Toronto W Hotel Toronto | ?m | 9s | Larco | a—A

I typically agree with that sort of evaluation of an annex/alteration to a building, but this to me is more a case study in dealing with the very tricky situation of one member of a strata or partial ownership of a building (in this case, the hotelier within a larger complex) seeking to improve their own asset while the rest of the building represents a very compromised version of itself and doesn't appear to be nearing any sort of significant, comprehensive improvements. In this case, I think approaching the addition as a sort of "parasite" to the building actually works well; it makes a statement and it architecturally has the self-awareness to announce itself as something that isn't trying to be part of the existing building but instead announces itself as something in contradiction to the existing building. (I'd prefer they didn't cover the precast though, so the bar reads entirely as a separate element sat atop the existing roof).

I guess the issue is what happens when the rest of the building is updated. i.e. if they eventually reclad the precast concrete exterior of the "bunker", I'd prefer to see all of the skin including this portion of the building reclad so it reads once again as a continuous element, and the bar and elevator remain in contradiction to it.
 
Yegger said:
the best parts of brutalism are a building's symmetry, its straight lines and the monolithic result of repetitive architectural elements. Additions like these compromise the original design intent and reduce the overall architectural value in my opinion. I'm no architect but i am sure there are better ways to update / expand the building while using design language consistent with the original structure
Click to expand...
I'd venture to say in my limited understanding of this, is to strip off the original cast, and reforming it via concrete to the effect we see in the rendering. Instead of patching it over currently, which feels cheapened, to put it mildly and IMO.
 
We only have hints of the final effect of the re-cladding here, so far, from the renderings, so we really cannot know yet how we'll feel once it's all done. I am hoping that it will read as three buildings from west to east, as opposed to one with the middle portion with a patch-job over it: that would be unfortunate. If it does read that way once this update is done, I'll hope that the west ends= will be tackled shortly thereafter to make each portion distinct. Something this massive and banal (this was never particularly good brutalism) will not be missed by me if it looks more articulated in the future. I still cling to the hope that we will end up with some glass cut into the department store area to the west (who knows how long that Bay location will last), but don't have much hope for anything changing where the parking garage is above the Longo's to the east.

42
 
interchange42 said:
We only have hints of the final effect of the re-cladding here, so far, from the renderings, so we really cannot know yet how we'll feel once it's all done... as opposed to one with the middle portion with a patch-job over it: that would be unfortunate.
Click to expand...

But that's exactly what it is, it's not a removal of panels and something inset into the facade; it's a panel system being applied over the precast.
 
Yegger said:
the best parts of brutalism are a building's symmetry, its straight lines and the monolithic result of repetitive architectural elements. Additions like these compromise the original design intent and reduce the overall architectural value in my opinion. I'm no architect but i am sure there are better ways to update / expand the building while using design language consistent with the original structure
Click to expand...

Such a removing indidvidual concrete panels and replacing them with lighted panels within and consistent in size and
proportion with the original grid, instead of layering new cladding on top of the original concrete panels.

.dwg said:
... a removal of panels and something inset into the facade; ...
Click to expand...

Exactly, that would have been preferable, I think.

*********

What's being done here is a standard current approach to addressing the monolithic podium facade
- breaking it up into parts - like at the Teahouse condos.
Personally, I think the proportions of the podium should match the size and proportion of the towers above
- in this case the slab of the condo (imagine if the Bloor side facade of Manulife Centre had been "broken up" (?)).
It's also similar to how the Yonge St. frontage of Toronto Eaton Centre was "broken up" by individual fake facades.

A more challenging solution would have been to open up street front retail (which probably would have required demolishing into the building and constructing new slabs at grade).
 
Last edited:
.dwg said:
But that's exactly what it is, it's not a removal of panels and something inset into the facade; it's a panel system being applied over the precast.
Click to expand...
I'm not disputing that… but big deal if it's applied over. If there aren't going to be any windows in this section, why would it need to be inset into the existing cladding, or have the existing cladding removed entirely? As long as the materials applied to it are high enough quality that the new section is attractive… great! We have an idea of what it will look like here, we just don't know the final effect yet.

I'm just hoping that someday the west end will get another treatment, one that will be cut into because they'll add windows. I just may be hoping against hope.

42
 
IMG_20200824_135847.jpg
 
Hmm.
That bottom tile/panel isn't alligned with the groove/seam of the original concrete panels,
so I suspect it will look "tacked on".
 
Hmmmmmm ...
Trying to figure out where the windows for rooms will be.
Anyone have any idea how that is being handled?
 
You must log in or register to post here.

Back
Top