Toronto The Madison | 121m | 36s | Madison Group | Kirkor

Yep, and there's plenty of people using the Loblaws and LCBO. Here's a picture from yesterday of the LCBO:
Madison Street Interaction (2).JPG
 

Attachments

  • Madison Street Interaction (2).JPG
    Madison Street Interaction (2).JPG
    1.6 MB · Views: 1,004
December 7th:

mIMG_9031.jpg
mIMG_9045.jpg
mIMG_9049.jpg
 

Attachments

  • mIMG_9031.jpg
    mIMG_9031.jpg
    405 KB · Views: 806
  • mIMG_9045.jpg
    mIMG_9045.jpg
    529.6 KB · Views: 790
  • mIMG_9049.jpg
    mIMG_9049.jpg
    507.5 KB · Views: 869
From a planning perspective this is a great addition to the area. From an architectural perspective, a little less so.

Especially considering what Tridel did across the street a number of years ago. Replaced the Union Carbide building with this planning disaster. Who allowed no retail here?

Screen Shot 2016-12-08 at Thursday Dec 8, 2016 9.40.06 AM.png
 

Attachments

  • Screen Shot 2016-12-08 at Thursday Dec 8, 2016 9.40.06 AM.png
    Screen Shot 2016-12-08 at Thursday Dec 8, 2016 9.40.06 AM.png
    1.9 MB · Views: 597
Especially considering what Tridel did across the street a number of years ago. Replaced the Union Carbide building with this planning disaster. Who allowed no retail here?
Considering what stood there before, that building is a crime.
 
@MafaldaBoy always has the striking ability to take such quality pictures they almost look like renders!

Anyway, finally visited the LCBO and Loblaws here yesterday. Loblaws was bigger than I imagined but nothing too special. The LCBO on the other hand was probably the nicest designed LCBO I've visited, but also smaller floorprint than I imagined.
 
What is with the sea-foam green tiles along the top of the building?

It looks cheap. Why not hide the massive black lines in between the tiles? The roofline looks like an old, unkept bathroom from the 1950s.

These cheap tiles do not age well. Brick ages well. That's why brick buildings from the 1800s still look pretty good.

texture-old-tile-wall-19298709.jpg
 
It's not tile. It's spandrel glass panels. The lines are the mullion caps that hold the panels in place. Glass doesn't age.

A brick building from the early 1900s will look like crap without extensive repairs and cleaning. It is one reason why so much was lost in the 1960s to the 1980s. The details and colour were all lost under layers of soot.
 
It's not tile. It's spandrel glass panels. The lines are the mullion caps that hold the panels in place. Glass doesn't age.

A brick building from the early 1900s will look like crap without extensive repairs and cleaning. It is one reason why so much was lost in the 1960s to the 1980s. The details and colour were all lost under layers of soot.

Any building from the early 1900s will look terrible without extensive repairs and cleaning. Why do you just say this about brick? If anything, brick ages considerably well.

Yes, you are right, it is glass panels. Regardless, it looks like seafoam green bathroom tiles, and that is essentially the problem. Mullioned glass looks horrendous.

Glass facades do age. The steel holding the glass frames in place ages terribly. Brick ages amazingly well.

The same soot that covered brick, would only, I assume, eventually cover the glass, too.

13245.jpg
 

Back
Top