Toronto U of T: University College Revitalization | ?m | 3s | U of T | Kohn Shnier

It appears they've rewired everything for the high tech, hence influencing a lot of the design choices for good or bad. But I agree that in doing so, they left some components here that are not like the others. >.<
 
From ERA's website:



231-KSARC-University-College-1-768x576.jpg
012-KSARC-University-College-768x576.jpg
136-KSARC-University-College-768x576.jpg
361-KSARC-University-College-768x566.jpg
127-KSARC-University-College-768x576.jpg
172-KSARC-University-College-768x576.jpg
 
Definitely not my idea of a style that complements UC..

AoD

Agree completely.

I find it disappointing and disrespectful to the heritage of UC.

Fortunately most of the changes are not of a permanent nature but paint/stain/furnishing etc.
 

I viscerally dislike this project; and I was one of the people who suggested moving the library back to its original home.

I just feel the job done here is incredibly off-key and disrespectful to the heritage space. It's really rather gutting to see good money spent to make something worse.
 
I viscerally dislike this project; and I was one of the people who suggested moving the library back to its original home.

I just feel the job done here is incredibly off-key and disrespectful to the heritage space. It's really rather gutting to see good money spent to make something worse.
"Disrespectful" to a style needs to be retired from architectural discourse. It is truly meaningless.
 
If architecture is a discourse about style what would even be left if you banned the idea that architectural styles might be in a dialogue with each other? And that that dialogue could either be harmonious or not?
 
If architecture is a discourse about style what would even be left if you banned the idea that architectural styles might be in a dialogue with each other? And that that dialogue could either be harmonious or not?
Harmony sure. But the idea of styles being "disrespectful" is just tired trad nonsense.
 
You'd prefer we all just either defer to acclaim or reduce our commentary to "I like that" or "I don't like that"?

That sounds more detrimental to the discourse than the word "disrespectful", but maybe I'm insufficiently posttrad?
 
I viscerally dislike this project; and I was one of the people who suggested moving the library back to its original home.

I just feel the job done here is incredibly off-key and disrespectful to the heritage space. It's really rather gutting to see good money spent to make something worse.

I have the exact same reaction to this project. They tried turning it into something it is not. Juxtaposition of old and new can result in something wonderful. In other cases one needs to work with what you're given or risk ruining it. If this building no longer works as a modern library you move the library somewhere else... like you suggested.

Instead, they forced an aesthetic that doesn't belong here. Employing expensive, quality modernity doesn't distract from the fact that they've wrecked what was a beautiful historic interior. What they've done to it is an affront. Hopefully, they haven't done too much damage and it can one day be restored.
 
Last edited:
"Disrespectful" to a style needs to be retired from architectural discourse. It is truly meaningless.
Visually though it still has relevance, IMO. Especially when the newer elements here seem to be screaming "Look at me!" /sigh
 
Visually though it still has relevance, IMO. Especially when the newer elements here seem to be screaming "Look at me!" /sigh

The problem is partly it isn’t great look at me - certainly not when compared to what was there. The whole ensemble felt extremely heavy-handed for the context.

AoD
 

Top