Martin L. of the local residents association has followed the facade rework of 3094 Dundas Street West, his thoughts are below, we can’t help agree with his thoughts on fake external finishes.
The original brick facade was exposed for only a day before it was covered up again with a new stone finish.
The rework did give us a glimpse of the past and if you took a good look you would have seen two colours of brick which indicate the second floor was an addition. This also explains why the windows are out of level with the neighbours.
Although the original brick was nothing spectacular I think the new stone facades always look out of place.
I agree, I’m not a fan of the fake facades. If people are intent on doing it, they should at least try and keep it looking close to the regional, local or even within national architectural cladding/brick styles. We dont live in Greece, Italy or Southern California…
No one complained when Latitude 64 put up a stone facade.
It would great if you could choose a name not already in use…
Cmon guys… can’t we all just learn to love ourself?
I think the new facade looks great.
It’s great to restore a beautiful brick facing if you can, but in this case, it wasn’t very pretty. Rawlicious painted over thier brick, and that’s one way to do it. But the stone is very nice too. We can’t put everything back to “the way it was so long ago”. Sometimes, you just have to move forward.
That’s very ironic though, that this stone facade counts as “moving forward”.
i⋅ro⋅ny1 [ahy-ruh-nee, ahy-er-] Show IPA
–noun, plural -nies.
1. the use of words to convey a meaning that is the opposite of its literal meaning
That is not Irony A.R. If the stones were original pieces from circa 1888 maybe you’ve have a point, but they’re not, and you don’t. Good try though!
you’ve = you’d.
No, the use of such stone facades is not a modern building method by any stretch, so to imply that it’s a sign of “moving forward” and hence modernity is the opposite of its literal architectural meaning. It fits the definition perfectly.
Sure looks a lot nicer then the siding two doors to the left, now that should be outlawed…
I used to attend this dojo, and the owner of the building has always been very diligent in removing graffiti from the entrance ways. Pretty much as soon as something went up, they’d paint over it. Sometimes multiple times a month.
I am really uncomfortable when this blog criticizes building owners who try to maintain their buildings in a reputable manner. It may not be your cup of tea, but at least it’s not derelict.
I agree this building owner is good at maintaining his building, real good at the back too. In fact he also runs one of the best “active” business on that block.
But he is not being commented on about that, the poster is stating an opinion about the façade. There are people in the area who love the new erthcoverings (what they put on) and people who do not
One of the goals of this blog is to encourage people to send in post about their community concerns so other people such as you can comment and open up a dialogue about opinions and issues in all areas. In the greater Junction area there are many thoughts as to about what and how – although I think there could be more.
Or comment is great as it provides a viewpoint, that needs to be heard, thanks
As the “runner” of the blog I really stay far away from acting as an editor. sorry if you are uncomfortable, and I hope this in some way helps.
It’s fair game since it’s publicly visible. People are required to remove graffiti after 24 hours by law, but sure, it’s noble to clean and maintain a property given that enforcement isn’t strong. Nonetheless, people will talk about what’s in the public realm and some praise and criticism will arise. That’s important because it can make someone think twice about covering their Victorian in siding or beige paint. Community indifference would probably lead to more cheap renovations.