Parkdalian
Senior Member
This kind of silly straw man arguing does no one good who actually cares about expanding their ideas about what cities should look like. If this is an actual discussion meant to improve ideas of city-building, then it shouldn't be based on blanket, unexamined ideas like "historic districts are ruined by conspicuous modern buildings."
The burden of proof still lies on your side of the court. You have to prove as to why the Pure Spirit tower ruins the historic nature of the Distillery without pointing to a few pictures and saying it is obvious. Saying that other areas work well with mid-rise is not a proof that high-rise cannot work here. Saying that it should remain a "historic" district - without saying how specifically the new buildings stop the area from being historic is not an argument. I literally have no idea why a new building being perceptible from a historic district "ruins" that district. Unless, of course, you think historic districts are there to create a fake feeling of being in the past. But you say that's not what you mean, so explain what part of the historic district is being ruined.
Similarly, if you say that they "overwhelm" the district, you have to say *why* that is bad. Because first 1) it is not at all clear they "overwhelm" the district and 2) you have to say why the presence of the new in the old is bad at all.
In contrast, I and other posters have said that there are many reasons why these towers should be here: they are excellent design; they provide contrast with the Victorian buildings and help frame the area; they provide visual signposts; we shouldn't kow-tow to some perceived notion of the past; design should focus on forms and surfaces and how buildings actually look rather than whether or not they are old-looking or new-looking.
Heritage is important, but it is not religion, and it should be questioned as to what exactly its purpose and worth is.
UrbanFervour
Active Member
The notion the La Defense is the only authentic non-"theme park" part of Paris is ridiculous and makes me suspect you have probably visited as a tourist but have no real knowledge of that city.
Maybe the "Paris as a theme park" cliche is true TO YOU as a North American tourist... but how many Parisiens do you know and how much time have you spent there outside of the central arrondissements? Do you speak or understand French well enough to have broken off the tourist trail at all? Or are you just trying to pass off your experience as a foreigner in Paris as a fact that one and all should just know and accept?
Hi Rowe - as best as I understand (and any planner - if you know better, please correct me) - the buildings are tall in the Distillery because the three towers represent the same total average approved density as has been approved for the adjacent West Don Lands blocks. It's just that the Distillery's owners do not want to tear out or build over all of the older structures, so the are piling their density in three spots. The West Don Lands do not have heritage structures on their property, so they can achieve similar densities with shorter buildings.
42
Urban Shocker
Doyenne
So true, along with the other issues raised in the rest of your post. There is nothing wrong with syn and alklay and a few others for not "getting it", but to argue that because they don't see something it can't possibly exist is beyond silly. The proof of what has been achieved in the Distillery lies in the recognition and celebration of it, not in the denial.
scarberiankhatru
Senior Member
There's no reason why the Distillery should have gotten them, either. It's too late for alternatives, though.
syn
Senior Member
It's the same silly strawman brought up when someone suggests 30-40 storey condos are not appropriate for the Distillery.
This has been explained many, many, many times. I have no idea why people keep trying to paint myself and others as either for the condos or against progress. I (and I'm sure I speak for others) have no issue with retail and residential in and around the district. The issue is with the form.
As much as people would like to dismiss this as a collection of formerly disused industrial buildings (this isn't referring to you), it's much more than that. It's the largest collection of Victorian industrial architecture on the continent. The built form itself is unique and has historical value. Why can't developments in and around the district defer to the existing built form rather than overwhelm it? Why does residential have to take the form of 30 - 40 storey condos? I really don't buy the perspective argument since you could build anything almost anywhere using that reasoning. I know for a fact that there probably isn't a single member of this forum who thinks a 40 storey condo is appropriate for any area of the city.
A plan for the area that would've seen modern midrises that compliment the existing structures expanding outward from the district culminating in tall point towers at the Don would've been much more sensible than dropping the tall towers in the Distillery.
These are good reasons to you and others but I disagree. I don't see why the area needs a signpost, nor have you or anyone else proven why they have to take the form of 30-40 storey condos as opposed to anything else. The 'perceived notion of the past' argument is useless since no one is suggesting it remain a Pioneer Village type museum. Finally, I'm not a big fan of the design of all the towers, but generally speaking they're nice. The problem is the design in relation to the rest of the district. These towers could be anywhere - they just happen to be in the Distillery.
Apparently modernism is, at any cost.
syn
Senior Member
lol
Try reading the last few pages of this thread and you'll understand the statement. I wasn't being serious.
Tewder
Senior Member
Funny, I was just reading an article about that. Many Bostonians aren't happy about the glassy highrises looming over the historic city centre. It is a slightly different situation though in that it's the city centre and you could argue the need for highrise buildings. Also, Boston's city centre has many large historic buildings that allow for more of a balance between the old and the new. It's the same idea as modern supertalls being built around the old skyscrapers at Yonge and King... much more appropriate. The Distillery District is much more sensitive to being overpowered.
To be honest, and I know I'm going to get whacked for this, I honestly just don't see anything too compelling in the above picture. The lowrise industrial heritage seems a little forlorn and 'so what?'. I mean, this isn't the Old North Church we're talking about here or the Chateau Ramezay or Fort York, which is to say places that have historic gravitas in their meaning to us as a society and as a people. I know people will scream foul, that these buildings are exemplary and represent our industrial heritage and so on, and to a point I agree but so then does the Silo or the Roundhouse and somebody found it acceptable to put little theme-park rides there...
I in no way mean to suggest the buildings are not an amazing asset or we shouldn't appreciate them etc, but only to suggest that in fact I think we have done just that, and in a way that actually repurposes, revitalizes, and recontextualizes them by giving them ongoing relevance.
A little olive branch here though. I understand the sensitivity with respect to this site, and the misgivings some have. This response to heritage will not please everyone, as many are not pleased with the ROM or the Royal Conservatory or I imagine with the National Ballet or any other sites where we are seeing a more radical form of mise en valeur. For me though the tension and the pushing of boundaries is good and it is spilling over in positive ways, in other ways of rethinking the urban form such as at Five on Yonge Street or many other projects where the city is starting to view the heritage built form for the city-building potential it has rather than as a liability or untouchable obstacle.
Urban Shocker
Doyenne
Other than saying you don't like them, you've provided no evidence that the form of the residences and podium buildings does not work with the historical heritage buildings or that it "overwhelms" them. The onus remains with you to do so, since there are many here who do "get it". The form of the Victorian structures, and their historical value, remains - and rather than being a group of disused former industrial buildings they have a new lease on life as part of a cultural, residential and retail development that takes them as a starting point. Their demise as a functioning distillery provided a blank slate for their creative reinvention and augmentation with contemporary builds, and that in no way detracts from their historic value. That the new Distillery condos will signpost the district on the skyline should come as no surprise when you look around the city at the form that contemporary design now takes in Toronto.
Hipster Duck
Senior Member
One of the reasons why Canadians suffer from a permanent identity crisis is because they can't recognize a great cultural export when it's staring them right in the face.
In this case, the great cultural export is Canadian whisky, which has been associated with coolness and Canada ("Mr. Draper's favourite whisky is Canadian" Jane Holway instructs Peggy Olsson in the first episode of Mad Men; it's a staple of duty free stores in international airport terminals the world over) everywhere except here where we resort to Moose and Mounties.
I don't know about you, but I think that more people can identify with the birthplace of Canadian Club than some Fort that a couple hundred Americans attacked. If there's a site with substantial history in Toronto, here it is.
Tewder
Senior Member
You have an excellent point Hipster, not about the Fort but about the cultural importance of Canadian whisky. They are both important but maybe we always view heritage with a capital 'H'. I love the idea of incorporating a museum about whisky, and why not expand it to celebrate Canadian alcohol in general including our love of Beer and the excellence of ice wine etc. I can only imagine that it would be a huge draw and would be in perfect synergy with the concept of the 'Distillery' district. Who do we email?
Parkdalian
Senior Member
I think we're just going in circles at this point. Syn, you are missing my point. I am providing positive reasons why this development makes sense here. You are saying it shouldn't be here, but not saying why it shouldn't be here, except by saying, "why can't it be mid rise"? Which is fine, but that just sounds like your preference. If this is just a discussion of preference, then we are free to disagree on what constitutes beauty, and we should probably stop the back-and-forth. But if you are saying a "historic district has been ruined", you have to provide proof of this assertion rather than writing off the arguments of other people as ill-mannered brutes who don't understand or appreciate heritage.
The unfortunate thing about this is that we are all modern, whether we like to admit or not. We can't escape our time period. Building a mid-rise that defers to the historic nature of the District is as modern a thought as building a point tower. Zoning laws and deferring to heritage is a relatively recent idea. The Victorians, for instance, might have thought a slaughterhouse was an appropriate neighbour for the Distillery District.
It's a good idea to put some of these ideas in historical perspective. In a hundred years time will people on urbantoronto be discussing the heritage of a currently "bland" Markham industrial park? Would the Rack House's destruction have generated much hubbub if it had been a windowless box made of concrete put up in 1960? In a hundred years time, will non-specialists even notice much difference between the point towers and the rest of the DD, labelling them all as "old"? (Much as most non-specialists couldn't tell you that one hundred years seperates the Grange and 299 Queen Street West.)
Modernism, in the sense you are describing, is about admitting your contemporary nature and using it to your advantage to create buildings that take on the past as equals, so that the whole area's level of design is outstanding. So yes, because modernism has to work from an awareness of being embedded in time, it is more trustworthy than a blanket worshipping of the past.
And no, modernism does not demand point towers and it can work mid-rise, but it does not exclude point towers either. Particulary when there have been no positive, practical reasons provided why the point towers are currently damaging the district.
urbandreamer
recession proof
More appropriate architecture for the DD? It's got "stone"....
Modernism is dated. Time to move on to what Waterloo's building.
Modernism is dated. Time to move on to what Waterloo's building.
That is one horrific building: I saw it and some other shockers in Waterloo a month ago. Funny that, as other new construction in K-W seems positively enlightened, such as the Perimeter Institute, U of W Pharmacy, Waterloo History Museum...
42
42