Canada's Tallest U/C #11 - #30 - Page 337

Beedok · #**6721** Posted **Dec 8, 2014, 4:33 PM**

How long will that little old building survive?

TorontoDrew · #**6722** Posted **Dec 8, 2014, 4:42 PM**

Quote:

Originally Posted by Beedok

How long will that little old building survive?

That building is going nowhere. It will never be demolished, it will never be facaded. Hopefully in the near future the parking lot is replaced by green-space.
It's been the headquarters of the Toronto Port Authority since it was built.

From wikipedia

Martin Mtl · #**6723** Posted **Dec 8, 2014, 4:53 PM**

/\ Good then.

WhipperSnapper · #**6724** Posted **Dec 9, 2014, 1:02 AM**

City owns the property so any development proposal will preserve the building in its entirety. Unfortunately, it will get buried by 200 metre office towers.

steveve · #**6725** Posted **Dec 9, 2014, 5:38 AM**

Quote:

Originally Posted by caltrane74

2 for 1 - 100 Adelaide and INDX Condos

ha! I'd never thought there would be an unimpeded view of INDX rising, but since then 100 Adelaide was proposed and now is U/C at the same time, making it a lot easier to view progress. nice.

caltrane74 · #**6726** Posted **Dec 9, 2014, 1:27 PM**

Apparently the cladding on INDX sucks, thankfully it will be hidden by surrounding buildings.

WhipperSnapper · #**6727** Posted **Dec 9, 2014, 2:29 PM**

I just walked past it and they have a couple windows hanging off the side of the podium. Nothing finished to give an overall impression of the exterior.

isaidso · #**6728** Posted **Dec 9, 2014, 4:16 PM**

Quote:

Originally Posted by caltrane74

Apparently the cladding on INDX sucks, thankfully it will be hidden by surrounding buildings.

I believe the podium cladding is different than that on the tower portion so we'll have to wait a little longer before drawing conclusions.

caltrane74 · #**6729** Posted **Dec 10, 2014, 3:37 AM**

Five Condos

Me

TorontoDrew · #**6730** Posted **Dec 10, 2014, 2:56 PM**

That Church of Scientology Building is so drab and run down. I know the (cough couch) church is renovating it but I'd rather see it torn down. I'm sure it has some sort of Heritage status but I'm not a fan of early Prairie style architecture. Forumers from the west don't get offended, that term was just given to buildings that chose horizontal lines over vertical.

The_Architect · #**6731** Posted **Dec 10, 2014, 3:04 PM**

Quote:

Originally Posted by TorontoDrew

That Church of Scientology Building is so drab and run down. I know the (cough couch) church is renovating it but I'd rather see it torn down. I'm sure it has some sort of Heritage status but I'm not a fan of early Prairie style architecture. Forumers from the west don't get offended, that term was just given to buildings that chose horizontal lines over vertical.

It's really terrible. People at UT tried to defend it when I said the same thing and it was pretty funny the branches they were reaching for. Ugly as shit.

TorontoDrew · #**6732** Posted **Dec 10, 2014, 3:52 PM**

I get it, it's old. Not everything old is worth saving.

Ramako · #**6733** Posted **Dec 10, 2014, 4:34 PM**

The Church of Scientology building is not valued because it's old but because it's a well executed example of 50's modernism (a better example in my opinion is 111 Richmond Street West, which recently became Google Canada's headquarters). If you look at the podium for a tower like Charlie, you can see how those designs directly influenced neo-modern condo designs of today. Being able to walk the city and see such evolutions in design really adds a sense of age and layering to the cityscape.

TorontoDrew · #**6734** Posted **Dec 10, 2014, 5:03 PM**

It's a dreary drab piece of architecture and like you said better examples can be found elsewhere. How it meats the street is just horrible. The 50's were a time where they torn down so much to put of shite like this. I'd be interested to know what they tore down to build this structure.

WhipperSnapper · #**6735** Posted **Dec 10, 2014, 8:40 PM**

I don't mind the tower. It's hardly a landmark but, represents its era well. Not sure how it meets the street horribly either. Large windows framed in black marble is downright exceptional compared to the tower across the street.

TorontoDrew · #**6736** Posted **Dec 10, 2014, 8:48 PM**

It meets the street horribly because there is zero set back from the sidewalk, and it offers very little in the way of interaction with pedestrian traffic. Just my opinion though as I hate most 50's architecture.

WhipperSnapper · #**6737** Posted **Dec 10, 2014, 10:55 PM**

You're entitled to your opinion as far as design is concerned but, I still see little fault with the site planning. It is setback on Charles which allows for landscaping to soften the look but why would you want the same on a commercial arterial like Yonge? It's built on the same line as the rest of the block.

caltrane74 · #**6738** Posted **Dec 11, 2014, 2:06 PM**

FIVE Condos is no longer tall enough for the top 30

My bad

INDX

isaidso · #**6739** Posted **Dec 12, 2014, 2:31 AM**

Quote:

Originally Posted by TorontoDrew

It meets the street horribly because there is zero set back from the sidewalk, and it offers very little in the way of interaction with pedestrian traffic.

As a pedestrian, I almost always prefer a uniformly strong street apron NOT setbacks. That this building goes straight up from the lot line is one of its strongest features. It would be far less engaging with a set back.

Ramako · #**6740** Posted **Dec 12, 2014, 3:56 AM**

U Condos:

14-460268 by drum118, on Flickr

14-460263 by drum118, on Flickr