Progress or History

[donmillsview]

That Colosseum thread got me thinking. I wonder if previous generations (going back hundreds of years, say) were preoccupied with saving historical structures. Obviously in the case of the colosseum, it's something we shouldn't be screwing with, but is it really worth it to save things like a normal skyscraper? There was some talk about how we lost the Toronto Star building for FCP's construction. Was that really a loss, or a gain? Certainly, we have to move forward and someday, the CN Tower will come down, Scotia will give way to something else, and so on.

So where do we draw the line when it comes to removing a building of significance in order to continue to build and rebuild a city?

 

[Jarrek]

History.

You have to remember that in the far past buildings were built out straw and wood. Since many were built, they weren't worth saving (and they really couldn't be saved anyhow).

Most buildings and structures built before the 50's had a lot of architectual detail built into them. That's why they are worth saving. Even old industrial buildings were a work of art. They certainly aren't now.

Most of the buildings that are built today are really architectually bland. It doesn't take much effort to build a glass tower, so I'm sure many of the skyscrapers will be gone in a few hundred years, yet the true architectual beauties and significant structures will remain.

 

[building babel]

Buildings aren't automatically worth saving because they "have a lot of architectural detail built into them". They are worth saving if they were well designed, or were technically innovative for their time, or have some historical significance. Not all old industrial buildings were a work of art. Many were absolutely hideous.

 

[marksimpson7843]

"You have to remember that in the far past buildings were built out straw and wood"

I'm pretty sure most buildings are still built of wood.

 

[wyliepoon]

I think this might be one area where an urban design panel would come in handy. We've got developers who would do anything in the name of money to knock down buildings and build new ones, and on the other hand we've got heritage groups that would do anything to protect everything old. An urban design panel, consisting of design experts, may be able to balance the two views and offer good suggestions.

Deciding whether a building should stay or go is not an exact science. I've tried to come up with a criteria to judge whether a building should stay or be knocked down, but I couldn't think of one that could be applied universally. But I do have a suggestion: the city should have a number of buildings from each period in the city's history (including our time) that must be preserved, ie. it cannot be knocked down, it cannot be gutted or significantly altered, and if possible, it cannot be converted for other uses. The current rules regarding historical preservation aren't harsh enough to protect historical buildings. Case in point- what are they going to do with Maple Leaf Gardens?

 

[Jarrek]

I'm pretty sure most buildings are still built of wood.

I was talking about log huts.

 

[Archivistower]

I agree with Wylie. I think that perhaps 10 years after a major building is completed, there should be a decision made on its significance, and some of these from each generation ought to be saved. Of course, this wouldn't be easy. But, for instance, we're about to rip down Regent Park South, which was quite innovative for its time, won architectural awards, and represents a significant expression of our mid-twentieth century society. Why not preserve one of these buildings, perhaps by turning them over to condo developers (and provide an equal number of subsidized spaces nearby). I would even change the street grid along the building so that it is on an angle.

 

[donmillsview]

I like to look at usefulness - in the case of MLG, it should come down as it is of little use to the city anymore. We have a great arena (two if you count Ricoh) for pro sports, and obviously the structure is not conducive to anything other than what it is - an arena. So, I think in that case, we should tear it down, save the historical elements - seats, banners, ticket booths, whatever, and build something new on the site.

No sense in it sitting there empty because we want to "save" it. We're doing the building no favours by doing nothing.

 

[Mr Tang]

I think you can really tell a building that was built with quality materials. All the detailing and slick architecture in the world still looks crappy twenty years on if you used cheap materials. For instance the majority of post-modern buildings with thier turrets, arches and blue glass look pretty bad now, meanwhile the TD complex downtown, while pretty plain from a design standpoint, still looks good (at least to me).

 

[ganjavih]

Since it is no longer economically feasible to build with the best materials anymore, and since many new buildings are just plain dull-looking (IMHO) and don't add much to street life, we have to save everything we can. This is especially true in Toronto where we have already razed so much. Think of the best looking and liveliest parts of town... they're all old.

 

[SD2]

Since it is no longer economically feasible to build with the best materials anymore, and since many new buildings are just plain dull-looking (IMHO) and don't add much to street life, we have to save everything we can. This is especially true in Toronto where we have already razed so much. Think of the best looking and liveliest parts of town... they're all old.

True...but then again, their is a lot more "old" stuff in the core than people would care to admit.

As far as lively streetscapes, the old buildings add atmosphere, but to me the real reason they contribute is the form. Even with different materials, new buildings could add just as much to the streetlife, they just need to follow a similar form.

 

[miketoronto]

Funny we only worry in North American cities about this. Cities with little historical buildings to start with.

In Europe, people are living in 500 year old buildings.

Cities like ROME and Paris, have done alot not to build tons of new buildings in their city heart. Instead new areas are built with new buildings. While the old is left.

Downtown Rome has no skyscrapers. Because people still work in 300 year old buildings.

Buildings can adapt. It's people that seem to think buildings can't. Knock down historical buildings, and you knock down your city. You need history in your city.

Cities like Rome show you can adapt modern life to the old.

 

[wonderboy905]

Since when have major cities starting taking down 40+ story skyscrapers? As long as the buildings are structurally sound I don't see that ever happening...

Maybe when building's like FCP have past their prime and are no longer useful in the world of business they'll get some sort of futuristic loft conversion... but there's no point in razing skyscrapers that tall unless there's literally no where else to build. Doesn't make a lick of sense.

 

[SD2]

Those pics of Rome are nice...but can't dwell on the past. They show the form I was talking about though.

 

[miketoronto]

But they are not dwelling on the past. Those buildings have internet, etc. All of it is modern.

People would not be visiting ROME if it was all new.

You need a sense of history to a place.