Comments on: Home_Office / superkül inc

By: Joshua

Joshua — Thu, 04 Jun 2009 16:02:00 +0000

@ Gregg and Reger

If you open the first floor plan, you’ll notice a key. Number 7 on the second floor is indeed a study. The bedrooms are currently on the third floor, though the article states that it could change. It helps to actually look at the drawings.

By: Bo Lucky

Bo Lucky — Tue, 02 Jun 2009 02:28:12 +0000

Meg,
My comments are based on what I see and read here plus what’s available on the web. I guess these buildings are not designated or, if evaluated(?), they are designated “not heritage”. Is that so? I have no problem with the building layout. I think it is very well designed and I would like to have a home/office like that myself. However I am wondering what inspired an architect to design this elevation? May this be the old facade with a new cladding? Why these materials? The pictures show the Home/Office placed between two red brick(?) buildings. The rest of the street appears to have similar color scheme. Has architect considered an issue of a harmony with the neighbors or search inspiration somewhere else? I do not now all constrains of the project so my judgment may be not entirely accurate, but I hope you understand where I am coming from?

By: Lindsay

Lindsay — Tue, 02 Jun 2009 00:52:35 +0000

Thank you Meg, you made my day!

By: Meg

Meg — Mon, 01 Jun 2009 22:09:35 +0000

Not quite Bo – the buildings to the left of Home/Office were built in the 80s, and the signage from the movie was made up; the re-facade of Home/Office for example was very faithful reproduction of a building in Eerie, Pennsylvania – had nothing to do with Toronto. You should take a look at what’s really here sometime, Bo. Not much to write home about, and much of it in poor condition; that’s why it lent itself to being remade as as stage set – in many ways it is a blank canvas. Except for Home/Office of course.

By: Bo Lucky

Bo Lucky — Mon, 01 Jun 2009 13:33:50 +0000

Thank you Meg, you made my day!
So, the film makers recognized historic character of the street and “restored” it temporarily to the film needs and our architects are distructed by the ugly signs (or may be blinded with egos?). Not being able to see values behind the signage they harmonized the building with it? Great!!!

By: Meg

Meg — Mon, 01 Jun 2009 00:53:24 +0000

Bo – that photo was taken in the Fall of 2006, when the street was made up to look like 1962 Baltimore for the remake of the movie Hairspray, with John Travolta and Zac Efron. All of the building signage, window signage, and the facade of Home/Office were part of a larger stage set.

By: Lindsay

Lindsay — Thu, 28 May 2009 04:10:28 +0000

There is a superabundance of buildings like these in Toronto. But more importantly, Bo, your panorama shows the building superkule re-faced – and its profile is nearly identical to the original.

By: Bo Lucky

Bo Lucky — Thu, 28 May 2009 03:39:00 +0000

@Alex
Is this http://static.panoramio.com/photos/original/16839105.jpg Toronto Dundas Street West? Is this a “nothing historic” neighborhood of this building? Am I missing anything?

By: Alex

Alex — Thu, 28 May 2009 02:18:38 +0000

Bo, I’m from Toronto and know where this project is. There is nothing “historic” about the structures around it.

By: Bo Lucky

Bo Lucky — Wed, 27 May 2009 13:57:21 +0000

Some posts in this discussion clearly indicate that there is an urgent need for a conservation architect in architectural teams engaged within historic quarters, especially those neglected and still waiting for a sensitive restoration, renovation or upgrade. It is frightning to read such comments from architects(?)…