20250112_124442.jpg
 
stevedean said:
wow! What happened to saving the facade? They took down half the building!
Click to expand...
More like 90% of it is gone by now. I'm assuming (praying) that the bricks will be stored off site and then re-assembled once the new building is above grade, because the heritage facade was always shown in every render - can anyone confirm??
 
Towered said:
More like 90% of it is gone by now. I'm assuming (praying) that the bricks will be stored off site and then re-assembled once the new building is above grade, because the heritage facade was always shown in every render - can anyone confirm??
Click to expand...

The last assessment determined that the building was too degraded to retain. As far as I recall, the plan is to rebuild the heritage façade using as many salvaged parts as possible. I can't think of another example of when this has been done in Toronto, so this should be an interesting project.
 
Dr. Snoot said:
The last assessment determined that the building was too degraded to retain. As far as I recall, the plan is to rebuild the heritage façade using as many salvaged parts as possible. I can't think of another example of when this has been done in Toronto, so this should be an interesting project.
Click to expand...
The Loblaws at Lake Shore and Bathurst was rebuilt with its own bricks, basically with the old inside turned to the outside now.

42
 
Maybe this is an outlier opinion, but if you're only retaining the facade, but you find out the facade is too degraded to retain, maybe it is not so valuable to retain the facade. I get the idea that the historical building is nice to look at, but maybe it's time for a new building that isn't hamstrung by its former self? Maybe something better, cheaper (vs cost of rebuilding the facade brick by brick) and even more beautiful could be built?
 
milkycontent said:
Maybe this is an outlier opinion, but if you're only retaining the facade, but you find out the facade is too degraded to retain, maybe it is not so valuable to retain the facade. I get the idea that the historical building is nice to look at, but maybe it's time for a new building that isn't hamstrung by its former self? Maybe something better, cheaper (vs cost of rebuilding the facade brick by brick) and even more beautiful could be built?
Click to expand...
🙄
Yes, let’s tear down the history of our country and our city because it will be annoying to sand blast and re-stack some bricks.
It’s stood there for more than a hundred years, it is the fabric and identity of this corner.
There are plenty of places to build new cheap crap, like the gas station across the street.
 
milkycontent said:
Maybe this is an outlier opinion, but if you're only retaining the facade, but you find out the facade is too degraded to retain, maybe it is not so valuable to retain the facade. I get the idea that the historical building is nice to look at, but maybe it's time for a new building that isn't hamstrung by its former self? Maybe something better, cheaper (vs cost of rebuilding the facade brick by brick) and even more beautiful could be built?
Click to expand...
Better and cheaper, now there's a contradiction. At this point it's been demonstrated over and over again that Toronto developers struggle to build anything resembling a decent at grade experience. Our only hope for streetscapes that aren't completely miserable is retained facades, even if I hate this level of facadectomies. Unfortunately even the least remarkable commercial buildings from the late 19th through early 20th centuries are more articulated and attractive than nearly anything that is accomplished today.
 
milkycontent said:
Maybe this is an outlier opinion, but if you're only retaining the facade, but you find out the facade is too degraded to retain, maybe it is not so valuable to retain the facade. I get the idea that the historical building is nice to look at, but maybe it's time for a new building that isn't hamstrung by its former self? Maybe something better, cheaper (vs cost of rebuilding the facade brick by brick) and even more beautiful could be built?
Click to expand...
I see your point. If the old simply is no longer fit for purpose, maybe it's time for something new. The current façade of Buckingham Palace is little more than 100 years old now and yet no one bemoans the loss of the old one. In fact, the new one is arguably more stately. The problem today is that modern architecture typically fails to reproduce the human scale and fine-grain detailing of 100 year-old+ buildings. I hope that the neo-traditional architectural movement influences the masses towards more fine-grain building design. I expect Toronto's knee-jerk reaction to historical preservation stems from examples such as this at The One. Look at the preserved store front and compare it to the new red-brick façade next door. I can take in the new façade at a glance while the old façade requires more time to take in the details. It engages me for longer.
 
Dr. Snoot said:
The last assessment determined that the building was too degraded to retain. As far as I recall, the plan is to rebuild the heritage façade using as many salvaged parts as possible. I can't think of another example of when this has been done in Toronto, so this should be an interesting project.
Click to expand...
2 Queen St W
 
You must log in or register to post here.

Back
Top