ago.

And now, to another poster...

==================

The_Architect said:
It is a generic 60's/70's modernist midrise box
Click to expand...

You know, for you to get the date so blatantly wrong, I wouldn't trust you on any judgment of postwar modernism, any more than I'd trust a Teabagger with spelling. I don't have to address anything else in your post. Just that date. Sorry.

---------

Though one thing that's come to mind via this discussion: maybe in terms of Toronto, there's a potential new definition of the term "to Google", i.e. to retain and sympathetically restore a midcentury modern building (i.e. "it'd be real neat if Scientology opted to Google its HQ rather than recladding it")
 
ProjectEnd said:
Great example.

An oddly-missed point in this thread has been that if we all seem to agree that Scientology / Scientologists are 'somewhat nutty' (to put it politely), why are some defending the way they're 'rehabilitating' their home. E.g. Aren't the person(s) with the fewest eggs in their 'brain basket' the one(s) most unqualified to undertake something of this unfortunate magnitude?
Click to expand...

Yet, Scientology is a funny thing. How come they have so many "arts and culture types" in their ranks, after all? Given that, maybe they ought to be as discerning as other "funny sects" like Christian Science, or a, er, "TV preacher" like Robert Schuller. Maybe they should bow to that "discerning side", i.e. the "Beck Hansen" types rather than the generic come-in-for-an-IQ-test nutters...
 
Don't forget Mies's office building projects of the 1920s, which probably set the paradigm for the wraparound-window office building aesthetic (as followed by Mendelsohn at Columbushaus, etc)

CRI_211926.jpg
 
I think it is the willful ignorance and lack of deference to those who are knowledgable in the subject matter that is bumming me out on the UT board lately. Thanks all for sharing the style info and pictures, giving background on why this building matters as is designed. Education is key.
 
Does anyone know of a picture of 696 Yonge when the building was new? I recall having seen one but can't seem to locate it. I think a picture of the building in its original condition would be helpful vis a vis those who persist in seeing only an "eyesore" here.
 
You must log in or register to post here.

Back
Top