yyzer
Senior Member
Gee, thanks for the lesson..
Last edited:
Toronto Sun Life Financial Tower & Harbour Plaza Residences | 236.51m | 67s | Menkes | Sweeny &Co
- Thread starter nicetommy
- Start date
Automation Gallery
Superstar
Its all Rubbish
Yes because someone that works for Heritage Toronto knows less than you.
AKS
Senior Member
yup yup. I totally agree saving 60 Harbour St building. It's really nice architecture which I admire every time I happen to pass by.
Ramako
Moderator
ganjavih
Senior Member
I agree that 90 Harbour is not an amazing piece of architecture, but it is worth saving. It's a unique style not often seen in Toronto. It would make a great coach terminal, library, or market. It could house any sort of amenity for the community really. This neighbourhood is becoming horribly sterile and bland. Diversity, even if accomplished through a less than stellar piece of architecture, can be a good thing. I don't want Toronto to look like the sterile suburbs.
Thanks for your contribution, Rebecca.
Big Daddy
Senior Member
Sorry guys, but I just don’t feel "90" is significant to our history or to Architecture in general. I’ve seen many buildings just like this one and forgotten them just as fast
"80" on the other hand is unique and says something powerful about the time it was built and those who built it - its loss would be regrettable.
I don’t think we can save them all so why not choose those that matter most? Saving "90" would only serve to cripple the site for a future development while - as was mentioned by someone earlier - "80" could be incorporated into a new development and make a significant and positive addition to it.
"80" on the other hand is unique and says something powerful about the time it was built and those who built it - its loss would be regrettable.
I don’t think we can save them all so why not choose those that matter most? Saving "90" would only serve to cripple the site for a future development while - as was mentioned by someone earlier - "80" could be incorporated into a new development and make a significant and positive addition to it.
Last edited:
CanadianNational
Senior Member
Thanks for the well-articulated post, Rebecca-HT
These two buildings together work well for the scale of the north side of harbour. They are surrounded by parking lots, each of which can be used for development. Also, aside from the adapted buildings at Harburfront centre, they are just about the only remaining architectural - historical links to the waterfront's past in the area.
The building has already paid for itself, and renovating it would not involve the same massive outlay of capital that building an entirely new building would.
They also provide an important, agreeable contrast to the fairly identical recent-history towers sprouting around them.
Adaptively preserving this building will also help ameliorate shading and visual crowding over the discussed York / Harbour / QQ park.
Buildings don't have to be knockouts to be important. Especially in a city such as Toronto, where so little indicators of our past remain as it is. What both these buildings have, regardless of individual's aesthetic response, is that they are authentically historical. With this authenticity, they possess a rare and special quality that no new construction will duplicate.
These two buildings together work well for the scale of the north side of harbour. They are surrounded by parking lots, each of which can be used for development. Also, aside from the adapted buildings at Harburfront centre, they are just about the only remaining architectural - historical links to the waterfront's past in the area.
The building has already paid for itself, and renovating it would not involve the same massive outlay of capital that building an entirely new building would.
They also provide an important, agreeable contrast to the fairly identical recent-history towers sprouting around them.
Adaptively preserving this building will also help ameliorate shading and visual crowding over the discussed York / Harbour / QQ park.
Buildings don't have to be knockouts to be important. Especially in a city such as Toronto, where so little indicators of our past remain as it is. What both these buildings have, regardless of individual's aesthetic response, is that they are authentically historical. With this authenticity, they possess a rare and special quality that no new construction will duplicate.
Last edited:
yyzer
Senior Member
Actually I found Rebecca-HT's post to be incredibly condescending, especially coming from a newbie to the forum...
This may be one of the few times, CN, that you and I disagree....I've been indifferent to the fate of this building up to now, but I am beginning to feel that maybe bulldozing is the way to go....anyways, it's probably doomed anyway...
This may be one of the few times, CN, that you and I disagree....I've been indifferent to the fate of this building up to now, but I am beginning to feel that maybe bulldozing is the way to go....anyways, it's probably doomed anyway...
adma
Superstar
You know something...I've said it before, but I agree that we should take a deep breath before ascribing *too* much in the way of raw architectural merit and significance to 90 Harbour. Its value lies largely in its being existing building stock w/its original integrity still pretty much intact; and, it's terrific that the official *and* vernacular heritage barometer has expanded to encompass stuff like this (and, of course, with the "embodied energy" argument for retention acting as backup). But...let's not make a Penn Station-scaled mountain out of this molehill. Besides its comparatively recent date of construction (and maybe its being lost in the tangle of Gardiner ramps), there's a reason it was off the heritage radar for so long: it's bureaucratic stodge. It wouldn't be any less plausible a loss in more "heritage-enlightened" burgs than ours, sad to say; so losing it doesn't make us woe-is-us "backward", relatively speaking. Not that there isn't or couldn't be an argument "for it", esp. these days and w/the "embodied energy" argument added...so perhaps we're actually ahead of the game here, if this is to be a valid heritage issue. But watch how you do it, lest you bite off more than you can chew. (And remember that any existing "heritage status" here may be more of a sidebar consequence of the Union Station HCD.)
So, while declaring the loss "plausible", I'm not exactly advocating it. And all the more so given the asinine "I may not know Heritage but I know what I like" pro-development assessments of bruvyman, Automation Gallery, Big Daddy, etc. (And curiously enough, despite what Big Daddy says, I think *90* Harbour could be more easily absorbed into new development than *80* Harbour, at least from the POV of raw, functional, adaptable building stock.)
So, while declaring the loss "plausible", I'm not exactly advocating it. And all the more so given the asinine "I may not know Heritage but I know what I like" pro-development assessments of bruvyman, Automation Gallery, Big Daddy, etc. (And curiously enough, despite what Big Daddy says, I think *90* Harbour could be more easily absorbed into new development than *80* Harbour, at least from the POV of raw, functional, adaptable building stock.)
HHC
Active Member
It would look incredibly ridiculous seeing a 50 story condo sitting right against "80". We need to save them both for the betterment of the street's aesthetic tbh.
Big Daddy
Senior Member
MapleLeafs
New Member
First post, so I'll try to make it a decent one.
I'm going to have to agree with many in this thread in that the development should be allowed to go ahead. The building is decent, yes, but it is not the greatest piece of architecture and it isn't exactly the most storied building in town.
Having said that, if there was a way to put the developer of this lot on a tighter leash then most, I would be all for it. Kind of along the lines of "Your tearing down a decent piece of architecture for your development, don't half-ass it."
Ideally I would like to see the following things happen with this development:
1. Leave a decent amount of space between the new development and 60 Harbour St. Like HHC said, it would indeed look ridiculous having a 50 storey tower tucked up next to the building.
2. No half-assing it. Hire a good architect and put up something good. I certainly don't want 90 Harbour St. torn down for another run of the mill condominium.
3. Make the tower Art-Deco inspired like Uptown or use black glass or even brick. The last thing we need in that area is another blue/grey/green building.
I'm going to have to agree with many in this thread in that the development should be allowed to go ahead. The building is decent, yes, but it is not the greatest piece of architecture and it isn't exactly the most storied building in town.
Having said that, if there was a way to put the developer of this lot on a tighter leash then most, I would be all for it. Kind of along the lines of "Your tearing down a decent piece of architecture for your development, don't half-ass it."
Ideally I would like to see the following things happen with this development:
1. Leave a decent amount of space between the new development and 60 Harbour St. Like HHC said, it would indeed look ridiculous having a 50 storey tower tucked up next to the building.
2. No half-assing it. Hire a good architect and put up something good. I certainly don't want 90 Harbour St. torn down for another run of the mill condominium.
3. Make the tower Art-Deco inspired like Uptown or use black glass or even brick. The last thing we need in that area is another blue/grey/green building.
Note: the other building is not "80", it's "60". Sixty sixty sixty sixty sixty. Soixante. Sechzig. Sessanta. Sesenta. Sessenta. Шестьдесят. Kuuskümmend. Hirurogei. ששים. Seixanta. Altmış. الستين. სამოცი. Sáu mươi. Zestig. Seasca. Sittin. Mae chwe deg. Sixty.
42
42
AKS
Senior Member
I don't see why tearing down 90 would affect 60. It wouldn't be weird for a new building to sit beside 60. Because sooner or later, a new building will occupy 60's location. But rather than tearing it down, build around it. Kind of how BCE place has an old facade inside. I thought the facade was pretty cool inside a modern building. It gave a strange sense of time warping. Like if you walked through those doors, you would go through time LOL
Frankly, 90 Habour St looks pretty boring. It looks just like any other structure building you can find anywhere. I try to ignore it whenever I pass by. It just makes me appreciate 60 so much more.
Frankly, 90 Habour St looks pretty boring. It looks just like any other structure building you can find anywhere. I try to ignore it whenever I pass by. It just makes me appreciate 60 so much more.