Condomonium: $1.6 million for a bell tower—yes, a bell tower—in the Junction

18 thoughts on “Condomonium: $1.6 million for a bell tower—yes, a bell tower—in the Junction”

1. what a hack job, what a wasted opportunity.

   ‘developers’ should be required to retain the services of a skilled (underline) architect when dealing w buildings such as these. the required complex spatial planning and co-ordination when inserting a foreign program into a building originally scaled and designed for a completely different occupancy is totally over their heads.

   inevitably, sell-able floor space takes precedent and you end-up w/ horrendous conventional condo detailing and spatial divisions(partion walls intersecting w/ original ledgers, etc.)that vulgarize the host building’s beauty.

   review the ‘money’ shots posted of this project, then take a look at one of Zecc Architects conversions to see how it can (and should) be done.

   stick to your sh*tty shoebox new builds, developers, and leave the tough jobs to the experts that will exercise due diligence on projects such as these …on second thought, don’t put up any more of those shoeboxes either until you can build them to the standards that will see them last as long as this church has.

2. Just wanted to thank ADORNO for addressing the issues with this property – I couldn’t agree more. Who did THIS to THAT?

3. @ ADORNO

   You pretty much nailed it.

   Thanks for the link to Zecc Architects. The church they worked on is truly an inspirational space.

4. Completely agree with Adorno, the developers missed the mark entirely. Now it’s just another uninspired space on the market standing by for a tasteless hack.

5. ha – thanks, all. glad my pre-coffee rant was well received.

6. This conversion is very sad. No respect for the original building and for the potential of the space. The decor appears very staged and bland. Instead of feeling uplifted for being in such a unique living space,it creates a feeling of not belonging. Don’t think it will find many buyers.

7. ADORNO’s link is now missing from his post so I’m not too sure if he was referring to the “Converted church into a residence Utrecht” (http://www.zecc.nl/Projecten/Herbestemming_wonen_werken/project/23/Converted_church_into_a_residence_Utrecht,_the_Netherlands?projectSection=1&photo=5 )project. If so how can one really compare that, a single residence conversion to the multi-residence unit in this article?

8. no windows!

9. @Symon

   Yes, they are different, but it lacks a design aesthetic that’s much needed for a project like this and has nothing to do with the type of space.

10. Great bathrooms, love it.

11. Hey TL!, what happened to the comments posted last week by Adorno and others who thought along the same lines as Luisa. Remember them??? I do, but if you want to delete it from the collective memory let me refresh you as to how Adorno (and many other posters that day) clearly state how poorly this conversion was done and how Zecc Architects did a masterful job in a similar albeit smaller church conversion.
    Too negative for Tim & Mr. Lamb???….bruise someones ego maybe?

12. Certain comments on this post were removed in error. They have been restored.

13. This could have been so incredibly special, as stated in a previous post, a missed opportunity. I was starting to suffer from vertigo while reviewing the photos with so many different visual lines running in all directions. To not have taken proper advantage of the architectural elements is a crime. Being banished to this “Tower” would be a punishment without hope of redemption.

14. @Sid
    exactly what design aesthetic are you referring to? The smaller church conversion simply works due to the size and it was for one single residence. As for this penthouse, how many of posters have ever seen the inside of this church prior to the switch-over? What would have been your design ADORNO, given the same constraints as the “hacks”

15. @ Symon

    That’s what I’m saying, there is no design aesthetic in this condo.

    As for the smaller church conversion, it does not “simply” work” due to its size. It’s this lack of appreciation and understanding for what architects and designers do or can do that results in places like this bell tower condo. Perhaps it’s to Zecc’s credit that you think the conversion was a simple task.

    WIth a non-traditional space like this bell tower, the challenge for the architect/designer is to make it work. Maybe they didn’t even use one. It looks like they cleaned the space up and dropped the furniture in. And even then, they didn’t do a good job of that. The den is the saddest room I’ve ever seen… oh wait, I’m now even more sad when I look at the bell tower. For $1.5 million dollar condo, they could have put a little more effort and care into the design of the space and its staging.

16. Wait till the new owner checks out the garbage room in this condo development. One would think that for $1.3 million, the residents would not have to carry their garbage, compostables and recycling down to a revolting-smelling room off the parking garage and try to cram their sorted waste products into overfilled commercial bins, while trying to avoid stepping in the “water” running into the drain in the middle of the floor. Yuck. It’s beyond disgusting.

17. I can’t agree more – some of these comments apply to any church conversion in TO. I’ve been in a few and all suffer from trying to convert an open space into smaller residential living spaces. Many or most fail, lacking light and air ventilation. It seems each building ends up having only one or two units that seem livable spaces and the rest lack in some way.

18. I did background work on the movie Pontypool, and I’m *pretty* sure this is the same church it was filmed in. So, you can add that to the “bragging rights” if you want, I guess.

Comments are closed.