Quote:
Originally Posted by fenwick16
The more I look at this proposal the more I enthusiastically want it to proceed. I am even starting to like the cantilevered section. I don't think that the design of the new sections should be muted to decrease the contrast between new and old. The Heritage Advisory Committee voting against it is a concern since the TD Tower was unanimously approved by the Heritage Advisory Committee.
Looking at one of several renderings posted previously, I think that the owner/developer is doing a good job of maintaining the heritage streetscape. The Champlain building facade will be restored to the way it was 100 years ago with arches over the lower windows and restored to the original height. The Bank of Commerce Building will be restored in its entirety.
|
The treatment of the Champlain Building is nice in terms of the restoration work, but it will commit the classic facadectomy crime of totally overshadowing the massing of the old building with a sheer wall directly behind it, like
this, where you practically have to squint to notice the old building in the streetscape. There really isn't a
contrast between old and new here--the new building looks like it's one step from bludgeoning the old ones out of existence (which it is, basically). I'm also a bit torn on cutting off the top two floors of Champlain. I know the top floors were added later, but why not just leave them?
Part of the problem is how overwrought and busy the overall design is, like four entirely different towers all stacked on top of one another, plus the historical streetscapes below. It's a bit intense, and not in a goo way. And the architectural integrity of the heritage structures (designated years ago in order to be preserved in their entirety) gets totally subsumed under the new structure(s). A setback would go a long way to addressing this problem--and hey, if the tower needs to go taller to make up for lost square footage, I've got no problem with that.
I think it's important to note that the Heritage Advisory folks aren't voting to reject the project, but to reject the degree of alteration to the heritage structures--which leaves room for the city and developer to work together to a better compromise, which hopefully will result in a better project. It really does feel like, what's the point of designating heritage structures if we're just going to reduce them all to one wall attached to a bigger wall behind them? Facadism has its place, but it's getting to be a crutch for developers who can then claim to be preserving the old buildings, rather than more imaginatively re-use them or better incorporate them into new developments. (Props to them for the full preservation of the Merrill Lynch Building, however.)
Besides implementing a step-back, retaining the old structures as actual entry-points with storefront retail would also go a long way to maintaining the streetscape and still creating an impressive new structure. (Founders Square would be an example of a good project marred by an unfortunate decision to turn the old storefronts into mere decoration.)