ProjectEnd
Superstar
Indeed, flawless victory!
Toronto One Front | 170.86m | 49s | Larco | a—A
- Thread starter rdaner
- Start date
Amare
Senior Member
Huh?Indeed, flawless victory!
Strada was transferred to RioCan's Living division. It's not anywhere on Allied's portfolio list.
ProjectEnd
Superstar
I dunno what to tell you, man. RioCan has control of the day-to-day on site, but it's a 50/50 JV. Allied is just as involved in this as they are:
Riseth
Senior Member
Agreed. Some things just need to be left alone.
Amare
Senior Member
Well seeing as RioCan has control of the day-to-day, and they're the ones who went with Turner Fleisher and have a history of using poor quality cladding i'll put more of the blame on RioCan for that.
But im more than willing to blame Allied for choosing to work with RioCan in the first place, it's a 50/50 venture that didnt work well because of the s***** other half the was chosen.
The Preservationist
Active Member
The only thing that might work here is a slim high end stone clad office tower stepped back on all sides however as others have suggested best just to leave this one alone.
ProjectEnd
Superstar
I'll leave this with: watch who you lionize. That's all.
isaidso
Senior Member
Can they not put one tall tower adjacent and behind the Dominion Building just like CIBC Square? The complete disregard for the architectural heritage of our city is stunning. It's not like some cave men have shown up and started destroying our city. These are supposedly modern well educated people proposing to do this. What the hell is wrong with these people?
Bjays92
Senior Member
Yikes. I seemed to have opened a can of worms with my photos lol.
I'd have to agree though, I think this should be left alone unless something absolutely stunning comes along here.
If a developer was willing to building a high quality art deco stone clad tower to match the existing structure sure. In fact this city is distinctly lacking old stone towers, and I'd love to see one built. But otherwise just leave it.
I'd have to agree though, I think this should be left alone unless something absolutely stunning comes along here.
If a developer was willing to building a high quality art deco stone clad tower to match the existing structure sure. In fact this city is distinctly lacking old stone towers, and I'd love to see one built. But otherwise just leave it.
ProjectEnd
Superstar
Real estate will always seek to maximize the opportunity on an asset. Why would anyone go with just one tower when two will fit?
Heritage policy (rightly) prescribes that one differentiate new buildings / additions, not ape the original.
Yikes, Art Deco on top of a Beaux Arts building? Something new pretending to be Olde Timey grafted on top of something actually old? Cough! Yuck. No thank you. The Louvre Pyramid option here please… as proposed.
42
42
AlvinofDiaspar
Moderator
I am not so hard and fast - say if this addition had happened back the 1920s/30s, Art Deco is exactly what they would chose and we would be lapping the whole ensemble up as heritage now, Iff they can pull off the highest quality Art Deco, then I wouldn't mind having a look and see what they are proposing.
AoD
westtoeast
Active Member
I think it's also easy to ignore the working realities that come in trying to use older stately heritage buildings like this in a modern context. By all accounts the inside of this building is nothing to write home about (at best) and the proposal will at least serve to open up and integrate the building into the city.
As it stands it is undoubtedly beautiful, but it's almost monolithic in its inaccessibility. The major heritage elements of this building are relatively untouched in the proposal while also adding more mixed uses to the core on a very challenging site. Overall, I'm pretty happy with what they're trying to pull off and am excited to grab a drink in the hotel bar here at some point in the future.
As it stands it is undoubtedly beautiful, but it's almost monolithic in its inaccessibility. The major heritage elements of this building are relatively untouched in the proposal while also adding more mixed uses to the core on a very challenging site. Overall, I'm pretty happy with what they're trying to pull off and am excited to grab a drink in the hotel bar here at some point in the future.
UtakataNoAnnex
Senior Member
I'm not sure this building has the right dimensions to stick a pyramid on top...unless it's quite tiny. >.<
Last edited:
Northern Light
Superstar
Stating clearly that my preference would no building here at all, only a restoration of the existing.........
I don't think it's an absolute 'right' that one should differentiate.
I think it's generally preferable, in that most (nearly all) new builds would end up reading as a poor knock-off of the original and in the process diminish it, rather than respect it.
However, it is possible to build an addition (if so desired) in a virtually identical manner. It's just that it's prohibitively expensive to so do. Therefore it's an improbable option.
If the choice is between mediocre historical pastiche and a modern, elegant, contrasting style, in a deferential and complimentary way, by all means, let's go with 'different'.
If the choice included building not merely sympathetically but near identically, including use of original materials and techniques (not pre-fab imitations), then I'd be open to that.
But I don't see a compelling case for any addition here; other than profit.
I don't think that is sufficient cause for new development here; nor should that motivation have ever come to pass , as this was (and should have remained) a public asset.