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(?)…

By: superkul

superkul — Wed, 27 May 2009 01:44:42 +0000

Follow the conversation on our Home/Office project on ArchDaily blog at: http://bit.ly/YLpAo

By: Daniel Con

Daniel Con — Tue, 26 May 2009 20:51:10 +0000

Am I missing something?? This facade seems pretty humble compared to the glowing neon storefronts adjacent. It would be nice if the neighboring buildings would clean their facades of signage so that the “historical” architecture could be read, then maybe you would have an argument that this design is out of place, but I dont see any architectural quality worth recognizing here. This doesn’t look like a historical district, what is worth conserving?

By: Dariusz

Dariusz — Tue, 26 May 2009 08:29:44 +0000

Conservation?what is there to conserve? 1950′s ugly non-architecture? let’s bring in the new ! Good work guys..

By: Bo Lucky

Bo Lucky — Tue, 26 May 2009 01:38:00 +0000

@Lindsey
Grass is always greener on the other side of the fence. Vancouver is doing great – no wonder it’s one of the nicest cities in Canada. Toronto too. Evaluation (or for that matter construction too) of a building according to a personal taste leads nowhere as… each of us have a different taste. I don’t know whether the Home Office elevation meets municipal standards or not and I will not speculate. I may however mention that I saw intelligently constructed infills that blends nicely between existing structures (no matter if heritage or not) augmenting visual quality of the entire street without shouting “here I am, look at me”. And by the way… I am almost sure that if the architect was not restricted, the building would likely be much higher…

By: Lindsay

Lindsay — Tue, 26 May 2009 00:54:12 +0000

@Bo Lucky: I think it’s a great addition to that streetscape, which is a combination of 2 and 3 story buildings if I remember correctly – the height is about the same as the building over to the right, isn’t it? Toronto is doing a much better job of being adventurous – and not in a sloppy way – than we are in Vancouver, where nothing is allowed – the city planners are “heritage” oriented and, while consulting with conservation architects, consistently allow developers to build poor mimicry of older buildings, like a low-rent museum of a time that in fact never existed. This seems much more vibrant than that.

By: viniruski

viniruski — Mon, 25 May 2009 20:12:21 +0000

This might be a strange thing for a born+raised Vancouverite, but I really want to move to T.Dot.

By: Fino

Fino — Mon, 25 May 2009 19:51:11 +0000

I noticed that about Toronto. They have mastered making exquisite contemporary spaces out of old structures. I visited an old brewery that was converted into a tasteful artist district without ever destroying the preexisting context of the old buildings. As a matter of fact, I could tell that the city really took pride in the methods to reuse and recycle, whether it was trash or architecture….or for some you….the same thing. Ha

that is all.

By: Bo Lucky

Bo Lucky — Mon, 25 May 2009 19:50:00 +0000

@Lucas Grey
I was referring neither to the building which was replaced nor to a new building function (which is fine). It’s the elevation that I have a problem with. It is designed with no regards for the neighbourhood. Only height (which is likely result of municipal height restrictions) “connects” this building to its setting. The rest “stands out” ruining the climate of this place.
I was in Toronto couple of times, but this has no relevance to the subject we are discussing. I have nothing against modern design as long as it respects the place it is proposed for.

By: Lucas Gray

Lucas Gray — Mon, 25 May 2009 19:28:48 +0000

Bo…it looks to me like the street is still there. Maybe there isn’t a storefront that is open but in the description it mentioned that the previous building was used a single residence so it wasn’t an active street facade. They did an fine job relating to the scale of the neighborhood. Why should all offices have to be removed from engaging the street? Where should they go? All offices should move to high rises or above retail stores?

Have you ever been to Toronto? Many historic or older neighborhoods have plenty of buildings that aren’t worth preserving and injecting a contemporary design into a historic context can be quite captivating.

By: Bo Lucky

Bo Lucky — Mon, 25 May 2009 19:09:07 +0000

Answer to Lucas Grey question: streetscape (historic climate of the street).