Toronto QRC West (Queen Richmond Centre West) | 71.93m | 17s | Allied | Sweeny &Co

[hawc]

No. I see it as a very context-driven design response, and it is defining Toronto's built form. It's a context that is defined by a) the critical need for more density in a booming city and b) the desire to preserve the pre-existing fabric of what is largely low density heritage built form.

I think I can buy into this up to a point. Would you want a condo tower growing out of Old City Hall? Would you want a condo tower growing out of Union Station? Would you want a condo tower growing out of St. Lawrence Market? Would you want a condo tower growing out of any of the of the original distillery buildings in the distillery district? It may sound absurd, but it illustrates a point. The critical need for more density in a booming city and the desire to preserve the pre-existing fabric only works to a point. We wouldn't want Toronto separated from other cities by the fact we have condo/office towers growing out the top of all our historic buildings would we? (Ps. pick on Liberty Village if you want to illustrate a condo project gone amuck. CityPlace is actually coming along quite nicely.)

 

[Skeezix]

Would you want a condo tower growing out of Old City Hall? Would you want a condo tower growing out of Union Station? Would you want a condo tower growing out of St. Lawrence Market? Would you want a condo tower growing out of any of the of the original distillery buildings in the distillery district?

Apples and oranges.

(You forgot to ask if we want a condo growing out of the Ontario Legislative Building at Queen's Park)

 

[hawc]

Apples and oranges. You forgot to ask if we want a condo growing out of the Ontario Legislative Building at Queen's Park.

I'm obviously exaggerating to make a point, but it's not totally apples and oranges. We're still talking about new buildings growing out of historic ones.

 

[Ramako]

I think I can buy into this up to a point. Would you want a condo tower growing out of Old City Hall? Would you want a condo tower growing out of Union Station? Would you want a condo tower growing out of St. Lawrence Market? Would you want a condo tower growing out of any of the of the original distillery buildings in the distillery district? It may sound absurd, but it illustrates a point. The critical need for more density in a booming city and the desire to preserve the pre-existing fabric only works to a point. We wouldn't want Toronto separated from other cities by the fact we have condo/office towers growing out the top of all our historic buildings would we? (Ps. pick on Liberty Village if you want to illustrate a condo project gone amuck. CityPlace is actually coming along quite nicely.)

This is a straw man. Tewder's point was about adding to pre-existing fabric, not building on top of landmarks, which this warehouse was certainly not.

 

[Skeezix]

I'm obviously exaggerating to make a point, but it's not totally apples and oranges. We're still talking about new buildings growing out of historic ones.

It's totally apples and oranges. You're ignoring context. And the preservation and integration of some historic buildings in new development does not, in any way, mean that we'll "have condo/office towers growing out the top of all our historic buildings". Absurd examples used to illustrate an absurd conclusion.

 

[Stupidandshallow]

Yeah... I get that it's context driven, but I for one find façadism jarring. It's a compromise to preserve our past.

 

[Skeezix]

Yeah... I get that it's context driven, but I for one find façadism jarring. It's a compromise to preserve our past.

I'm always puzzled when people make general or absolute comments about "façadism". The term is used to cover such a broad and diverse range of projects in Toronto, where the nature, design and heritage conservation differ so radically from one another, that I personally feel that the term is largely meaningless, as are general comments about it. There are absolutely awful examples of heritage elements incorporated into new buildings in Toronto (the Shoppers Drug Mart at Danforth and Playter is my "favourite" example), but there are many excellent projects which most people do not consider to be a compromise at all because they revitalize the heritage resources and incorporate them more fully into the life of the city.

I don't consider this project to a compromise.

 

[Stupidandshallow]

I'm always puzzled when people make general or absolute comments about "façadism". The term is used to cover such a broad and diverse range of projects in Toronto, where the nature, design and heritage conservation differ so radically from one another, that I personally feel that the term is largely meaningless, as are general comments about it. There are absolutely awful examples of heritage elements incorporated into new buildings in Toronto (the Shoppers Drug Mart at Danforth and Playter is my "favourite" example), but there are many excellent projects which most people do not consider to be a compromise at all because they revitalize the heritage resources and incorporate them more fully into the life of the city.

I don't consider this project to a compromise.

Ok... I find most façadism jarring -- better?

I had no idea most people felt that way, thank you for the insight...

For the most part, on our main streets, façadism...ok, I won't use that word... preserving older buildings, by building a newer building on top, seems to be the only way that a lot of our heritage buildings are being preserved/restored.

This is a bit off topic, but I rarely find that the newer buildings relate to the heritage buildings... it's always so random and ugly. Different strokes for different folks.

Also, I actually like this building.

 

[AlvinofDiaspar]

Would you want a condo tower growing out of St. Lawrence Market?

Funny you should mention SLM - the market gallery/north facade is in itself a case of historic facadism, incorporating the first city hall into its' structure.

http://lostrivers.ca/content/points/southmarket.html

We wouldn't want Toronto separated from other cities by the fact we have condo/office towers growing out the top of all our historic buildings would we? (Ps. pick on Liberty Village if you want to illustrate a condo project gone amuck. CityPlace is actually coming along quite nicely.)

Why not? I would think that a city that can balance severe development pressures and historical preservation needs would be a great "third way". Liberty village is a design failure, not a functional one - and I think the single use CityPlace compares badly in that regard.

AoD

 

[TrickyRicky]

But isn't facadism one solution to solving these two problems:

-Most old buildings have terrible interior performance on any number of measures from energy efficiency, heating and cooling, layout, light, etc. and they need, like any living system, to be constantly maintained and re-built in order to maintain the status quo

-New buildings have real problems relating to the street and to people in general. Older buildings, even if built in "fake" historic styles retain some measure of proportion, material, and detail that are not flukes, they are based on thousands of years of human settlement. Furthermore, their "oldness" endows them with an even greater level of connectivity to people and the community and it's on-going history

This is kind of the Ying and Yang of a building. You can argue the purist point that old buildings shouldn't be touched or modern buildings shouldn't be tampered with or sullied by historic stumped but I would say that while there is room for purist expressions, a purist argument is usually unreasonable.

 

[Skeezix]

Ok... I find most façadism jarring -- better?

I had no idea most people felt that way, thank you for the insight...

For the most part, on our main streets, façadism...ok, I won't use that word... preserving older buildings, by building a newer building on top, seems to be the only way that a lot of our heritage buildings are being preserved/restored.

This is a bit off topic, but I rarely find that the newer buildings relate to the heritage buildings... it's always so random and ugly. Different strokes for different folks.

Also, I actually like this building.

No need to be sarcastic. It's okay if I disagree with you.

I refer to most people because those particular projects I was thinking of are widely acclaimed. I clearly wasn't referring to all projects, just that we have a number of excellent ones here in Toronto.

I think you're over-generalizing. I don't find such buildings to "always" be random or ugly.

 

[Tewder]

For the most part, on our main streets, façadism...ok, I won't use that word... preserving older buildings, by building a newer building on top, seems to be the only way that a lot of our heritage buildings are being preserved/restored.

Again, i feel this is context driven. Adding density and height provides economic viability to heritage preservation, which might not otherwise be the case. I do agree that truly significant/historic buildings should be restored in a more traditional way but that is really a different issue.

This is a bit off topic, but I rarely find that the newer buildings relate to the heritage buildings... it's always so random and ugly. Different strokes for different folks.

Also, I actually like this building.

... and yet you 'like this building'. You're not going to like each and every example, but then who is? How about Brookfield Place? 5ive? The Massey Building? The Dineen Building? There are so many examples in Toronto that it really is difficult to make a blanket statement.

 

[JasonParis]

Does anyone remember the Café Urbanité Forum? This discussion reminds me so much of the type one would have found there. Oh and that's a good thing!

 

[NT-2010]

April 7, 2015

 

[innsertnamehere]

huh? I don't remember the fins being in the design..