Toronto 1 Yorkville | 183.18m | 58s | Bazis | Rosario Varacalli

While I have long disagreed with some, if not many, of your arbitrary and doctrinaire opinions, I have always tried to keep an open to other perspectives - for which you have been one of the major beneficiaries on this board. Finally, enough is enough - welcome to my personal ignore list.

What’s with all the drama around the ignore list all of a sudden? I’ve had many many people on mine for years, and never thought to share my decision with the entire forum. Believe me, it’s really not all that interesting or important. In fact, making a hammy ‘big announcement’ about it just comes across as rather childish.
 
To offer some perspective re "racism" and all of that: I'm of Polish background, and I'd be no different t/w those of "my own" (whether presently in Poland or presently in Canada) who'd advocate demolishing this because it's a tired, outmoded reminder of the Communist era.

240px-Rotunda_PKO_Warszawa.jpg
 
Having an ignore list at all is a bit like functioning like right wing media/Fox News. Sooner or later you'll get hammered and lose ala Obama and come out looking like a fool. Better to read the shit show and know what you are facing.

Personally I find it more interesting to engage anyway. We're not going to get anywhere as a city by ignoring.
 
Last edited:
I guess his use of "seems to be", in the first quote, and "the alibi might have been", in the latter, let him off the hook, eh? Yet, if someone says something like most gun crimes in Toronto are committed by people who are black, the response is, "how you could say such a thing?!"

you’re seriously going to try to connect the logic of adma’s post to gun crime in Toronto? really?

non sequitur

Definition:
A fallacy in which a conclusion does not follow logically from what preceded it.

Etymology:

From the Latin, "it does not follow"

"Given the wimp-bravado vehemence of your reaction." Another ad hominem attack. Will the mods do anything or just cater to Adma, as usual?

Also, your very first post, and you’re challenging the mods to discipline someone for a post that you find objectionable, and which many forum members happen to agree with? I mean: excuse me?
 
you’re seriously going to try to connect the logic of adma’s post to gun crime in Toronto? really?

non sequitur

Definition:
A fallacy in which a conclusion does not follow logically from what preceded it.

Etymology:

From the Latin, "it does not follow"



Also, your very first post, and you’re challenging the mods to discipline someone for a post that you find objectionable, and which many forum members happen to agree with? I mean: excuse me?

Don't dance around what my post was concerning -- the principle of my point is what is crucial. I didn't directly respond to the discussion on heritage or residential property being altered through "McMansion" rebuilds, chintzy doodads, etc. What my point, solely addressed, were his generalities and attitude about the mentality of certain cultures, and how they view heritage/older buildings and houses of a certain age as being unimportant -- as well as how they choose to decorate their properties. The reference to black gun crime was merely an example to show the hypocrisy of many forumers -- i.e. it's fine to generalize Asian and European immigrants as being more insensitive to old buildings and homes, and more prone to embrace kitschy design and lawn ornaments -- but to say that gun crimes are usually committed by people who are black, is unacceptable. Why are most people here fine with some generalities, but not others? There's a clear double standard that is prevalent in this forum. Don't pick and choose which general statements you like and which ones you don't. Either all generalities should be accepted or none. Why don't you respond to the point you know I was making, rather than trying to push it aside and use logical fallacies as a barrier to avoid talking about it?

What’s with all the drama around the ignore list all of a sudden? I’ve had many many people on mine for years, and never thought to share my decision with the entire forum. Believe me, it’s really not all that interesting or important. In fact, making a hammy ‘big announcement’ about it just comes across as rather childish.

You just did decide to share your decision with the forum. We now know that you have put people on your ignore list. Why did you even bother responding to it? It appears as though you're upset by AHK's comment. Isn't that, "childish?"

To offer some perspective re "racism" and all of that: I'm of Polish background, and I'd be no different t/w those of "my own" (whether presently in Poland or presently in Canada) who'd advocate demolishing this because it's a tired, outmoded reminder of the Communist era.

So that absolves you from you previous comments -- simply because you'd condemn your own people as well?
 
Last edited:
So that absolves you from you previous comments -- simply because you'd condemn your own people as well?

Yes, I would condemn "my own people", and what's the matter with that? Because it isn't just about "my own people"--it's about the idioty who skew the picture under the delusion that they aren't idioty.

The way I see it, wherever you come from, if, heritage-wise, you're going to use that "cultural superiority/centuries of history" smokescreen alibi, you're just betraying that you'd be as obtuse t/w where you come from as you are t/w here. Because beneath the surface--the debates, and concerns, are identical "there" and "here".. That is, even in Poland with its oooh, wow, centuries of history, the realm of "heritage worth" and activism now healthily encompasses Communist-era modernism, and in a (often next-generationally-fueled) manner that acknowledges yet looks beyond politics et al--and I, as a heritage-sensitive Westerner from North America, altogether endorse that tendency. (Yeah, North American--shouldn't I be, uh, anti-Communist? Hey, things aren't that simple.) Those are the fresh-eyed "my own people" I'd look to--get the hint?
 
Last edited:
Toronto's architectural history dates back thousands of years. The Scottish and English masons etc who built the city relied on thousands of years of their cultural history. People conveniently forget it was the British that built much of NA, not the Chinese nor even the Polish!

(From my observations, it is often those most opposed to the English--ie they're still angry re: British colonial history--that enjoy destroying our history the most.)
 
Last edited:
Yes, I would condemn "my own people", and what's the matter with that? Because it isn't just about "my own people"--it's about the idioty who skew the picture under the delusion that they aren't idioty.

The way I see it, wherever you come from, if, heritage-wise, you're going to use that "cultural superiority/centuries of history" smokescreen alibi, you're just betraying that you'd be as obtuse t/w where you come from as you are t/w here. Because beneath the surface--the debates, and concerns, are identical "there" and "here".. That is, even in Poland with its oooh, wow, centuries of history, the realm of "heritage worth" and activism now healthily encompasses Communist-era modernism, and in a (often next-generationally-fueled) manner that acknowledges yet looks beyond politics et al--and I, as a heritage-sensitive Westerner from North America, altogether endorse that tendency. (Yeah, North American--shouldn't I be, uh, anti-Communist? Hey, things aren't that simple.) Those are the fresh-eyed "my own people" I'd look to--get the hint?

I think you misinterpreted my last comment. What I was saying is that condemning your own people, in addition to other cultures, doesn't mean your generalities are justified. By saying you'd be equally as critical of your own people, that hold similar sentiments to Asians and non Polish Europeans, doesn't mean your generalities should be overlooked. They're just based on your own experience -- and I'm sure there is some truth to your comments. I just don't like the, 'I support this stereotype, but not that one', mentality. For such a politically correct forum, I'd expect that philosophy to extend to all general statements, not supported by facts. I guess some are just afraid to stand up to someone they agree with on many issues, in fear of being ostracized? Do you think there are downtown dwelling, people, on the left, that are just as clueless about architecture and the built fabric of the city and its residential neighbourhoods than the suburbanites (often conservative) you allude to in your "McMansion" remarks?

Why are these immigrants, that may not be as knowledgeable as you, in the context of architecture, culture, idiots? Why not use a term like 'uneducated' or 'naive'? They may not know as much about you, in such matters, but that doesn't mean they are all unintelligent people. There are other examples of intelligence, beyond literature and art. Some people aren't the brightest, in terms of 'book smarts', but mechanically, they could be geniuses -- far smarter than yourself. By your standard of prescribing idiocy, if you, personally, don't possess the rare expertise and eye as someone like Jesse James, to restore a '55 Chevy pickup truck to its original state, then you are an idiot. I'd be interested in knowing whether you drive a steel framed car or some plastic, utilitarian design, post 1970s. Its is not mandatory for every person to share your rare interest in the built form of the city. People aren't idiots for not being similarly as passionate or sensitive as yourself, or others like you. Are you an idiot for not having the mountain climbing expertise of a sherpa or the knowledge to survive, in the wild, with minimal or no devices, ala Les Stroud (Survivorman)?

I told you already -- I'm on your side of the 'sensitive to heritage'/anti "McMansion" topic. I'm not arguing against your stance, but rather, your general cultural statements, which are usually required to be supported with facts or some form of numerical data, especially when the taboo, race line is crossed -- though for some reason, exceptions are always made for you and other Urban Toronto Hall of Famers, when you say something that would otherwise be considered offensive, if it were to come from a conservative. I personally don't even care if one uses generalities, I just don't think it's right to punish some and exonerate others for the same concept. Let's be fair to all opinions. You guys do believe in democracy, no? One can't divorce themself from that philosophy by using, "this is a private forum" as an excuse to be tyrannical, by implementing punitive measures or to completely do away with the users whose opinions they dislike. That just means, you don't actually believe in democracy. It extends to all realms of discussion, where people are welcome to share their thoughts. What makes a privately owned forum exceptional? Why is democracy allowed to be ignored in that type of arena? That is all.

(From my observations, it is often those most opposed to the English--ie they're still angry re: British colonial history--that enjoy destroying our history the most.)

North America doesn't belong to the natives, anymore than it does to white people or any other race/culture that was born here. Natives didn't magically appear here, some 50 000 years ago. They came over here, in waves, on the land/ice bridge from Asia. What's more, these waves, in many cases, were not related groups of people. They came from various places around North Eastern Asia and were from different genetic strains...in other words, the 'natives' of North America are not a homogenous group of people, and more importantly, they are immigrants too, like millions of immigrants today.

The idea that the "natives" were peaceful caretakers of the land or benevolent tenants couldn't be further from the truth. The various tribes warred on each other constantly. They were violent. Want proof? Ask the Huron's...oh that's right you can't. The Iroquois wiped them out. How about slavery that was rife among the first nation tribes until the Europeans came over and freed the slaves and put an end to this "valued cultural tradition"?

The idea that we "stole" this land from them is also ridiculous. A more technologically advanced and numerous culture invaded and conquered. This is exactly what has been happening since the dawn of humanity, all around the globe. To say we "stole" their land is just plain wrong. That is akin to saying the Saxons should return England to the Angles -- or maybe we should launch a campaign to have Roman descendants give Italy back to the Etruscans.

Back to original topic of the thread.
 
Last edited:
It's been a couple of days since I have been in this thread… a couple of very busy days it seems.

Balenciaga was warned recently that if he didn't take his one-note message to the Toronto Issues section that he would get banned. So, Balenciaga is going on vacation.

Adma has been sent a note regarding the ad hominem comments in his posts. The next one will result in a vacation as well.

All of the rest of you are hearby warned that the same will happen to you.

This is not to stifle all discussion: this is a discussion forum after all. The mods do not ban lightly: you've got to be clearly over the line before we will do something because there has still got to be room for discussion here.

I believe that Balenciaga is genuine about what he expresses so I do not consider it trolling, but those values should not turn every thread into the same unending argument, so I'm happy enough to consider it spamming.

So please, continue to discuss, but apply some discretion when posting. Getting a bunch of other members pissed off is a good indication that you may have gone too far.

42
 
Hopefully this isn't considered going too far, I just wanted to respond since I find the discussion so important. I appreciate those who came back with another opinion, it definitely made me think and that is the point of all this. I absolutely agree that generalizations can hurt an argument and too often obscure the point by showing your own limitations.

However, I just don't believe adma was only referring to "others" as the culprits of a certain kind of disdain: I am sure I recall the same sentiments from him regarding those WASPS who did the same thing in the 50s, 60s, and 70s. He is always of the mind that a carte blanch approach doesn't work best. This is why I didn't see anything controversial in these comments. It is a portable attitude, not a fixed ethnicity, under discussion.

Yet I apologize to anyone who was offended, I certainly benefited from reading an alternate view (not blocking anyone of course), and hope that dialogue can lead to a refined opinion.

I absolutely don't lay all the blame on any ethnic group, that is for sure - I find all too many long time Torontonians just don't care either and eagerly participate in its destruction to build mediocrity (not to mention English vis-a-vis aboriginal culture). What is very concerning is the vehemence that posters like Balenciaga (and adma as well) use to thrust their opinions forth, as if there were no debate and this were simply a way to exert dominance. There is no effort to see the other side due to a perceived sense of superiority. It frankly scares me deeply when people say that they are tiring of democracy (classic fascist line); I see many people around me tiring of it as well, whether in the US, here is Europe where I am now (extremist groups are rising), or in Canada where our conservative government is objectively the most autocratic and controlling government in our history. Today we see a hunger strike merely to get a discussion. That democracy is secondary in much of the world is all too visible.

As to why it matters today, we have a financial and frankly civilizational crisis on our hands. I blame our greedy and inept system for bringing western countries to their knees (we have rule of the rich, fund useless wars, etc.). But when adma mentioned that people saw Hitler, Stalin and Mussolini as having the same "get it done" attitude as exists now in China, it made me think about my own admiration for that attitude today, and indeed for China. The world is headed in a totalitarian direction, and I don't like it. I know all too many people (of any background) who are willing to see no evil in this: as long as people make some money (capitalists), or as long as my objectives can be achieved (extremist groups), who cares what the government is or does? Who can't think of Canadian mining companies or SNC Lavalin here - I am not saying it is one group totally, it is the attitude I fear. I fear it and I am deeply ashamed to see the reactionary - often xenophobic - voices in our world rise, who dismiss their opponents and proclaim a single view as the only way to the future.

So any other xenophobia present in adma's remarks certainly isn't reflected in my opinion, and I revoke my +1. In Toronto I lived in Chinatown, Little Italy and now Little Portugal. I work with mainly Chinese people, have friends from all communities, and grew up in a very Hong-King influenced Vancouver with many Honger friends. My background is mixed. But I don't deny that Little Italy was transformed to represent and reflect Italy, that Italians came here and said "well who wouldn't have an arch, who wouldn't grow grapes. Let's change this." I actually love that change and diversity, love living in the areas that have been changed. The quarks and unique spaces it adds to the city. But what I fundamentally don't approve of is a one-sided judgement: only one group has to love and accept the culture of others, while if others don't that is okay. If I hate Victorians that is fine, but to say that my arch is a blight is racist.
This is a totalitarian tactic, and insofar as adma is guilty of that (or I for that matter), I again revoke my +1.

Yet this is the paradox of democracy - that a decision must be made, despite debate and inclusion. In the architectural world, that decision is all too visible, all to concrete, all too permanent, and all too definitive.

Nonetheless in quickly reading adma's post and unthinkingly, simply adding a +1, I must give my apologies again to anyone who might have been offended.

P.S. Given these comments I am not sure I approve of Balenciaga getting banned, however much I may not have enjoyed his repetitions in every thread.
 
Last edited:
Censuring an earnest and informed discussion, though perhaps an uneasy one for some, diminishes this forum and amounts to nothing but craven pandering to Danny Crispin's delusional and paranoid objections.

So chalk up another empty victory here for political correctness I suppose! To interpret Adma's comments as an indictment of ALL new-commers is beyond paranoid. Most of us who can think for ourselves understand just which segments of those groups he refers to without demanding distracting and puerile clarifications... and yes, Adma is a bully at times (and I've been on the receiving end of it myself) but his cause is the extremely vulnerable and fragile shared jewel that is Heritage, so I think he can be excused for not suffering fools, brutish developers or their fanboys lightly as the stakes are just too high. Danny Crispin on the other hand is a bully of another sort, and a reprehensible one at that because he has no real cause, and when out of his intellectual depth he has no option but to shut down discussion. It's a wielding of power, in other words, to make a small mind feel larger.
 
I don't see why Balenciaga should've been banned. The popular opinion which he opposed (and there are many, including myself who silently agreed with him on most things) is littered in every single thread. That is considered normal, and yet his opposition results in a ban? That seems strangely unjust to me.
 
I don't see why Balenciaga should've been banned. The popular opinion which he opposed (and there are many, including myself who silently agreed with him on most things) is littered in every single thread. That is considered normal, and yet his opposition results in a ban? That seems strangely unjust to me.

Discussion like that belongs in the Architecture or Toronto Issues sections, not littering every other thread in the Projects & Constructions section.
 
In any event, take my now-far-back-in-this-thread firm-yet-open-ended reasoning on behalf of the block's heritage worth for what it is (and in and of itself, it's free of the subsequent vitriol).

And to repeat: if that didn't convince you, or open a road to convincing you, you just aren't versed in today's heritage currents, or maybe that's a windmill you'd rather tilt against. Nothing wrong w/saying that (I guess)
 

Back
Top