Toronto Clear Spirit | 131.36m | 40s | Cityscape | a—A

Parkdalian said:
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.
Click to expand...

I'm not missing the point; right now that's all people are doing. Providing their preference. Urban Shocker and yourself have provided reasons *you* feel are valid, I simply don't agree.

I've suggested a number of reasons over the course of this thread as to why these condo towers shouldn't be there. If you don't agree, then as you said we'll have to agree to disagree.

Parkdalian said:
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.
Click to expand...

I didn't necessarily say it's been ruined, I simply find these developments out of scale and disrespectful to existing framework.

Parkdalian said:
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.
Click to expand...

Yes, I'm quite aware of that. The quote was directed at people who will defend any development as long as it's made by one of their favourite architects (hint - not you).

Parkdalian said:
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.
Click to expand...

And yet again, this is turned into those against the towers simply being 'pro-past'. It really isn't about that.

The bolded part of your quote is exactly the reason why I don't like these towers in the district - they don't take on the past as equals. The past takes a back seat to these 'signposts'. One could argue the towers themselves are well designed, but taken as a whole they don't strike a respectful balance between the old and the new. The Chrysler Tower is well designed & beautiful, but if we were to drop it in the middle of the Distillery it would look quite ridiculous...wouldn't it?

Parkdalian said:
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.
Click to expand...

See above.
 
Point....

While I can see the argument that putting towers in neighborhoods with a history such as the Distillery District is bad planning and completely out of character with scale in some circumstances, aren't these towes being built on the outter boundaries?

The first tower is built across the street and I don't see it overwhelming the site at all... And there's something about that first tower that doesn't bother me even though it's clearly another box. The other towers look very promising.
 
Tewder said:
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?
Click to expand...

I like the idea of a "Museum of Liquor". I'd visit for sure, but not before 3pm. Maybe sponsored by Seagrams? Phyllis Lambert was the best friend Canadian architecture ever had. Who am I kidding: we live in Ontario, with its puritannical outlook on booze consumption - why would we tolerate it, let alone celebrate it? Those distillery buildings aren't the only things straight out of the 19th century.
 
syn said:
The past takes a back seat to these 'signposts'. One could argue the towers themselves are well designed, but taken as a whole they don't strike a respectful balance between the old and the new. The Chrysler Tower is well designed & beautiful, but if we were to drop it in the middle of the Distillery it would look quite ridiculous...wouldn't it?
Click to expand...

From a distance, "the past" isn't even visible. The signposting effect is entirely a product of the present, and links the Distillery with other contemporary residential point towers around town. Much as the eye would have picked up Toronto's church spires standing out on the horizon a century ago, while not seeing the lower buildings crowded at their bases, the Three Graces of the Distillery will do the same when they're all built.

They will be the latest in a number of landmark buildings that have signposted the district over the years:

In1831, James Worts arrived, from Yorkshire to establish himself as a miller in the Town of York. He built a 21 metre high windmill on the lakeshore near the mouth of the Don River. This was probably the last large working windmill to be built in the province and became a landmark, the CN Tower of its day. It served as a waterfront landmark and position marker for sailors on the lake for nearly 25 years. The Windmill Line, established in an attempt to limit expansion into the harbour, was named for this structure which was its eastern end. It is still used by surveyors. Steam power replaced wind power in 1845, and in 1853 the windmill's wings were removed. Six years later the windmill was demolished. It was located on the west side of Trinity Street, north of the grey stone distillery building.
 
The towers do not overwhelm the Distillery district. The solidity of the older brick buildings more than compensates for the height of the towers which are light.
Walk around any old European city and you will see buildings which were constructed hundreds of years apart but which function well together. Also, these buildings have often been retasked several times over from their original purposes.
I think the looming effect of Clear Spirit to be re-assuring. It confirms to me that I'm not siutting in some Pioneer Village themepark (all day pass in hand) waiting to see some costumed re-enactment.
The Gooderman Worts complex was not originally constructed as some themepark it was a real business and real activities occured there. I am hoping professionals open up offices there, it needs more business, fewer bars and souvenir shops.
 
tkip said:
While I can see the argument that putting towers in neighborhoods with a history such as the Distillery District is bad planning and completely out of character with scale in some circumstances, aren't these towes being built on the outter boundaries?
Click to expand...

No, not just on the outer boundary...right in the middle of the complex, too. One of the largest distillery buildings was demolished to make room.
 
From a pedestrian scale, I don't even notice the towers unless I look up. I think it is a nice juxtaposition between modern and historic without being overbearing.

It would be really cool to have a authentic residential loft in the old buildings, but unfortunately they are only for retail and commercial leasing.
 
scarberiankhatru said:
No, not just on the outer boundary...right in the middle of the complex, too. One of the largest distillery buildings was demolished to make room.
Click to expand...

Not right in the middle - that's probably where Corkin Gallery is, or the retail stores to the west of it that face Trinity Street, if you take into account the heft that the new Pure Spirit condo and lofts add to the complex. Trinity Street, on the street grid, bisects the Distillery on a north/south axis - though I think that the "centre of gravity" will shift slightly to the east of that when the two lovely new towers are built.
 
buildup said:
The towers do not overwhelm the Distillery district. The solidity of the older brick buildings more than compensates for the height of the towers which are light.
Click to expand...

Uh, only one of the towers has been built so it's pretty hard to make that judgement right now.

Walk around any old European city and you will see buildings which were constructed hundreds of years apart but which function well together.
Click to expand...

I can't think of a single old European city with a unified historic precinct in which buildings are demolished and replaced with multiple 30+ story towers in a three block area.

I think the looming effect of Clear Spirit to be re-assuring. It confirms to me that I'm not siutting in some Pioneer Village themepark (all day pass in hand) waiting to see some costumed re-enactment.
Click to expand...

I find the need to be reassured by modern towers when in an historic low rise neighbourhood to be a little bizarre.

The Gooderman Worts complex was not originally constructed as some themepark it was a real business and real activities occured there. I am hoping professionals open up offices there, it needs more business, fewer bars and souvenir shops.
Click to expand...

With all these towers, the heritage buildings are going to be a glorified condo podium.
 
Urban Shocker said:
Not right in the middle - that's probably where Corkin Gallery is, or the retail stores to the west of it that face Trinity Street, if you take into account the heft that the new Pure Spirit condo and lofts add to the complex. Trinity Street, on the street grid, bisects the Distillery on a north/south axis - though I think that the "centre of gravity" will shift slightly to the east of that when the two lovely new towers are built.
Click to expand...

pedant
/pedd’nt/

• noun a person excessively concerned with minor detail or with displaying technical knowledge.

— DERIVATIVES pedantic adjective pedantically adverb pedantry noun.

— ORIGIN French pédant, probably related to PEDAGOGUE.
 
Urban Shocker said:
Not right in the middle - that's probably where Corkin Gallery is, or the retail stores to the west of it that face Trinity Street, if you take into account the heft that the new Pure Spirit condo and lofts add to the complex. Trinity Street, on the street grid, bisects the Distillery on a north/south axis - though I think that the "centre of gravity" will shift slightly to the east of that when the two lovely new towers are built.
Click to expand...

Yes, the middle. If you're not trying to buttress your flimsy 'expertise' by saying how often you shop there and implying others are unfamiliar with the site, you're relying on sheer pedantry.
 
No matter US, these towers could be across the lake in Rochester and would still be considered too close to the sacred Distillery.
 
You must log in or register to post here.

Back
Top