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

New rendering from NRU:

5209192497_d3c13c187f_o.jpg
 
a real shame (although at least they didn't get what they originally asked for). keeping the facade does little to retain the old-timey feel given to a streescape with these buildings, which is the best part. Once swallowed by the blob, they are part of the blob, even if they can be seen within it.

Why can't they just take one of the numerous car dealerships in the area? Please, take one of the numerous car dealerships in the area!
 
Better.

The National Hotel will contrast with the contemporary steel/glass/concrete tower instead of blending into the wishy-washy yellow brick modern-slash-historic original proposal.
 
Dilla said:
keeping the facade does little to retain the old-timey feel given to a streescape with these buildings, which is the best part. Once swallowed by the blob, they are part of the blob, even if they can be seen within it.
Click to expand...

The streetscape is inevitably going to change with other modern development, and I don't think that preserving one heritage three storey brick building among a collection of larger modern high-rises does much to keep that sense. If anything, if the overall area is going to develop, this reuse of the facade works to better integrate this building into the neighbourhood than preserving it as an odd holdout.

And I'd like so see some argument made for the preservation of the building other than it's old. Presumably age itself is not a sufficient criterion to keep buildings around -- surely they have to have some other significant quality to be worthy of preservation.
 
Tulse said:
The streetscape is inevitably going to change with other modern development, and I don't think that preserving one heritage three storey brick building among a collection of larger modern high-rises does much to keep that sense. If anything, if the overall area is going to develop, this reuse of the facade works to better integrate this building into the neighbourhood than preserving it as an odd holdout.

And I'd like so see some argument made for the preservation of the building other than it's old. Presumably age itself is not a sufficient criterion to keep buildings around -- surely they have to have some other significant quality to be worthy of preservation.
Click to expand...
I was about to write a snarky reply until I realized that a confusing distinction has been made between "preservation" and "adaptive re-use."

I was ready to bang you over the head with the Reasons of Designation (Statement of Significance) (PDF document), in response to your second point before I realized you're not actually part of the bulldozer crowd ;)
 
Much better! No more beige!

Now if I owned some commercial properties along say Dundas St W, say a pos c.1950s two floor strip, would I want to add another 4-6 floors and earn some extra cash? You betcha. If the pos 1950s building just happened to have a gorgeous facade, I'd keep it and gut the rest!
 
I certainly don't think all older buildings should be torn down to make way for progress, and it's true that Toronto in general has been terrible at preserving its heritage. The Reasons for Designation document does give much more context as to the building's historical context, which I hadn't fully appreciated.

That said, the document also makes clear that the building itself has undergone significant architectural changes over its existence. I think that some sort of respectful treatment of the original structure can be had while at the same time developing the site further, as has happened in the past.
 
I don't find this building interesting or attractive as it is right now, so I really have no problem with it being redeveloped. I'm all for increasing density and making the neighbourhood more lively and animated. Yes, the building is old but is that a good enough reason to stop redevelopment? I think keeping the facade is good enough. Let's face it, Toronto has very few impressive historic buildings. We were a big hick town until rather recently. Our only chance at greatness is in newer architecture, not our historic past. There are probably less than 100 historic buildings in this city that are worth preserving. I just want to see some really good, original, modern architecture go up, instead of grey, glass boxes.
 
Torontovibe said:
Let's face it, Toronto has very few impressive historic buildings. We were a big hick town until rather recently. Our only chance at greatness is in newer architecture, not our historic past. There are probably less than 100 historic buildings in this city that are worth preserving. I just want to see some really good, original, modern architecture go up, instead of grey, glass boxes.
Click to expand...

Which, in the eyes of discerning and sensitive New Yorkers, Chicagoans, Londoners, would render your aspirations to urban cosmopolitanism paradoxically hick-townish in their own right...
 
Torontovibe said:
I don't find this building interesting or attractive as it is right now, so I really have no problem with it being redeveloped. I'm all for increasing density and making the neighbourhood more lively and animated. Yes, the building is old but is that a good enough reason to stop redevelopment? I think keeping the facade is good enough. Let's face it, Toronto has very few impressive historic buildings. We were a big hick town until rather recently. Our only chance at greatness is in newer architecture, not our historic past. There are probably less than 100 historic buildings in this city that are worth preserving. I just want to see some really good, original, modern architecture go up, instead of grey, glass boxes.
Click to expand...

Are you kidding me? What an ignorant insult to Toronto. We have thousands of great buildings from different eras that are worth preserving. But after a couple of centuries, there are quite a few great buildings, from impressive landmarks to heritage neighbourhoods and cohesive streetscapes. Many buildings aren't significant at an international level but add so much richness to a neighbourhood's streetscape. Toronto will be great with high quality contemporary architecture and many layers of history preserved. You don't even seem to know much about Toronto's history. A small town could count 100 significant buildings. Toronto was an upstart city with a lot of ambition that produced many great buildings that are still standing. It was home to Upper Canada's parliament. The architecture was actually quite sophisticated, as you might discover if you read through Eric Arthur's Toronto: No Mean City. A lot of it remains.

What if Montreal, for instance, blockbusted the old town? By your narrow vision of preservation, maybe Notre-Dame Basilica would be sparred, city hall and a few bank headquarters. But the simple stone colonial buildings amidst the narrow streets wouldn't be worthy. Maybe some International Style towers would replace them, with the best architecture of the time. Centuries of history would be gone. It was a possibility at one point, too. Today, though, those layers are there, and it just so happens that the city built many great modern buildings along the way too. History, even if it isn't grand history full of spectacle, can make a place more meaningful and inspire a desire among people for more sophisticated design. Places with more layers of history tend to have preservation movements robust enough to save buildings with more nuanced beauty or fascinating histories. We need to be more confident about what we have already achieved in order to progress.
 
thanks BMyers ... and now there's a rendering too! :)

building2.png
 
You must log in or register to post here.

Back
Top