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

Sure they're starting from scratch. It started with empty disused buildings, surrounded by vacant land - and they're building on that, literally and figuratively, doing something distinctive for this particular site and not for some other site that isn't the Distillery district.
 
To just change the rational for the towers at the Distillery with the tower at Hummingbird (substitutes in brackets)...

"The (L) residential tower will signpost the (Hummingbird Centre), not isolate it - or negate the fact that on paper it is a (well designed theatre in the 'modern' tradition) - helping to relaunch it as something unique. The sympathetic tall/short, (loud and unique/understated modernism), new/old design-opposite contrast is how that is achieved."
 
Urban Shocker said:
Sure they're starting from scratch. It started with empty disused buildings, surrounded by vacant land - and they're building on that, literally and figuratively, doing something distinctive for this particular site and not for some other site that isn't the Distillery district.
Click to expand...

Well, these aren't just any set of disused buildings - it's a Natural Historic Site and a very rare collection in Toronto.

What they're doing for the Distillery isn't really unique at all - these towers could be built anywhere. There isn't any sensitivity to the built form, and the new set of towers even requires the demolition of some of the existing (and usable) structures.
 
scarberiankhatru said:
Weren't they "disused" for only a few years? I thought the distillery shut down for good in 1990.
Click to expand...

Yeah.

And while they weren't consistently used, they were used quite often for film shoots.

I'd also add that the Distillery isn't exactly surrounded by vacant land either.
 
Haven't heard anyone claim that "L" will isolate the Hummingbird Centre building - as Hydrogen believes the condo towers will isolate the Distillery area; and of course the Hummingbird is still in use as a theatre, whereas the distillery buildings fell into disuse in 1990 and exist only on paper in their original working sense. Given that the contemporary working style for our leading local architects is a neo-Modernism descended from such buildings as the Hummingbird, the idea that a new/old design contrast is being set up between the Hummingbird and "L" is questionable but possible - as OCAD proves - but nobody would claim that the 1950's pile on McCaul had any design significance, whereas the Hummingbird is a Modernist jewel. All sites are unique, have different histories, have collections of buildings that serve different purposes, are in different neighbourhoods, and have different owners, so trying to transpose one set of rules to another development to make the point that they're interchangeable is clearly absurd.

Does anyone know why this National Historic Site thing is being waved around all the time like some sort of magic talisman? The only explanation I can think of is that it somehow "proves" that tall buildings are forbidden there ... but where is that written? In some sort of mental ledger of pervasive, irrational fears of tall buildings on historical sites, I guess. But it will still be a National Historic Site after all the condo towers have been built, and much more too, and even the brick from the buildings that are being dismantled is being recycled in the new.
 
Urban Shocker said:
Does anyone know why this National Historic Site thing is being waved around all the time like some sort of magic talisman? The only explanation I can think of is that it somehow "proves" that tall buildings are forbidden there ... but where is that written? In some sort of mental ledger of pervasive, irrational fears of tall buildings on historical sites, I guess. But it will still be a National Historic Site after all the condo towers have been built, and much more too, and even the brick from the buildings that are being dismantled is being recycled in the new.
Click to expand...

Why not build tall buildings any-and-everywhere then? Kensington could use a nice 50-storey AA tower. Same goes for the ROM (they had one planned anyways, might as well revive it). Riverdale is ripe for the picking too.

People would say it should be forbidden...but where is that written?
 
The official plan, which is a written document, doesn't permit a 50-storey tower to be built in Riverdale because it is an established, low-rise, residential neighbourhood. So is Kensington, though it has some low-rise shopping in former residential buildings. The ROM proposal was dropped as a result of wider public, local institutional, and ROM community opposition.

None of these locations are former distilleries, former factories, or a district in need of being revived - in this case with a mix of residential, office and commercial uses. There has been no public outcry as a result of the ongoing development of the Distillery District - including the condominiums built and proposed - which there certainly would be if a 50-storey tower was proposed for the corner of Logan and Riverdale, or Augusta and Baldwin.

Again, the interchangeability argument doesn't hold water.
 
This must be one of the fastest development around. I think the last floor is being topped up already.
 
Is the measure of validity for a development to be found in the lack (or the volume) of public outcry? Is the official city plan the one true document that fully describes the validity of all development by way of zoning restrictions?

The city plan could be rewritten so as to allow highrise development in the middle of Riverdale. Even if some people would deem such a development to be appropriate, others would inevitably find the placement of such buildings questionable - regardless of how attractive they could appear.

The Distillery District is actually quite small in area. The podium for the new development will occupy an area roughly one-sixth the size of the present Distillery. One of the future projects will be built right inside the perimeter of the existing District. Others portions of the District have already been lost during the construction of the existing condo buildings. These projects, immediately surrounding and within the Distillery area, will overwhelm it - regardless of how well designed or attractive the new towers are (and I acknowledge that overwhelm is an opinion).

So in effect, by building such towers around and in the Distillery District, one does gain something, but one also loses something as well. And as they are no longer making Distillery Districts anymore, this should be something of a concern in light of these new developments in and around the area.

Beyond the Distillery District are plenty of excellent opportunities for developing a large number of new towers and other buildings of different scale and design. Not everything has to be placed upon or within this one area in order to validate its present existence, or to make it successful.
 
Urban Shocker said:
None of these locations are former distilleries, former factories, or a district in need of being revived.
Click to expand...

So the distillery district isn't already revived? And the massive West Don Lands plan across the street won't revive it but a condo inside the historic site will?
 
You are fortunate. I learned to respect what a tough life many new immigrants have by way of factory employment.
 
Urban Shocker said:
The official plan, which is a written document, doesn't permit a 50-storey tower to be built in Riverdale because it is an established, low-rise, residential neighbourhood. So is Kensington, though it has some low-rise shopping in former residential buildings. The ROM proposal was dropped as a result of wider public, local institutional, and ROM community opposition.

None of these locations are former distilleries, former factories, or a district in need of being revived - in this case with a mix of residential, office and commercial uses. There has been no public outcry as a result of the ongoing development of the Distillery District - including the condominiums built and proposed - which there certainly would be if a 50-storey tower was proposed for the corner of Logan and Riverdale, or Augusta and Baldwin.

Again, the interchangeability argument doesn't hold water.
Click to expand...

Hydrogen and scarberiankhatru posted some good responses, but I do have a few things to add.

One could make a case for tall towers in all those locations. Kensington is well connected by transit with two nearby streetcar lines and fairly close to a couple of subway stations. It could be argued that it's a very good spot for a 50-storey tower.

The ROM came up with the idea for a condo tower, there are a cluster of tall towers not far from the intersection (with more coming) and it's right on top of a subway station. The official plan calls for intensification at major intersections and along subway routes...sounds like a good idea...

As for Riverdale, if a developer were to buy up a plot of land with homes, brought in new business that enhanced the area and then wanted to throw up some 50-storey towers that don't quite fit in with the area, so what? They invested, shouldn't they have the right to do what they want?

You can make an argument for massive towers anywhere if you want to...or am I sensing a fear of heights?
 
You must log in or register to post here.

Back
Top