Toronto L-Tower | 204.82m | 58s | Cityzen | Daniel Libeskind

Automation Gallery said:
Come on.1900s was an era with different architecture from the 60s.Some of these people that designate these 60s and 70s ugly concrete slab buildings as heritage need their head checked,

In the early 1900s to 30s structures were classified as gothic revival, prairie, eduardian, victorian, 40s and 50s Art Deco/Moderne. What would something build in the 60 and 70s be classified as?
Click to expand...

One must remember that heritage architecture isn't just about whether a facade makes an impact of initial beauty. Buildings that show a direct influence of a certain philosophy dominant at the time and perhaps display some creative innovation can reasonably called part of one's heritage and celebrated. Particularly if they're radically different from other era. As in literature, where works like that of Kafka are celebrated as part of our canon, even though they are hardly warm and beautiful tales.

Many international style and brutalist buildings from the 1960s and 1970s decidedly deserve that recognition as heritage. There's also a lot more to officially designate yet.
 
Come on.1900s was an era with different architecture from the 60s.Some of these people that designate these 60s and 70s ugly concrete slab buildings as heritage need their head checked,
Click to expand...

this is why so much good architecture is torn down. there is always a shadow period directly after a style is popular when it becomes highly unfashionable and is torn down willy nilly.
there was a time in the 50s and 60s when those deco-early scrapers were in real danger...and to make way for those, a lot of victorian was torn down as over-decorated junk....and so on.
it takes time for a consensus to build...and that's a dangerous time for every style.
but that's exactly when they have to be preserved.
 
I guess the moderators are on vacation. When somebody notices that there are new entries on the L Tower thread, they expect to find some sort of commentary on the topic.

Common, you guys know better. Please create a thread on the merits of heritage status in the appropriate forum section.
 
I am going to stop it here about all this heritage bullshit.But some projects go up for city approval are knocked down cause a couple of so called 1960s heritage buildings will have to be demolished to make way, but again a couple of other projects for example Shangra-la and Burano are allowed to tear down two nice older heritage buildings and rebuild them using the same facade and everyone seems happy.
By using the same facade does that still classify it as a heritage site?
 
Personally I no longer believe this tower will be built and what’s worse is I no longer care. It has changed to the point they are now just trying to throw things together to build the residential tower but the complex that was the original project was far more important and significant to the city. The new project is nothing but another residential tower with no redeeming qualities or benefits to the city - and without the other half of the project, it looks ridiculous. If any project fails over the next short while pray it is this one.
 
I think it's ridiculous that their "plan-b" design for this building in the event that the office component (which was always up in the air) didn't pan out, is this:

Solaris said:
27xi23t.jpg
Click to expand...
 
Personally I no longer believe this tower will be built and what’s worse is I no longer care.
Click to expand...

How is that worse? I don't think many of us care much anymore now that the most interesting features of this project have been eliminated. It should be scrapped and rethought. Perhaps the original L could go somewhere else?
 
If I recall almost all of the units in the tower are already sold...right? If so what reason would they have to not go ahead?

This new base still seems to be lacking. I don't know why they couldn't keep the original and find a new use for it. Combined with the Sony Centre you basically have a revamped arts space for a discount price...couldn't they also have allocated that space for offices, etc.?
 
Grey: I'm not sure why you re-ran that Photoshop job. Below are the latest (low quality) renders and model of the building:

brise said:
NewLTowermodel.jpg


L-Towersouthwest.jpg


L-Towernorthwest.jpg
Click to expand...

It's worth noting the theltower.com currently cites the building as 57 floors tall.

42
 
Even with its foot cut off the tower looks decent. The problem is securing financing and in this economic climate that is virtually impossible.
 
You must log in or register to post here.

Back
Top