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

Blovertis said:
Agree 100 percent. How hard would it have been to at least dye the mortar red?
Click to expand...
It's not the mortar, it's the brick colour itself and the choice to use brick at all. As it appears from archival photos from the 1930's, there was always a portion of the building's north facade that was exposed, which became even more visible in the 1970's when the adjacent 3-storey building was replaced by a 2-storey building. What they should have done was to clad the north face in a new material and colour that was compatible with both the new architecture and heritage building.

1930's:

s1230_it4236.jpg


1971:

f0124_fl0002_id0109.jpg
 
thecharioteer said:
It's not the mortar, it's the brick colour itself
Click to expand...

Agreed.

thecharioteer said:
and the choice to use brick at all.
Click to expand...

Not sure why one would object to brick here, assuming you could deliver either of the original brick or a good simulation thereof.

thecharioteer said:
As it appears from archival photos from the 1930's, there was always a portion of the building's north facade that was exposed, which became even more visible in the 1970's when the adjacent 3-storey building was replaced by a 2-storey building.
Click to expand...

Great finds!

thecharioteer said:
What they should have done was to clad the north face in a new material and colour that was compatible with both the new architecture and heritage building.
Click to expand...

Not sure I agree; I mean, an alternative material would be a better choice than what they did; but I'm not sure there wasn't a better heritage compatible choice.

Now if there were no better heritage choice to be made, I'm open to alternative of some description.
 
Northern Light said:
Agreed.



Not sure why one would object to brick here, assuming you could deliver either of the original brick or a good simulation thereof.



Great finds!



Not sure I agree; I mean, an alternative material would be a better choice than what they did; but I'm not sure there wasn't a better heritage compatible choice.

Now if there were no better heritage choice to be made, I'm open to alternative of some description.
Click to expand...
It's clear from the historic photos that the heritage building in question was not part of a larger row which would have necessitated adding a new exterior wall to what was once an interior wall. This is not an uncommon situation in urban environments. The simplest solution is often to stucco the exterior wall in a complementary colour. If there are reclaimed bricks from a demolition, these are often reused and it is likely that the original brick from this building is no longer available.

If it's a feature wall, art is often added (the Gooderham Building) or even a green wall (the Caixaforum in Madrid).
29a188ca-1d12-4a5f-a048-13f9478c8c21_800x600.jpg


In this case, given the proximity to the new building, I would have looked at some sort of panel system, in metal or porcelain that would have given it a crisp, clean surface without trying to mimic the original brick.
 
thecharioteer said:
It's clear from the historic photos that the heritage building in question was not part of a larger row which would have necessitated adding a new exterior wall to what was once an interior wall. This is not an uncommon situation in urban environments. The simplest solution is often to stucco the exterior wall in a complementary colour. If there are reclaimed bricks from a demolition, these are often reused and it is likely that the original brick from this building is no longer available.

If it's a feature wall, art is often added (the Gooderham Building) or even a green wall (the Caixaforum in Madrid).
View attachment 532269

In this case, given the proximity to the new building, I would have looked at some sort of panel system, in metal or porcelain that would have given it a crisp, clean surface without trying to mimic the original brick.
Click to expand...
A green/living wall would be nice, and still possible.
 
You can see the "before" brick on page 329 of this thread. It's lower grade filler brick and it's pretty rough. What's there now is horrible. I foresee some sort of artwork or electronic sign to cover it up.
 
Northern Light said:
Below is a pic by great UT contributor @jer1961

View attachment 532226

I love the restoration work on the Yonge-facing facade.........but what's with the north-facing brick wall?

That can't be original brick, it doesn't match the front facade at all. I find that rather jarring.

Edit to add: I think we need to summon UT's brick connoisseur @DavidCapizzano to opine on the matter.
Click to expand...

I don't really mind. I'm sure it will get a wash before construction is completed. The same brick will also be used on the new facade to the south of the heritage building, so it should look a bit more continuous. While I think they definitely could have sourced something a bit more orange, this is not the most offensive thing I have seen. You can see where the new brick facade will be in the image below from @BloorMan prior to the scaffolding going up.

1704922607268.png


I disagree with the idea that the wall should have used a contrasting or more crisp facade material, or that any addition to a heritage structure neeeeeeds to contrast both in colour and materiality - that's why a lot of our newer buildings abutting heritage structures are so monochromatic and boring. This idea is outdated and shows a lack of creativity. The new accompanying 3 story facade here uses the same colour brick, but with a contemporary fenestration - it does not need to contrast to be successful, and to give the heritage facade room to breathe.

I think when doing façadism, preserving the dimensionality of the original building is just as important as restoring the facade itself. While the restoration at Immix is quite nice, the brick stopping so suddenly on the north wall wrap around makes the preserved facade feel tacked on and not part of the building as a whole.

You can see this in @flonicky 's photo from the Immix thread where the brick on the north wall shifts to a metal panel system. Feels phoney to me. I think this is the main reason I am ok with that brick wall.

1704921914888.png


Anyways, thanks for coming to my ted talk.
 
Last edited:
DavidCapizzano said:
I don't really mind. I'm sure it will get a wash before construction is completed. The same brick will also be used on the new facade to the south of the heritage building, so it should look a bit more continuous. While I think they definitely could have sourced something a bit more orange, this is not the most offensive thing I have seen. You can see where the new brick facade will be in the image below from @BloorMan prior to the scaffolding going up.

View attachment 532424

I disagree with the idea that the wall should have used a contrasting or more crisp facade material, or that any addition to a heritage structure neeeeeeds to contrast both in colour and materiality - that's why a lot of our newer buildings abutting heritage structures are so monochromatic and boring. This idea is outdated and shows a lack of creativity. The new accompanying 3 story facade here uses the same colour brick, but with a contemporary fenestration - it does not need to contrast to be successful, and to give the heritage facade room to breathe.

I think when doing façadism, preserving the dimensionality of the original building is just as important as restoring the facade itself. While the restoration at Immix is quite nice, the brick stopping so suddenly on the north wall wrap around makes the preserved facade feel tacked on and not part of the building as a whole.

You can see this in @flonicky 's photo from the Immix thread where the brick on the north wall shifts to a metal panel system. Feels phoney to me. I think this is the main reason I am ok with that brick wall.

View attachment 532422

Anyways, thanks for coming to my ted talk.
Click to expand...
Heritage has never been a priority for this developer, as evidenced by his inauspicious demolition of Stollery's at the beginning. In fact, the record shows that his original application on April 21, 2015 was deemed incomplete because he did not even include a Heritage Impact Statement. His heritage architect is one of the best (GBCA) and their presentation to the Toronto Preservation Board in 2016, clearly shows that the intent on the north elevation was to match the brick on the west elevation (last page):


Unfortunately, given the developer's lack of interest in heritage and all the travails the project has gone through, the choice of a "near-miss" brick colour for the north facade was not given adequate attention by those involved (and Heritage Preservation Services was, as usual asleep at the switch in not requiring approval of brick samples). Compare this to the quality of both 2 Queen West and Waterworks where attention was duly paid by the developer, the consultants and the trades.
 
thecharioteer said:
Heritage has never been a priority for this developer, as evidenced by his inauspicious demolition of Stollery's at the beginning. In fact, the record shows that his original application on April 21, 2015 was deemed incomplete because he did not even include a Heritage Impact Statement. His heritage architect is one of the best (GBCA) and their presentation to the Toronto Preservation Board in 2016, clearly shows that the intent on the north elevation was to match the brick on the west elevation (last page):


Unfortunately, given the developer's lack of interest in heritage and all the travails the project has gone through, the choice of a "near-miss" brick colour for the north facade was not given adequate attention by those involved (and Heritage Preservation Services was, as usual asleep at the switch in not requiring approval of brick samples). Compare this to the quality of both 2 Queen West and Waterworks where attention was duly paid by the developer, the consultants and the trades.
Click to expand...
most heritage is crap and used by nimbies to limit development. this city will call any ugly building heritage and we end up with disgusting monstrosities at ground level.

i am happy he quickly got rid of the building so that we could have a 40 foot high uninterrupted street presence which is going to be unique and world class for once.
 
You must log in or register to post here.

Back
Top