Torontoist: Sure, It's Nice. But Where Will the Crack Dealers Go?

David Newland

Wed, 11 Jun 2008 16:35:08 -0500

@Gloria (26) Aw, that wernt nothin'.

Gloria

Wed, 11 Jun 2008 15:58:22 -0500

@David Newland (21): Darn, that's slick.

n0wak

Wed, 11 Jun 2008 15:23:20 -0500

How about something in the neo-gothic vein, a Gaudi of glass? That would be an extraordinary addition to the church and the architecture of living. There is also a great example in Montreal of an old stone church that has been expanded and converted into living space. Take some ques from that. meh. The church is ALREADY converted. What's at issue is the space BESIDE the church. Building over the church adds a lot of extra space without adding too much verticality. Frankly, this is a far nicer (IMO) option than just stacking those overhanging elements on top of the building. Then it'd be another boring vertical tower. But this is not boring and I like it and I hope to see it happen. Also, speaking of building around old buildings, I'd love to see this place: http://www.dezeen.com/2008/05/22/caixaforum-madrid-by-herzog-de-meuron/

David Topping

Wed, 11 Jun 2008 13:35:37 -0500

That building you linked to scares the crap out of me, uskyscraper. Gah!

uskyscraper

Wed, 11 Jun 2008 13:25:08 -0500

I rather like this, but only if they cantilever over the church. It's cheating to drop in the columns straddling the church, never mind tacky, low-class and completely ugly and bizarre. However, cantilevers are generally too expensive for a residential tower because they require clever engineering or very thick slabs, hence it probably won't happen in Toronto. Here's a snazzy office/hotel/condo tower proposed for Jersey City that does it right. Of course, it's also by Rem Koolhaas: http://snurl.com/2f5ss

Apricot

Wed, 11 Jun 2008 11:51:09 -0500

It looks like the shiny extension is threatening to crush the church below. An unnerving allegory...

David Newland

Wed, 11 Jun 2008 10:44:14 -0500

@Gloria: Like your name, the old church retains the resonance of its sacred origins but is lovely on its own account. ;-)

motif04

Wed, 11 Jun 2008 09:08:32 -0500

Looks like the future is eating the past

Carly Beath

Tue, 10 Jun 2008 23:25:35 -0500

Oh no. I go by this place a lot, and I admire it every time. The buildings that are there right now are pretty cool, and there's a really nice courtyard-type area. I feel like this is going to take away every ounce of quaint charm it currently has.

Easy Writer

Tue, 10 Jun 2008 23:18:55 -0500

"Ugly as sin" would be an understatement but for the context. Urban architecture is at its finest when it augments and evolves the neighbourhood and situational context in which is it built. As envisioned, this condo structure is an act of complete displacement and placelessness. It literally doesn't touch the neighbourhood or lot on which it is built. It is empty and soulless like a car garage. How about something in the neo-gothic vein, a Gaudi of glass? That would be an extraordinary addition to the church and the architecture of living. There is also a great example in Montreal of an old stone church that has been expanded and converted into living space. Take some ques from that.

Skippy the Magical Racegoat

Tue, 10 Jun 2008 23:07:45 -0500

I think it looks kinda cool, yet I hate the ROM and AGO reworks. And the nabe definitely needs housing that's not devoted to crack cocaine production. Doesn't really bother me that it consists of sterile glass boxes. Glass is a nice addition to any home, as it allows sunlight in, essentially giving you the power to see through walls. Also, the boxy, rectangular construction is surprisingly livable. My last apartment was spheroid in shape and the accidents were non-stop. And just try finding a convex-shaped couch at IKEA!

ambrose

Tue, 10 Jun 2008 23:03:39 -0500

building buildings over buildings. our city's architecture finally eats itself!

David Topping

Tue, 10 Jun 2008 22:18:01 -0500

I really really really want to see more.

spacejack

Tue, 10 Jun 2008 21:23:28 -0500

lol! Well, the poster at least does make it look pretty sci-fi. Unlike the ROM, which basically looks busted, this just looks a bit unevenly stacked. Again though, perched over that church, it does look pretty goofy. I'd group this, the Shoe Museum and OCAD under the category of "drunken architecture."

Gloria

Tue, 10 Jun 2008 21:16:15 -0500

@David Newland: I was hoping you were saying so on the basis of its formal properties, not its former status as a holy site.

tyrannosaurus_rek

Tue, 10 Jun 2008 19:46:10 -0500

Old and new can blend successfully, but this fails by *not* blending them — one steps over the other carefully avoiding cooties contamination — and the "new" component is completely devoid of aesthetic value. Why not use glass and steel to continue the architectural theme of vaults and the other trappings of church architecture? I don't know who is responsible, but with few exceptions I'd say this generation of architects should be taken behind the shed and beaten.

TokyoTuds

Tue, 10 Jun 2008 18:57:10 -0500

Exceptionally fugly ... Tuds

Andrew Pulsifer

Tue, 10 Jun 2008 18:17:19 -0500

Don't forget, the Berkeley Church is not a Church anymore, it's an event space that is used by the likes of Dalton McGuinty and Gothic rave organizers. Does that make it better? Probably?

leercat

Tue, 10 Jun 2008 17:52:24 -0500

Wow. The first thing that came to mind was 'Imperial Walker emerging from a block of ice and defending its ecclesiastical meal', none of which makes much sense I realize.

David Newland

Tue, 10 Jun 2008 17:02:09 -0500

Go inside that building and appreciate the way the light fills the space, the way the vaulted ceiling soars. Churches are built that way to speak of the sublime. Whether you're a believer or not, that effect is going to be undermined by the awareness that there's an enormous building looming over you - even if it doesn't block out the light. Why be cheeky with one of the few humanly scaled, interesting architectural entities in that neighbourhood? If the alternative is really facading, (as opposed to just letting it be) we've really lost our way.

Gloria

Tue, 10 Jun 2008 16:46:59 -0500

This might be cool. I'm tired of glass rectangles only because so many of them are so lazily executed, but this actually looks interesting. I hate most balcony designs, but I like how they are used here. Not sure it fits in the neighbourhood, but with the condos burgeoning on King St, I guess it won't be too long until the area is paved with these. I agree that some juxtapositions are too jarring -- goes beyond "working" somehow -- but does it matter it's an "old church"? It's a building, like any other. The parishioners left long ago.

jonnyr00

Tue, 10 Jun 2008 16:45:07 -0500

If this was still a consecrated place, the idea of building a condominium above it would be, to my mind, abhorrent. And I don't even believe in God! As it is, Not bad. Certainly a step in the right direction when you consider the alternative (i.e. facade-ing the church.)

rocketeer

Tue, 10 Jun 2008 16:29:20 -0500

I can't decide if it's awesome or terrible. The contrast between buildings does look kind of sketchy in the poster, but I think in practice it comes off much better. Granted, I've never seen it on this scale before.

David Newland

Tue, 10 Jun 2008 16:09:49 -0500

The idea that highrises prevent sketchiness went out with St Jamestown - the putative home of the swinging sixties jet set in its day. The entire urban core -even the GLASS buildings! - could be sketchy again in mere moments of urban time, for reasons that have little to do with architecture. Am I the only one who thinks enfolding an old church like this is garish?

tyrannosaurus_rek

Tue, 10 Jun 2008 15:57:24 -0500

Good, more sterile glass rectangles; I was worried they were going out of style.

matty

Tue, 10 Jun 2008 15:35:31 -0500

Don't throw stones in glass houses.

Svend

Tue, 10 Jun 2008 15:26:33 -0500

I think the contrast is disturbing, the main reason I don't like the ROM addition. It's like having strawberry ice cream on top of your roast beef dinner - each is great, but why combine them?