Toronto The One | 328.4m | 91s | Mizrahi Developments | Foster + Partners

Skeezix said:
I couldn't disagree more. The facade is not "second rate" in the least, and the lack of "clean slate" is not the problem here.
Click to expand...
It is most certainly second rate and dime a dozen on any late 19th century retail strip (which we have many of).

Remember the noise made over Stollery's? That's what pushed the city to insist on the other facades... Stollery's... A late 19th century structure, bastardized over the ages with absolutely nothing redeeming left was suddenly worth an uproar? Meanwhile developers continue to demolish worthwhile structures while the city twiddles its thumbs.

The value proposition of the diagrids was lost when the facades were retained. There was no clear design language down to ground level - hence negating the need to spend $$$$ on diagrids.
 
Filip said:
It is most certainly second rate and dime a dozen on any late 19th century retail strip (which we have many of).
Click to expand...

The first part is simply not true, and the second part is an appalling approach to heritage preservation and city building.

Filip said:
Remember the noise made over Stollery's? That's what pushed the city to insist on the other facades
Click to expand...

I don't see how the quality of Stollery's is relevant to the preservation of the other building (most of the controversy was over process rather than over the Stollery's building itself). And your theory about what "pushed the city" is untrue - 784 Yonge would have been an issue regardless.

Filip said:
The value proposition of the diagrids was lost when the facades were retained
Click to expand...

You're now just making excuses for the cheapening of the design. There is absolutely no reason why the heritage building shouldn't be preserved and why The One can't have a compelling podium with it.
 
Skeezix said:
The first part is simply not true, and the second part is an appalling approach to heritage preservation and city building.



I don't see how the quality of Stollery's is relevant to the preservation of the other building (most of the controversy was over process rather than over the Stollery's building itself). And your theory about what "pushed the city" is untrue - 784 Yonge would have been an issue regardless.



You're now just making excuses for the cheapening of the design. There is absolutely no reason why the heritage building shouldn't be preserved and why The One can't have a compelling podium with it.
Click to expand...

Alright - let's think about some of the most striking examples of contemporary architecture. Name one that has pedestrian facades glued to it. So Mizrahi gets a demolition permit from the city to take out Stollery's (among others) and afterwards Wong-Tam raises a stink? Talk about being behind the curve in your own ward.

Note: this is much different than a holistic heritage/modern development such as the Ursulines Monastery in Quebec City or the Royal Conservatory here in Toronto.
 
Filip said:
Alright - let's think about some of the most striking examples of contemporary architecture. Name one that has pedestrian facades glued to it. So Mizrahi gets a demolition permit from the city to take out Stollery's (among others) and afterwards Wong-Tam raises a stink? Talk about being behind the curve in your own ward.

Note: this is much different than a holistic heritage/modern development such as the Ursulines Monastery in Quebec City or the Royal Conservatory here in Toronto.
Click to expand...

First, it's not a pedestrian facade. Not only is it a gem in its own right, it's facades such as these that form the backbone of the built city we love. If we treat them as dispensable, we then dispense with the city's character. Second, there is no reason that the building cannot be preserved in an appropriate way on a site such as this. Their failure to do so to date has more to do with the developer than it does with the principle of heritage preservation. There is zero reason that we cannot preserve this building and have a striking tower. Zero. Place blame where it belongs, not on the heritage building.
 
Skeezix said:
First, it's not a pedestrian facade. Not only is it a gem in its own right, it's facades such as these that form the backbone of the built city we love. If we treat them as dispensable, we then dispense with the city's character. Second, there is no reason that the building cannot be preserved in an appropriate way on a site such as this. Their failure to do so to date has more to do with the developer than it does with the principle of heritage preservation.
Click to expand...
It is one thing asking Foster to incorporate something beautiful with meat into his design (Hearst Tower) and a completely different thing asking him to glue banal (certainly not a gem, sorry) facades like barnacles on a ship. If the city is gung ho about preserving these facades, then find some city owned lot on a commercial strip, rebuild it there and ask the developer to cover it.
 
The ideal situation, as mentioned many times here previously, would be to move the heritage building slightly south beside the former Uptown Theatre entrance. Not sure why this hasn't been explored by the firm (maybe it has?)
 
Filip said:
It is one thing asking Foster to incorporate something beautiful with meat into his design (Hearst Tower) and a completely different thing asking him to glue banal (certainly not a gem, sorry) facades like barnacles on a ship. If the city is gung ho about preserving these facades, then find some city owned lot on a commercial strip, rebuild it there and ask the developer to cover it.
Click to expand...

There is nothing banal about it. And he should do better than glue it on. Ironic that you're whining about the lack of quality architecture at street level, and then blaming the one aspect on the site worth preserving.

And while I would have no problem with shifting the building along this stretch of Yonge frontage, in keeping with its historic context, the less said about your solution of moving it to "some city owned lot on a commercial strip" the better.
 
ardwold1 said:
The ideal situation, as mentioned many times here previously, would be to move the heritage building slightly south beside the former Uptown Theatre entrance. Not sure why this hasn't been explored by the firm (maybe it has?)
Click to expand...

That would be an ideal situation. Are they not looking into buying additional properties to the south?
 
Skeezix said:
There is nothing banal about it. And he should do better than glue it on. Ironic that you're whining about the lack of quality architecture at street level, and then blaming the one aspect on the site worth preserving.

And while I would have no problem with shifting the building along this stretch of Yonge frontage, in keeping with its historic context, the less said about your solution of moving it to "some city owned lot on a commercial strip" the better.
Click to expand...

And this is why we have a small town mentality. Bravo.
 
Filip said:
And this is why we have a small town mentality. Bravo.
Click to expand...

lol you've never been to small town Ontario have you? Guelph is a small city now but, when it was a small town, it knocked down half it's old downtown for the sake of "progress" and, to this day, has a terrible relationship with it's downtown because so much of it has been destroyed or badly vandalized by cheap landowners and developers over the years. Preserving heritage is far from "small town mentality."
 
Filip said:
So Mizrahi gets a demolition permit from the city to take out Stollery's (among others) and afterwards Wong-Tam raises a stink? Talk about being behind the curve in your own ward.
Click to expand...

Mizrahi went through the buildings department for a demolition permit. That allows them to by-pass planning and council, so its not her fault she didn't get wind of it before it happened. There was no way she would have under the process the applicant went through.
 
wolfewood said:
lol you've never been to small town Ontario have you? Guelph is a small city now but, when it was a small town, it knocked down half it's old downtown for the sake of "progress" and, to this day, has a terrible relationship with it's downtown because so mbuch of it has been destroyed or badly vandalized by cheap landowners and developers over the years. Preserving heritage is far from "small town mentality."
Click to expand...
There's your problem - comparing this to Guelph. This is what I mean by small town mentality.

New York City continues knocking down drop dead gorgeous beaux arts and art deco towers to build the next generation of the city. Do people complain? Probably, crimes were made in the past, but sometimes the past has to make way for the future. If a 3 storey banal facade at the intersection of our two most important streets is too much to bear, then we cannot call ourselves a big city. We are a big village.
 
Filip said:
New York City continues knocking down drop dead gorgeous beaux arts and art deco towers to build the next generation of the city. Do people complain?
Click to expand...

People do complain to this day. Go to Wired New York to see the disdain they have for the fact 432 Park Avenue replaced an old hotel.
 
You must log in or register to post here.

Back
Top