Globe: An ounce of preservation is worth a ton of history

[Urban Shocker]

Yes, darling, let's not fight. You like categorizing things that already exist because you're an archivist, and I'm a designer who produces ephemera and only cares about aesthetic purity.

As a kid, on school trips to London or with my parents, I'd be shown the London Wall - or what little remained of it, all cobble-stoney and flinty and aesthetically unappealing, usually seen in the rain. It didn't do a thing for me, but I knew it had symbolic value. The site of the Parliament building at Front and Parliament has tremendous symbolic value too even though there's nothing above ground to see and maybe only a few outlines of the building below ground as well. But rrrrrruins have a certain undeniable appeal. Just saving something that's totally decrepit has a Pythonesque charm. And the remains of that wall on Queen West that used to keep people inside a building rather than keeping people outside of it is one of Toronto's most Pythonesque relics of all.

 

[adma]

In not so many words, yes this is exactly the sentiment displayed. What is the actual reason for preserving some of these things? Are you seriously going to tell me that some of these are nice buildings? If you had a choice, would you build the Biggar roundhouse as is? I certainly wouldn't, and I don't think anyone else here would. So I can't help but wonder why we are so keen to preserve the mistakes of past generations.

Maybe because--especially when you factor out the dereliction and disuse--it isn't the "mistake" you're imagining it to be?

And maybe, too, because you're using a simplistic, amateur's notion of "nice buildings", devoid of historical and cultural context, being the ideal be-all and end-all for heritage. Regarding "if you had a choice", it isn't even a question worth answering--and frankly, except under certain circumstances like the aftermath of war or fire or structural failure, I wouldn't build anything "as is", not even City Hall or T-D, because that "fauxifies" and hence travesties the argument. It's like the "Guitar Hero" approach to architecture.

I mean, what's really with this "would we build as is" business? It isn't like we're using the Biggar roundhouse to serve some Sim City fantasy--maybe that's how your approach to architecture and urbanism developed, but real life ain't like that....

And you're also refusing to address my analogies of the Don Valley Brickworks, the Wychwood Barns, etc--unless you're doing so obliquely, by questioning the reasoning for preserving *them* as well...

If we are going to preserve a building, the building has to be justified, lest we preserve such horrors as Regent Park.

Which shows how clumsily ill-informed you are in your love of modernism. FYI one of Peter Dickinson's Regent Park South towers is in the heritage inventory.

The burden should be on proving a building is worthwhile, not on assuming everything is worth preserving and whittling you're way down. Everyone knows I hate most of these buildings, that is unimportant. The real question is, who likes them?

Heritage experts and concerned, informed citizens.

I like it, but I am not an expert

That's for sure. Maybe you ought to develop a little "expertise"...

 

[Whoaccio]

And maybe, too, because you're using a simplistic, amateur's notion of "nice buildings", devoid of historical and cultural context, being the ideal be-all and end-all for heritage.

Ok, I'll bite. What the hell is the cultural significance of a roundhouse that hasn't been used for decades? The only people who want this preserved are rail fans and "heritage" fetishists. I actually did mention "cultural significance" as a valid qualification. But this has none. We aren't talking about the Tower of London or Union Station. We are talking about a utilitarian shed that hasn't gotten any less utilitarian over the past century.

Regarding "if you had a choice", it isn't even a question worth answering--and frankly, except under certain circumstances like the aftermath of war or fire or structural failure, I wouldn't build anything "as is", not even City Hall or T-D, because that "fauxifies" and hence travesties the argument. It's like the "Guitar Hero" approach to architecture.

You misinterpreted the question. I wasn't talking about making some Disney Land knock off of a building. But do you think that at the time a project was a worthwhile addition. For instance, I wouldn't have built Commerce Court West in the 1970s, so why bother preserving it? I can't wait till the thing gets dynamited. Conversely, City Hall even if you wouldn't build it today as is, was a worthwhile addition at the time. If something was mediocre when it was built, it doesn't get any less mediocre with time.

I mean, what's really with this "would we build as is" business? It isn't like we're using the Biggar roundhouse to serve some Sim City fantasy--maybe that's how your approach to architecture and urbanism developed, but real life ain't like that...

Too bad there is nothing urban about a rail shed in the middle of nowhere.

And you're also refusing to address my analogies of the Don Valley Brickworks, the Wychwood Barns, etc--unless you're doing so obliquely, by questioning the reasoning for preserving *them* as well...

The Brickworks has been re tasked, at the very least. I would be more sympathetic to these projects if they had a purpose for preservation. But, what, we are going to turn the Biggar Roundhouse into the Tate Modern? I'm sure the local population of a couple thousand farmers will love having a yuppie-riffic "farmers market" 30km down the concession road. Sure, if someone can come up with a practical reason to preserve some of these, beyond just preservation for the sake of preservation, I am for it. And if a local resident group wants to kick in the money to repair it, just to leave it vacant, I wish them best of luck. Until then I don't want the Feds stepping in so rail fans can sleep easy at night knowing a building they will never visit is being preserved.

Which shows how clumsily ill-informed you are in your love of modernism. FYI one of Peter Dickinson's Regent Park South towers is in the heritage inventory.

This is exactly the point. We are preserving buildings that don't bloody well deserve to be preserved. Does anyone seriously expect this tower to get any less horrible in 50 years? I like modernism, but if something was a horrible building in the 1950s, it is STILL a horrible building regardless of what era it came from. At the rate we are going, we will turn our cities into museums of how people used to live.

Seriously, why not preserve the power center near Downsview Park? It has just as much "cultural significance" as a rail shed nobody uses.

 

[Urban Shocker]

The thing that's always struck me as odd about saving one of the Dickinson towers is that if one is worth saving why isn't the whole cluster of them?

 

[Archivist]

The more whoaccio posts, the less credible his rants become. Essentially, they boil down to what should be preserved is what he says, nothing more and nothing less, based on some sort of strange criteria about when a city grew or how urban it is or whatever came into his head when he was thinking about it (using the word broadly). If others, experts, or people who have actually seen the buildings under discussion might differ, well, they're idiots. No sense of humour, no sense of respect for other's judgement, nothing except a child sitting in a crib wanting things his way.

whoaccio, can you describe for us the Dickenson buildings at Regent Park? Do you know what they look like? Have you ever seen them? Because they weren't "horrible" in the 1950's and they still aren't. The only horrible thing is watching you dig yourself in further and further with your uninformed, inconsistent, aggressive opinions.

 

[Whoaccio]

Okay, whatever, I give up. If you guys want to spend oodles of government cash preserving rail sheds nobody will visit and turning our cities into museums, fine. Our children surely appreciate being able to have to option to see how trains were stored in the early 20th century. One can only hope we will preserve our Wallmarts and Costcos too, lest our children be forced to live without knowing how our quasi-industrial food distribution systems worked.

Ohh the tragedy were we to loose this...

P.S. Nobody has answered my question yet, who the hell likes the Biggar Roundhouse? Fine, I don't like it, apparently I am a philistine. So, there is broad consensus here that an industrial shed from 100 years ago is worth preservation? Why?

 

[Archivist]

I'm glad whoaccio gave up. It pleases me. But I can't help summarizing some of his criteria for preservation:

• we should only preserve things that are actually impressive
  
  [*]Something being old isn't a sufficient justification for heritage status
  
  [*]reminders of a time when Canada … saw massive growth and became a modern country
  
  [*]it is representative of a broader era
  
  [*]I want heritage buildings to be judged … on a combination of aesthetics and cultural significance
  
  [*]if they had a purpose for preservation.
  

And for destruction:

• Something being old isn't a sufficient justification for heritage status
  
  [*]I wouldn't have built [it] in the 1970s, so why bother preserving it?
  
  [*]if something was a horrible building ...it is STILL a horrible building

Yeah, I'll go with that. If a building is horrible, or whoaccio wouldn't have built it originally (this judgement applied to Commerce Court West), then it can be demolished.

Here's what the city says: "A building, structure or site may be considered important for a variety of reasons. It may have architectural value or it may relate to a significant person, an important event in the history of the city or a critical time in the development of one of its neighbourhoods. A building may be well crafted or represent a characteristic of the community. A building does not have to be "old" to be an important heritage property. Many modern buildings and structures such as Roy Thomson Hall and the CN Tower are significant parts of our heritage and are symbols of our city. Nor does a property have to be a grand public building - small cottages, warehouses, industrial structures and bridges are also valuable legacies of the past and deserve to be protected and preserved."

 

[Whoaccio]

Yeah, I'll go with that. If a building is horrible, or whoaccio wouldn't have built it originally (this judgement applied to Commerce Court West), then it can be demolished.

Do you think CCW should be preserved?

And you still haven't answered my question. Clearly my mental faculties aren't up to understanding why preserving anything and everything is a worthwhile endeavor. So, can you please clearly illustrate why we should preserve the Biggar Roundhouse. Then, I want you to explain why we should or shouldn't preserve (say) the Power Center at Laird and Eglinton.

 

[Whoaccio]

Jesus, you would think I am advocating replacing the Taj Mahal with sewage treatment plant.

What is worth keeping about that? Considering this is the 10th time if asked that question and I have yet to get a decent response, I can't help but feel I am never going to get one.

 

[adma]

Do you think CCW should be preserved?

Yes.

And virtually everyone in Toronto with half a brain who "loves modernism" would agree. Heck, if you set up a poll to that effect on UT, you'd probably get a pro-preservation landslide.

Whatever made you think there'd be an overwhelming consensus otherwise?

 

[adma]

Jesus, you would think I am advocating replacing the Taj Mahal with sewage treatment plant.

What is worth keeping about that? Considering this is the 10th time if asked that question and I have yet to get a decent response, I can't help but feel I am never going to get one.

The problem is, you're presenting what's to all intents and purposes a generic image, and an indistinct generic image at that. It's "a" sewage treatment plant. You're not telling us which sewage treatment plant it is, what the story behind it is, or even how this image is in any way "representative". Honestly; even if the building is banal and utilitarian and devoid of "heritage" merit, you could have chosen a better image, or series of images, to convey that point.

But hey, you're just the heritage version of a hog farmer telling us how you can paint a jillion-dollar abstract work with a paint roller and a few cans of C-I-L...

 

[Whoaccio]

The problem is, you're presenting what's to all intents and purposes a generic image, and an indistinct generic image at that. It's "a" sewage treatment plant. You're not telling us which sewage treatment plant it is, what the story behind it is, or even how this image is in any way "representative". Honestly; even if the building is banal and utilitarian and devoid of "heritage" merit, you could have chosen a better image, or series of images, to convey that point..

Thats not a sewage treatment plant, that is the Biggar Roundhouse. Considering you seem to have a burning desire to see it preserved, and have more or less implied I am Kublai Khan for being ambivalent, you should at least recognize it.

Whatever made you think there'd be an overwhelming consensus otherwise?

Just to clarify, by "preserve" I mean grant it heritage status, not implode it at first opportunity and leave the land barren.

As for what made me think that, well, I have yet to hear a positive remark about CCW. CC North? Everyone loves that. But, anecdotally, CCW is the second most derided office tower behind FCP.

 

[adma]

Thats not a sewage treatment plant, that is the Biggar Roundhouse. Considering you seem to have a burning desire to see it preserved, and have more or less implied I am Kublai Khan for being ambivalent, you should at least recognize it.

Well, now you're explaining it. But to repeat, it's a poor and improperly representative photo, so excuse me. Such is what I mean by "generic"--if you hadn't thrown me for a spot loop with the sewage-plant comment, then...

But notice, too, that when I misconstrued what you were referring to, I reserved judgment on the building itself. And for a good reason--how can a casual observer tell what the uncaptioned photo is of, let alone judge whether it's junk or not?!? (Thus the sewage-plant faux pas.) Confronted with that, I'd--once again--demand more and better evidence; including, of course, historical and cultural and contextual evidence. Whether I, myself, can actually *recognize* the Roundhouse from such a photo is beside the point--and in all honesty, I'm not claiming to be a Biggar Roundhouse groupie; but, one doesn't have to be. Defer to those who know.

Just to clarify, by "preserve" I mean grant it heritage status, not implode it at first opportunity and leave the land barren.

Listen, kiddo, the realm of heritage has already run hundreds of wheelies around you and ahead of you. You're coughing dust. The only people who'd argue against granting it heritage status are the heritage versions of pointy-head-hating ReformAllianceConservativeCommonSenseRevolution types.

As for what made me think that, well, I have yet to hear a positive remark about CCW. CC North? Everyone loves that. But, anecdotally, CCW is the second most derided office tower behind FCP.

Really? What rock are you hiding under? Listen: I.M. Pei. Glistening, silvery, worthy counterpoint to TD, maybe Urban Shocker or whomever can fill in a lot of the purple-prose blanks. It is a sleek, critical element of the financial core, first-rate Pei, c1970 International Style skyscraper design at its most exquisite. That's enough to solidify the preservation argument. All things considered, the "worst" thing going for it is that Pei and Commerce Court have always played second fiddle to Mies and TD--that's it. "Overshadowed by" and "taken for granted" isn't the same as "derided".

Honestly, I've never heard of CCW being actively, openly derided...except, maybe, by the reactionary wing of CCN-lovers. Who might also have a bone to pick with TD, too, except that they're no match for the pro-Mies glee club. (And I guess because Scotia and BCE aren't just "boxes", they escape the firing squad, too.)

Where are your anecdotes coming from? Ill-informed Joe Blow amateurs and SSC fanboys? The sort who wouldn't know Pei from poo?

And above all--on behalf of Winnipeg Airport and Riverdale Hospital, you said that "you love modernism". Well, I suppose that if you surveyed everyone else who shared such a sentiment t/w those structures, you'd probably get a 99 44/100 "pro" vote re whether Commerce Court West should be preserved.

Really. That's the truth.

So, even if you tripped me up on the Biggar biz, you still get a solid F in heritage awareness and sensitivity. Wear your dunce cap with pride...

 

[Whoaccio]

Well, now you're explaining it. But to repeat, it's a poor and improperly representative photo, so excuse me. Such is what I mean by "generic"--if you hadn't thrown me for a spot loop with the sewage-plant comment, then...

But notice, too, that when I misconstrued what you were referring to, I reserved judgment on the building itself. And for a good reason--how can a casual observer tell what the uncaptioned photo is of, let alone judge whether it's junk or not?!? (Thus the sewage-plant faux pas.) Confronted with that, I'd--once again--demand more and better evidence; including, of course, historical and cultural and contextual evidence. Whether I, myself, can actually *recognize* the Roundhouse from such a photo is beside the point--and in all honesty, I'm not claiming to be a Biggar Roundhouse groupie; but, one doesn't have to be. Defer to those who know.

Look, if you can't bloody recognize a building you clearly shouldn't be calling others idiots for wanting it to go. There is NO cultural value to the Biggar Roundhouse. We aren't talking about the house Anne Frank hide in, this place stored trains for a couple years and is now obsolete. If you want to invent some quasi-historical grandeur to this shed, go ahead, don't expect everyone else to pay for it.

Listen, kiddo, the realm of heritage has already run hundreds of wheelies around you and ahead of you. You're coughing dust. The only people who'd argue against granting it heritage status are the heritage versions of pointy-head-hating ReformAllianceConservativeCommonSenseRevolution types.

Angry much? It is a building, it is meant to be destroyed when something better comes along.

Really? What rock are you hiding under? Listen: I.M. Pei. Glistening, silvery, worthy counterpoint to TD, maybe Urban Shocker or whomever can fill in a lot of the purple-prose blanks. It is a sleek, critical element of the financial core, first-rate Pei, c1970 International Style skyscraper design at its most exquisite. That's enough to solidify the preservation argument. All things considered, the "worst" thing going for it is that Pei and Commerce Court have always played second fiddle to Mies and TD--that's it. "Overshadowed by" and "taken for granted" isn't the same as "derided".

Honestly, I've never heard of CCW being actively, openly derided...except, maybe, by the reactionary wing of CCN-lovers. Who might also have a bone to pick with TD, too, except that they're no match for the pro-Mies glee club. (And I guess because Scotia and BCE aren't just "boxes", they escape the firing squad, too.)

Wow, calm down. Just because I.M. Pei designed it doesn't mean it isn't a pile of crap. Someone owns these buildings, not you. If they want to demolish and put up another building, it is their choice not your's.

"CCN reactionaries", "Pei from poo", "pro-Mies glee club", what are you, 12? This sounds like the manuscript to some soviet cultural document where everyone who disagrees with you is a "reactionary". Next time, remember to sprinkle some "Kulak" and "enemy of the working man" around.

 

[adma]

Wow, calm down. Just because I.M. Pei designed it doesn't mean it isn't a pile of crap. Someone owns these buildings, not you. If they want to demolish and put up another building, it is their choice not your's.

By that standard, then, would you say there is any use to existing heritage laws at all?

And given that I (and others) have presented the case for "professional and expert consensus" here, would you propose reforming heritage regulation to your liking? And who are you going to get on-side? My feeling is, it'll be a pretty motley "tyranny of the majority" bunch.

What do you know about architectural history and heritage? Do you have any such background, educationally, otherwise? You haven't answered that question. And given the evidence you've presented, you're a terminally abject amateur existing solely amongst "your own". You're talking about a realm that's alien to you.

Swallow it.

Because...

No.
Expert.
Professional.
Is.
Going.
To.
Agree.
With.
You.
That.
Commerce.
Court.
West.
Is.
Crap.

Not that it's unflawed (and heck, not that TD or New City Hall are unflawed, either). But that's not the same as "crap" judgment.

Maybe a few beyond-Kunstler or beneath-Tom-Wolfe anti-modern lunatics might deem it "crap"; but, not like they've a serious chance of a putsch of the status quo...

And yes, there may be those who'd argue against "heritage" status not so much on stylistic grounds, as on a kind of Wendell Cox anti-regulatory libertarianism...

"CCN reactionaries", "Pei from poo", "pro-Mies glee club", what are you, 12? This sounds like the manuscript to some soviet cultural document where everyone who disagrees with you is a "reactionary". Next time, remember to sprinkle some "Kulak" and "enemy of the working man" around.

Well, you are to heritage what Dichotomy is to multiculturalism...