adma
Superstar
I have to say that I love the idea of a 'facade graveyard', and there may be a fundamentel difference between this and 'facadism' in general as practiced ad hoc on various buildings throughout the city. An honest and deliberate installation of historical facades (imagine facades as 'pictures' hanging on a background canvas of more minimal modernist structures), ones that would have been destined for the wrecking ball anyway, could be approached and ultimately interpreted in a more artful way, avoiding the line between it and mere disney-esque faux trickery.
Not so sure. Something still seems a little Pioneer Village-ey (or at least Markham-heritage-subdivisionesque) for comfort about the "facade graveyard" concept. And all the worse if it gives "incentive to demolish", i.e. "gee whiz, we can donate the facade to the facade graveyard, and then do our stuff." Again, akin to Markham, or Whitby back when it was shipping historic buildings to Cullen Gardens. Ultimately, you can't avoid either the facadism or Disneyism pitfall.
Eric Arthur might have loved your concept. Unfortunately, he died in 1978; which is kind of my point. The credibility of the "facade graveyard" concept died around then, too.
Go a little SW of the proposed Cathedral Square, to the old Bank of Nova Scotia at Church + Queen. Its appeal isn't just in being a facade, it's in being whole, and in decent shape, and still BNS after all these years. To suggest it'd be a good thing to "intensify" the BNS site and ship the facade to Cathedral Square, well...