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

i bet you guys will forget about it in a day...
Click to expand...

I bet we won't.

I think it's kind of stupid to market an area as a well-preserved historic district and then tear some of it down. There is plenty of area all around the Distillery District for development. Why such a large project has to be mounted right within it at the expense of some of the structures makes no sense.
 
But, Hydrogen, you need to pay attention to the WHOLE sentence... It's being TEMPORARILY worn down, only to be reconstructed later. :cool:
 
One presumes that the torn down to be rebuilt building will be built into a new building following the tearing down. That's a little different than preservation - at least in my book.
 
Strong language, for a newbie.

I thought you were being sarcastic with the earlier post. From what I read, yes, materials will be supposedly reused. It's basically recycling old brick to make an uncontextual building have two or three floors of matching brick.
 
Okay, here's something to debate.

Clear Spirit versus Tour de Thorsell (ROM Condo). The ROM condo would have developed an area of historic interest (the university precinct) and provided a "return on investment" for the ROM, and would have "mixed new and old". That condo was rejected by most on this board as being not having any context to the area and would have destroyed the McLaughlin Planetarium. There was also a general agreement that such a condo near by, like One Bedford, was acceptable. Why is there a different standard here. Why must we destroy a part of the district for a clashing condo? Why not use some of the very developable property nearby? Why destroy a very rare district in this city, the only fully intact industrial district from the Victorian era? Something that is a National Historic Site? I see enough condos around, enough leased space that Artscape should walk away with a tidy profit anyway.

I really get frustrated about this project in particular.
 
Guess you're right, but one can't expect every single building in the district to be preserved as they are. These ones seem kinda useless and ugly as-is, and I do know the area. Some go, some stay, but the neighbourhood is revitalized, and the KEY buildings remain.
 
SeanTrans said:
Okay, here's something to debate.

Clear Spirit versus Tour de Thorsell (ROM Condo). The ROM condo would have developed an area of historic interest (the university precinct) and provided a "return on investment" for the ROM, and would have "mixed new and old". That condo was rejected by most on this board as being not having any context to the area and would have destroyed the McLaughlin Planetarium. There was also a general agreement that such a condo near by, like One Bedford, was acceptable. Why is there a different standard here. Why must we destroy a part of the district for a clashing condo? Why not use some of the very developable property nearby? Why destroy a very rare district in this city, the only fully intact industrial district from the Victorian era? Something that is a National Historic Site? I see enough condos around, enough leased space that Artscape should walk away with a tidy profit anyway.

I really get frustrated about this project in particular.
Click to expand...

Sean, the Distillery District is not a public institution. It is a private enterprise. It's a Victorian Industrial theme park. The modern insertions into it (the art galleries, the shops, the restaurants, the theatre) look super-cool because their sleek, modern appointments are set off so well by all the old brick and wood.

A tower at the ROM might have looked similarly cool, so it's not the look that's the problem there, it's the land use. The ROM and U of T are all part of this massive and dignified quasi-public landscape of reasonably august institutions that has been set aside for years for 'higher purposes', and should continue to be. No condo tower there, especially one aimed at the very well heeled, could fit into that 'this area is a reflection of who we all are' vibe.

For me, the Distillery District carries none of the psychological weight that the ROM/U of T does. It's just a mostly sensitive and cool re-use of an old booze factory.

42
 
The modern insertions into it (the art galleries, the shops, the restaurants, the theatre) look super-cool because their sleek, modern appointments are set off so well by all the old brick and wood.
Click to expand...

For the most part, the modern insertions into it are really cool, and I agree with you there. They complement the old, and is really good adaptive reuse.

I am not against private enterprise, I understand that profit is part of the deal. I even like, to an extent, the theme-park atmosphere - the area is getting busier, and as it integrates with the surroundings, will be lively enough all the time, not just weekends. I'm not talking Colonial Williamsburg, but more like St. Lawrence district, where tight height restrictions allow old and new to work - Festival Square versus St. Lawrence Market, Gooderham building versus the new condos at Jarvis. St. Lawrence to the west (a great mixed use, mixed income, mid rise, mixed age nabe that we again forgot how to build), and Lower Donlands to the east, even Corktown to the north call for shorter towers and mid-rise development.

I'd even go out on a limb and suggest that it could even use a little bit of "Disney" if it brings in the tourists while keeping to its core job of being an artsy gallery and theatre district, and condos in the area (but not overwhelming the site) would keep it useful for the rest of us.

I like the modern architecture, the condos look very nice. They are just too overbearing, and I think in two or three decades, more people could see the Clear Spirit and Pure Spirit as a mistake, a symbol of weak planning and a condo-mad city willing to build condos anywhere. (Which puzzles me a bit WRT Hume's assessment.)

If I wanted total preservation, I would have advocated keeping it as a booze factory. I would have said that the parking lot at the back was wrong, or the exiting condos closer to Parliament, which work. I would have been against development of the edges. I just think it's too much. Demolition to add a second or third highrise tower goes too far in my opinion.
 
interchange42 said:
Sean, the Distillery District is not a public institution. It is a private enterprise. It's a Victorian Industrial theme park. The modern insertions into it (the art galleries, the shops, the restaurants, the theatre) look super-cool because their sleek, modern appointments are set off so well by all the old brick and wood.
Click to expand...

But it isn't a theme park. This a legitimate historic area that just happens to be owned by private enterprise. It isn't a Disney recreation.



interchange42 said:
A tower at the ROM might have looked similarly cool, so it's not the look that's the problem there, it's the land use. The ROM and U of T are all part of this massive and dignified quasi-public landscape of reasonably august institutions that has been set aside for years for 'higher purposes', and should continue to be. No condo tower there, especially one aimed at the very well heeled, could fit into that 'this area is a reflection of who we all are' vibe.

For me, the Distillery District carries none of the psychological weight that the ROM/U of T does. It's just a mostly sensitive and cool re-use of an old booze factory.

42
Click to expand...

I see your point, but then that's a matter of perspective. Some may view it on that level of importance. As Sean mentioned, it is a National Historic Site.
 
SeanTrans said:
For the most part, the modern insertions into it are really cool, and I agree with you there. They complement the old, and is really good adaptive reuse.

I am not against private enterprise, I understand that profit is part of the deal. I even like, to an extent, the theme-park atmosphere - the area is getting busier, and as it integrates with the surroundings, will be lively enough all the time, not just weekends. I'm not talking Colonial Williamsburg, but more like St. Lawrence district, where tight height restrictions allow old and new to work - Festival Square versus St. Lawrence Market, Gooderham building versus the new condos at Jarvis. St. Lawrence to the west (a great mixed use, mixed income, mid rise, mixed age nabe that we again forgot how to build), and Lower Donlands to the east, even Corktown to the north call for shorter towers and mid-rise development.

I'd even go out on a limb and suggest that it could even use a little bit of "Disney" if it brings in the tourists while keeping to its core job of being an artsy gallery and theatre district, and condos in the area (but not overwhelming the site) would keep it useful for the rest of us.

I like the modern architecture, the condos look very nice. They are just too overbearing, and I think in two or three decades, people will see the condos as a mistake, a symbol of weak planning and a condo-mad city.

If I wanted total preservation, I would have advocated keeping it as a booze factory. I would have said that the parking lot at the back was wrong, or the exiting condos closer to Parliament, which work. I would have been against development of the edges. I just think it's too much. Demolition to add a second or third highrise tower goes too far in my opinion.
Click to expand...

I totally agree.

For me, any goodwill Cityscape earned by maintaining the Distillery and ensuring unique retail and cultural venues placed there goes out the window with the condos planned - especially if they're going to tear down some of the buildings to do it. It's like the whole Distillery thing was just an extended condo marketing campaign.
 
I see your point, but then that's a matter of perspective. Some may view it on that level of importance. As Sean mentioned, it is a National Historic Site.
Click to expand...

I think 42 is correct too, there is a difference between the two, but a heritage district should be treated better. Condos themselves would have been a poor idea for the ROM site (it being an institutional preserve), while I think condos can be built to be appropriate in the distillery district, but with limits. I don't see any limits, that's the problem.
 
syn said:
But it isn't a theme park. This a legitimate historic area that just happens to be owned by private enterprise. It isn't a Disney recreation.
Click to expand...

So what if it's not a recreation? As soon as you load it up with art galleries, restaurants, gift shops and theatres, it's a theme park. Or a glorified, rusticated mall. It's Squidport, and that's fine.

If the place had been restored with public money as the Canadian National Museum of This-Is-How-We-Make-Booze, then I would understand better the 'hands off' restrictions that you want to place on it.

When it first opened, the Distillery District had a hard time attracting the public to it. The shops were really struggling, and developers Cityscape (the only ones who were willing to pour the money into it to save it) were taking a bath on it. The condo plans were hatched as a way to keep the place a going concern: local residents could be counted on to patronize at least some commercial offerings down there. I don't blame a privately held company for trying to maximize its profit on its site subsequently, especially after all the expense they went to to resurrect it, and I am thankful that they went to the trouble to hire aA, one of our best architectural firms, to insert the glass in amongst the brick.

Without more complete renderings - a fly-by would be great - or a model that we can look at, we really don't know what is coming down exactly, or what bricks are going back up connected to what...

...but because Cityscape has done a pretty good job so far, and because it's an aA project that's to rise into the sky, I'm willing to give them both the benefit of the doubt. Cityscape will continue to own and run the Distillery, and they'll want something that maximizes public interest in the place for years to come, and aA will want to further enhance their reputation for creating residential complexes of the highest architectural quality.

I'm not worried.

42
 
You must log in or register to post here.

Back
Top