Toronto King + Condos | 53.03m | 17s | King Plus | TACT Architecture

AndreaPalladio said:
Demolition has started on the black building south of the old hotel.
Click to expand...

And I think that the two old houses east of the hotel (and the historic hotel itself) on King will be next as their perrmit application reads:

Application: Demolition Folder (DM) Status: Under Review

Location: 253 KING ST E
TORONTO ON M5A 1K2

Ward 28: Toronto Centre-Rosedale

Application#: 12 130211 DEM 00 DM Accepted Date: Mar 2, 2012

Project: Multiple Use/Non Residential Demolition

Description: PLEASE NOTE THAT THIS APPLICATION IS FOR BOTH 253 and the convenience address of 255 KING ST E. One Building with 2 addresses. Please also note that this application is associated with 251 King St E.


The Sherbourne permit MAY also allow all this demolition as it reads:

Application: Demolition Folder (DM) Status: Inspection

Location: 37 SHERBOURNE ST
TORONTO ON M5A 2P6

Ward 28: Toronto Centre-Rosedale

Application#: 12 130221 DEM 00 DM Issued Date: Aug 21, 2012

Project: Multiple Use/Non Residential Demolition

Description: Permit to demolish existing mixed use building in association with 251, 253, 255 King St E.


When they put up the new building they have to 'reconstruct" the north and west walls of the hotel. Thanks OMB!
 
I hope they do not take down that old historic building. It is sad to see that Toronto is vastly lacking historical buildings cause developers keep knocking them down to build condos.
 
MiRon said:
I hope they do not take down that old historic building. It is sad to see that Toronto is vastly lacking historical buildings cause developers keep knocking them down to build condos.
Click to expand...
The OMB gave them permission to knock down all except the wall on King and the wall on Sherbourne. Sad!
 
Why? What makes it historic, as opposed than just old? Had anything old survived the many gut renos that took place in its many converstions from hotel to offices? The aesthetically appealing parts of it are being saved.
 
AndreaPalladio said:
Why? What makes it historic, as opposed than just old? Had anything old survived the many gut renos that took place in its many converstions from hotel to offices? The aesthetically appealing parts of it are being saved.
Click to expand...
I agree that the interior had already been gutted several times but the problem is that the facades are basically going to be stuck onto the new building with virtually no (or absolutely no?) setbacks above them. I have no real problem with facadectomies where there is a clear demarcation between old and new but simply attaching an old facade to a new building is really pretty sad.
 
AndreaPalladio said:
Ah, it's a question of it being not to your taste.
Click to expand...
Of course taste comes into it but my problem with this particular building is that the historic (or 'only' old in your world) walls will not exist as separate entities (able to be seen as distinct) but will only be visible as the veneer of a new building, or actually its lower two floors. If you look at the King George Square condos at Jarvis and King you can see an example of a facade that looks pretty much as it did originally and one that is not overwhelmed by the tower on top of it because the tower part is set well back from the old building. I am afraid that the King + will not be nearly as well done as there is virtually no setback and the top 15 floors will overwhelm the lower two. One of the selling points of the building is that it is within the original 10 blocks of the Town of York so it's a bit ironic that they are destroying (or degrading) the very heritage that helps make this a historic district.
 
Last edited:
AndreaPalladio said:
Ah, it's a question of it being not to your taste.
Click to expand...

A poorly integrated, one dimensional facade on a new building diminishes people's ability to look at the facade and understand the building which it is meant to historicize--the demolished building. It should be a three-dimensional, multi-wall structure that people can appreciate from different perspectives. Any interior can be restored to its original design, even if the original finishes have been completely gutted, but not when the building is no longer standing.

This building dates back to 1868 and is a rare surviving building from before the late 19th century in Toronto. It's part of a group of perhaps 200 buildings in different areas (or fewer) which are that old in a city of thousands of buildings. Sometimes pure age does become significant. But besides age, this building was one a hotel called the Grand Central. It is perhaps the only surviving heritage hotel building in the original 10-block town site for York. As a building with a historic sense of scale, not just a facade, it is important to contextualize the historical character and atmosphere of our original town site. Our city planning department recommended that the city refuse demolition. There's more history of the building here.
 
So it's an old hotel. Why does the interior, destroyed years, possibly decades ago, have to be maintained so people can understand it? People understand hotels, even ones that had pretentious names in previous centuries. Nothing about it other than the facade warranted saving.
 
Photos taken 5 January 2013

IMG_2180_1-XL.jpg


IMG_2179_1-XL.jpg


IMG_2178_1-XL.jpg
 
junctionist said:
A poorly integrated, one dimensional facade on a new building diminishes people's ability to look at the facade and understand the building which it is meant to historicize--the demolished building. It should be a three-dimensional, multi-wall structure that people can appreciate from different perspectives. Any interior can be restored to its original design, even if the original finishes have been completely gutted, but not when the building is no longer standing.
Click to expand...


From my understanding, the tower will be slightly set back from the facade thereby creating a three dimensional facade. Here are some photos of the model taken by Craig White from this UT article:


687-1483.jpg


687-1486.jpg


687-1488.jpg



I may be reading the photos wrong, but it seems that people on the units just above the historic facade will be able to step out of their apartments and onto the "roof" of the historic facade. The parapet of the historic facade essentially acting as a balcony railing, creating the sense that the facade has a structural role in the building and isn't just ornamental. Can anyone with more knowledge of the project confirm whether this is the case?

As an aside, in the second picture, I really like how the modern facade on the right reflects the historic facade, however I think I'd prefer it if the brick were a different colour so as to heighten the contrast between the historic and modern facades rather than blur it.
 
You must log in or register to post here.

Back
Top