Toronto Church of Scientology | ?m | 8s

What a nasty piece of crap. This is a fine building the way it is. It just need upkeep.
That rendering looks awful. It always amazes me how easily people are seduced by colour.
 
mysteryman said:
What a nasty piece of crap. This is a fine building the way it is. It just need upkeep.
That rendering looks awful. It always amazes me how easily people are seduced by colour.
Click to expand...

I'm one of those who can be 'seduced by colour' on occasion, but not at the risk of destroying a building that just needs a restoration. Junctionist said it very well.
 
balenciaga said:
We can disagree with each other, but to say the existing is "elegant" is ridiculous. There is nothing elegant or even slightly pleasing about any of it.
Click to expand...

i'm afraid you are just dead dead wrong. this building, in its formal austerity, in its materials, in its scale, in its delicate balance of elements, is extraordinarily elegant.

it is therefore the opposite of this garish, kitschy, boneheaded, cheap plastic redo.
 
thedeepend said:
i'm afraid you are just dead dead wrong. this building, in its formal austerity, in its materials, in its scale, in its delicate balance of elements, is extraordinarily elegant.

it is therefore the opposite of this garish, kitschy, boneheaded, cheap plastic redo.
Click to expand...

since when not thinking one particular building is elegant is considered "dead wrong". How funny modern architecture has become.
I think the new proposal is decent although not impressive. I don't particularly like the color actually; while the existing building is bland and boring, something you can see in any third world countries (those dorm apartments for employees of state own companies in the 1980s).
 
It appears some people can't see past the current sorry state of this building's total lack of maintenance. A proper restoration could do for 696 Yonge, what the recent restoration of the Dineen building has achieved. Unfortunately, that kind of restoration could never happen as long as this property is in the possession of Scientology. All we could expect from them is the architecture equivalent of a cheap, sensational science fiction novel, and that looks like what they're intending to do.
 
B/tw, if you're walking by that building, take a look at the windows on the upper floors. It presents to the street a level of disorder and neglect reminiscent of the TV show "Hoarders." I believe this is symbolic of Scientology. They present a public face that looks superficially slick, but behind that facade is just pure madness.
 
guess it's just me but i thought they were just going to reclad the building from the looks of the original vs. the render and perhaps add 1 extra floor (or it could even be the mechanicals are cleverly hidden ?)

couple changes of materials and design to the facade but keeping the skeleton ... doesn't look that different to me.

is there anything saying they are demolishing the current building and putting up new construction ?

before:

androiduk said:
scientology2.jpg
Click to expand...


after:

androiduk said:
scientology1.jpg
Click to expand...
 
Last edited:
balenciaga said:
since when not thinking one particular building is elegant is considered "dead wrong". How funny modern architecture has become.
I think the new proposal is decent although not impressive. I don't particularly like the color actually; while the existing building is bland and boring, something you can see in any third world countries (those dorm apartments for employees of state own companies in the 1980s).
Click to expand...

Actually, what I like *best* about the existing building is that "dorms/offices for the proletariat" quality. Like, maybe, think less 1980s third world and more 1920s/30s Europe. (My nickname for its aesthetic is "Dirty Sachlichkeit"--ragged yet oh-so-delicate original window sash [operating casements!] and all.)

Next, you're going to tell us that this nearby example is a welcome loss.
 
adma said:
Actually, what I like *best* about the existing building is that "dorms/offices for the proletariat" quality. Like, maybe, think less 1980s third world and more 1920s/30s Europe. (My nickname for its aesthetic is "Dirty Sachlichkeit"--ragged yet oh-so-delicate original window sash [operating casements!] and all.)

Next, you're going to tell us that this nearby example is a welcome loss.
Click to expand...

Actually you are very right. They could have done something with the original building that would have been VERY interesting and still had a deco/nouveau feel to it.
 
Youranthony1 said:
The old building looks terrible - looking forward to the recladding
Click to expand...

Yeah for sure. I have no love for dreary old modernist stock. While I have even less love for this "church", I like what they're adding to the street. I'll take colour and variation over that dirty slab. Bring it on!
 
Add me to the "likes". While I understand the need for preservation, I won't lose any sleep over losing this one in its current form. The reclad adds some much needed vibrancy and animation to that kinda seedy stretch of Yonge.

I love this comment from the main article on the front page:
"neat design, wish toronto had more dangerous space cults sinking millions into fixing up old buildings." - david m
 
Last edited:
Gee, screw the reclad. Go right for the cathedral to hocus-pocus - glitzy colours and all.
 
You must log in or register to post here.

Back
Top