I don't think anyone has argued that the Distillery be preserved as a museum, so there is no need to raise that strawman argument..
The 'museum' argument is not a false one, essentially it is your line of thinking taken to the extreme: Once you start using words like 'appropriate' or 'reasonable' to shore up your position the only difference between your argument and the museum one is a matter of degree. At the end of the day you are implicitly trying to circumscribe what should be built on the site according to your own parameters, your own sensibility, your own aesthetic (size, scale and design), and on your own feelings of what is appropriate or not (See below).
The issue is appropriate development both immediately surrounding and directly within the area of the Distillery District. As for perverting history, spare me. Not once have I suggested restarting a Distillery in the area. The issue is about appropriate development...
This truly is the strawman argument: as you have already stated, that which the museum preservationist crowd believes to be 'appropriate' is extremely more drastic than what you feel is 'appropriate', which is different still from what US or myself might feel it to be... Who's right? Who gets to define what's 'appropriate'?
Yes, it is a matter of degree, because no matter how good something is, there can always be too much of it. I think this is such a case. There is too much development being planned around and directly within this small collection of buildings
Looking at the market forces and planning forces at play here that would not seem to be the case.
There is plenty of room immediately east. In terms of design, would it be difficult to suggest setting the taller buildings further back from the immediate area of the Distillery? Would it be so wrong to suggest building more to scale within the immediate area? Would any of this be so unreasonable? I'd like to see an argument that says it is so....
... but you've already seen that argument: 'reasonable' is pretty synonomous with 'appropriate' in this context. So, unless you're going to enact bilaws to legislate the parameters of development in and around the site, similar to those in towns like Niagara-on-the-Lake or 'olde' Oakville then I think you have to accept that development will occur according to market forces, city and planning objectives and public demand.
The buildings themselves and the site have been saved, beautifully restored and readapted in ways that will hopefully better ensure their sustainability. That is no small victory for those of us - myself included - who love Toronto heritage architecture.
The Distillery can be considered an impetus development, but why does development automatically mean surrounding it with three very tall buildings right within the area? Is that all development means to you? Why the fixation with faux Victorians as the only possible alternative to what is going to be built in the area? It seems more than just a little odd to suggest such an either/or scenario, and as a result to close one's mind to the possible range of alternatives.
I concede that I'm forcing a point here. Obviously there are other alternatives to faux Victorians. I'm just not personally as disappointed with highrise development at this site as others here are, and I'm actually fairly pleased with the quality of the projects that have already started. Then again, I tend to like the contrast of old with new, I like to see what is hopefully a new neighbourhood emerging and evolving, and I think the Distillery has the potential to become a very desirable and successful dynamic 'neighbourhood' by attracting urban density, along with quality new design to complement the truly special and unique older architecture already there.
