Toronto Tableau Condominiums | 124.05m | 36s | Urban Capital | Wallman Architects

I walked by at about 11 this morning and pretty much the whole damn thing was being demolished indiscriminately ... it didn't look like anything was being saved.
 
looks like the facade is all but gone...

487979426d5a11e180d51231380fcd7e_7.jpg


via nboccia http://instagr.am/p/IIQmzSnsde/
 
unimaginative2 said:
Looking over this project again, it really exemplifies the worst of anti-urban, sterile modernism. The recessed concrete plaza under the looming tower reminds me of failed brutalist attempts to create "open and inviting public space" under the overhang of buildings like Boston City Hall. This building might be a reasonably decent Toronto condo building (though it's hardly great architecture) but it certainly adds nothing to the neighbourhood. The demolished buildings, while not works of architecture themselves, were infinitely adaptable, provided a genuine mix of uses, and helped to animate the street.
Click to expand...

The new tower adds retail, office and, residential. The old buildings were unsuitable for residential. The 20,000 square feet of office space replaces most of the commercial space lost and at minimum is as flexible a space as what was perviously offered.
 
I went by today and also noticed that the entire facade was demolished except for the front doorway with some workers going at it specifically. Maybe only the door surround is being kept and the rest will be recreated.

Though it wasn't my favourite club, seeing what was System (and Tonic) reduced to rubble left me a bit sad.

13 Mar.
DSC_0443.jpg


DSC_0444.jpg


DSC_0446.jpg
 
Last edited:
That is quite maddening. Why on earth would they demolish essentially the whole facade? The structural integrity looked fine, does it just make the dig much more expensive to keep it?
The whole focus of this podium was the retained (I guess recreated) facade. I hope what they replace it with doesn't look like kitschy crap.
 
"Kind of mediocre building...Id say its hard to save crap."

I was having a conversation with someone the other night where I suggested that there are only two things of intrinsic value when speaking about a building: location, and historical character. Location is self-evident but historical character is not. This is not well understood I feel given that the conversation revolved around an agent trying to convince the person that old buildings are crap. Historical character has intrinsic value because it is not replaceable. On the other hand good design is non-proprietory, meaning that contemporary design no matter how good has limited intrinsic value. To some and particularly in some cultures new-ness has intrinsic value, but I submit that new-ness does not because it is a depreciating asset.
 
ToroTO said:
I went by today and also noticed that the entire facade was demolished except for the front doorway with some workers going at it specifically. Maybe only the door surround is being kept and the rest will be recreated.

Though it wasn't my favourite club, seeing what was System (and Tonic) reduced to rubble left me a bit sad.

13 Mar.
Click to expand...

i know a bunch of people who felt the same way when i showed them the picture.

luckily, i went to one of the last parties there before it closed on new years in 2005.
 
TrickyRicky said:
"Kind of mediocre building...Id say its hard to save crap."

I was having a conversation with someone the other night where I suggested that there are only two things of intrinsic value when speaking about a building: location, and historical character. Location is self-evident but historical character is not. This is not well understood I feel given that the conversation revolved around an agent trying to convince the person that old buildings are crap. Historical character has intrinsic value because it is not replaceable. On the other hand good design is non-proprietory, meaning that contemporary design no matter how good has limited intrinsic value. To some and particularly in some cultures new-ness has intrinsic value, but I submit that new-ness does not because it is a depreciating asset.
Click to expand...

Your writing...it's beautiful.
 
from what i heard onsite is that they are storing the facade and it will be the entrance to the new building. Sounds like a good idea
 
Oh...so much for the facadectomy of that attractive and interesting building.

We're turning Peter Street (and many other streets in this city) into Queens Quay. Can anybody honestly say that Queens Quay is a street that they enjoy walking on? That it should be a model emulated elsewhere in actual existing neighbourhoods?

When Jane Jacobs talked about mixed use, she wasn't talking about condo towers on top of a Rabba. (In fact, she spends many pages in Death and Life criticizing residential high-rise "elevator buildings.") Older buildings like the ones being torn down for this tower can be converted into just about anything. That can hardly be said for the designated retail spaces in a condo podium. I have no problem with condos on many sites, including on Peter and on parking lots throughout downtown. It's also excusable on a complete greenfield site where it's genuinely difficult to create a neighbourhood from scratch. My problem is with completely leveling an entire street worth of adaptable, mixed-age, mixed-use, organically-developed buildings and replacing it with a complete glass condo monoculture just like Queens Quay or Bay north of College.
 
You must log in or register to post here.

Back
Top