Toronto Richmond Adelaide Centre: EY Tower | 188.05m | 40s | Oxford Properties | Kohn Pedersen Fox

It really tells you something about how vacuous and inhuman our contemporary built form has become when we have to lament the loss of any little ornament left in our structures and go through hoops at great cost to preserve it.
 
wmedia said:
I'm as disappointed as anyone to see this go, but what was the alternative? It has to be viable for current needs. It is not. As others have mentioned previously, it would either sit empty and decay, or become viable through what you are seeing happening now. If someone had the money to preserve it as a museum piece, that would be nice, but it's not going to happen.
Click to expand...

Instead of an office building could the interiors not have been stripped, re-aligned where necessary, modernized and the exterior restored for quarter-floor and half-floor upscale condos?
 
dt_toronto_geek said:
Instead of an office building could the interiors not have been stripped, re-aligned where necessary, modernized and the exterior restored for quarter-floor and half-floor upscale condos?
Click to expand...

Okay, I’m not singling you out here, but this is a RAMPANT problem here. Do you want to be the benefactor (because that’s what it would be, you couldn’t call yourself an investor, only someone willing to lose money for their wants and desires– hence a benefactor) for this endeavour?

You’re proposing that the building be lovingly refinished, the floors which don’t work changed structurally so they can, come sort of insanely expensive (because god knows it can’t change the look or feel of the building or its historical ingress/egress points) handicap accessibility built in, new HVAC, new fire systems, new roof, probably new windows, engineering work, sales staff, architecture for the new units, new common areas etc… PLUS the build out of the condo units! And you want luxury right? So the finishes everywhere have to be high end. Do you want to add PATH access too?

How much is that going to cost in total? $20 million? $30 million? $50 million? More? Plus you have to buy the building (or are you assuming that a pension fund whose fiduciary duty is to make money for all of the retired municipal workers in the province is going to do this money losing endeavour?). The building is worth in the state it is now probably around $15 million (and I’m being generously low). So let’s say we’re all in for $50 million? I think that’s extremely low but let’s go with it.

So then you have 14 floors, let’s call it half ¼ floor suites and half ½ floor suites. That’s 42 suites. $850k for the ¼ floors and $1.75mln for the half floors? That makes it a nice $48.3 million income. Which almost covers the costs!

Or you can make a building which will cost about $500 million to build. You spend more to keep and maintain as much of the historical old building as possible while also creating a space which helps the economy through 1.5 years of major construction employment, 1000’s of workers working in the building for years afterwards and creates A FEW HUNDRED MILLION DOLLARS IN PROFIT for your pensioners (which is the owners job!).
 
Physical demolition activities have actually started - Greenpro demolition is on site, with their removal bins staged in the parking lot immediately behind 100 Adelaide. It looks like the building is now off the grid, with a portable generator in the parking lot providing local power for the demolition activities.
 
It seems absurd to get so worked up about how it is "impossible" to save this building. Of course it is possible to save - a wealthy individual or company or a government that had an interest in preserving key heritage structures could find a way to save it and bring it up to code. The suggestion above, although it doesn't provide a profit, seems reasonable enough. This has been done numerous times in the past with structures that were "impossible" to save.

You know, there is a lot of civic pride and concern about aesthetics among run-of-the-mill Torontonians, but the wealthier people get, the less they seem interested in maintaining these qualities. In New York, it is a point of pride - probably even snobbery - for millionaires and billionaires to boast about their civic and aesthetic knowledge of their city. In Toronto, the rich think we don't have any history so it doesn't matter, or that we should be pretending we live in a New York that hasn't been built yet.
 
Parkdalian said:
It seems absurd to get so worked up about how it is "impossible" to save this building. Of course it is possible to save - a wealthy individual or company or a government that had an interest in preserving key heritage structures could find a way to save it and bring it up to code.
Click to expand...

There's a ton of philanthropic money in this city that has gone into buildings for the arts, post secondary education, some sports facilities, and especially for hospitals. Rarely does a building get saved here out of the goodness of a particular philanthropist's heart. Certainly never one this big.

There is an economic reality here that few people want to face. Mithras has put it very well, but I'll add this:

The original agreement with the City (from 13 years ago now I believe) called for the first three floors to remain in place while the rest was disassembled above. In other words the lower portions would be propped up and protected while the new building was built below, above, and around it. It was recently discovered by heritage preservation specialists Goldsmith Borgal & Co. that the iron holding the facade together is rusting and that the building has shifted over the years: it has become unstable. Now the lower three floors must be disassembled as well to save them for the long term.

Buildings have to be maintained or they fall apart. Just wishing that someone was waiting around the corner to foot the bill to keep these standing is futile. Gnashing our teeth and calling Toronto a terrible city because no-one else is will to put up the money (that we aren't willing to or can't do ourselves) is futile. There are so many worthy things to spend philanthropically on, that holding your breath for someone else to rescue this building will just result in your face turning blue.

I'm glad, very glad, that a good deal of the Concourse is being saved and that it will appear again. I know it's not as good as having the original stand forever, untouched by time and the forces of entropy, but I'll take what I think is realistic to get.

42
 
That said, in Europe, where there is a very different respect for-- and understanding of-- architecture, as a public good, the money always seems to be there for the maintenance and restoration of its historical buildings. I think it's totally fair to complain that it's not good enough in Toronto. It's not unrealistic to expect a more effective approach to architectural preservation/restoration in this country, and part of that might come about in the long-term through educating the public about our architectural history, and history as a country, and more PUG-ED-type programs that teach the importance of building good cities with good architecture.

That said, it's better to see the facades of a building saved and rebuilt than demolished forever. I'm thankful for the small victories we regularly witness in this city.

As for those thunderbird designs on the exterior --- what's the history of those? They're beautiful.
 
SP!RE said:
That said, in Europe, where there is a very different respect for-- and understanding of-- architecture, as a public good, the money always seems to be there for the maintenance and restoration of its historical buildings.
Click to expand...

Very few buildings in Europe are this size (or more specifically, floor count) and even so, you'd find a bias is towards preserving public buildings rather than office towers. I know everyone likes to think the grass is greener in Europe, but the reality there is just as complex as anywhere else. I think Interchange's comments above sum it up perfectly.
 
Last edited:
wmedia said:
Very few buildings in Europe are this size (or more specifically, floor count) and even so, you'd find a bias is towards preserving public buildings rather than office towers. I know everyone likes to think the grass is greener in Europe, but the reality there is just as complex as anywhere else. I think Interchange's comments above sum it up perfectly.
Click to expand...

Agreed. The european system of mindless preservation of everything makes living in the city very elitist and less functional than here IMO. Hence why I immigrated.
 
Fair enough, I just wanted to play devil's advocate. I wasn't trying to say that "in Europe everything is better", because it's not that simple.

I was recently touring some visitors from Italy around and they were shocked that something like the St. Michael's Cathedral restoration wouldn't have been closely monitored and funded by the government.

Not a case of "good vs. bad" so much as noting differences. Comparing Europe to North America is always going to be like comparing apples and oranges.
 
Application: Partial Permit Status: Not Started

Location: 100 ADELAIDE ST W
TORONTO ON M5H 1S3

Ward 28: Toronto Centre-Rosedale

Application#: 13 161711 SHO 00 PP Accepted Date: May 9, 2013

Project: Office Partial Permit - Shoring

Description: Part Permit - Proposal to construct a 42 sty office building with 5 levels of below grade parking.
 
Last look before demolition.

richadm14.jpg
 
You must log in or register to post here.

Back
Top