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

[Urban Shocker]

3D: From talking to someone in the sales office recently, I understand they're selling the first 30 storeys of Clear Spirit now, and the rest later.

Regarding Rack House 'M': Because this is a historical district, the footprint of this building will be maintained. The Clear Spirit rendering that was posted earlier shows that the windowless Incredible Hulk Rack House 'M' will be reduced in height to create a four storey podium - with the addition of large windows - with an even more glassy fifth floor built atop it. The rendering suggests that the existing vertical pilasters on the outside of the Incredible Hulk will be retained, used to create vertical dividers between the new windows on those first four podium floors. The rest of the Hulk's brick will be incorporated elsewhere. So the result is that the Hulk will be lower, with more glass, probably with retail on the main floor, and will have a more appropriately inviting appearance for a complex of buildings that are being revived for public use. Despite alklay's claim that it will be located, "right up against the Young Centre", the condo tower will actually be situated at the south end of the podium, near to the existing parking lot at the south east corner of the complex.

Pure Spirit, under construction but nearing full height, isn't appreciably further from the historic Cooperage building than Clear Spirit will be from the Young Centre and it fits in very nicely without detracting from the enjoyment of the Distillery District.

Interestingly, the original millstone that was brought from England in 1832, and used in the windmill that stood on the site, stands on display outside the Cooperage building. We have our very own millstone, right here on the UT forum, of course ... madman.

 

[alklay]

I did not say that it would be right up against the Young Centre. I said, being right up against a building, as if right up against the Young Centre, is how instrusive the new condos are, not some nice far off distant building as in the picture.

 

[scarberiankhatru]

'Inappropriately' tall buildings are going to be visible...there's no way - and, really, no reason - for them to not be visible.

 

[drum118]

As of Sunday

 

[urbandreamer]

Hey I was down there today too! (For the first time.) I was not impressed by the district: lame! Tourist town when the real town is the Annex, Queen West, the Junction, etc. What's the point?

But wait a minute, here's my take on the tower controversy: it's the only thing worth seeing in the area! The tower and building are the best things about the neighbourhood for the area (minus traffic from the expressway) is very very quiet--it's almost like living out in the country! Yet it's only a 10 minute walk to Bay St! I could almost see myself buying down there--not for the tourist crap but for the quiet! Photos do not do the context justice: seen in person, I now realize phase one is basically surrounded by those old 80's condos, wasteland and some extremely cheesy movie-set-like Victorian square.

By my estimates, the entire DES area could easily handle another 100,000+ souls. The DD is really just a short 1 minute walk away from those dreadful St Lawrence co-ops: talk about failed urban planning!

It's finally Clear to me just how Pure the Spirit of Peter Clewe's vision is to the area: to awaken the creeky old Victorians from their grave and reconnect them with reality!

 

[adma]

Somehow, if we're talking about St. Lawrence so forthrightly as "failed urban planning", we're *really* engaging in drastic revisionism here. Likewise in not being able to see the Victorian forest for the touristic trees.

However, a bit of a egg-face mea culpa I've been sitting on for a few days; in the midst of my hysteria, I'd lost track of which actual building was Rack House 'M' (i.e. the old Gooderham sign platform).

Grasping that fact now, I'm a little less hysterically no-scrape about it; however, there's still something way too drastically slick and intrusive about what's proposed. And I can see all of this coalescing into a jumping-the-shark moment for Toronto School architectural/urban idealism.

It's finally Clear to me just how Pure the Spirit of Peter Clewe's vision is to the area: to awaken the creeky old Victorians from their grave and reconnect them with reality!

But fighting their "creeky oldness" in the name of self-conscious reality-recognition could just as well relegate them to a more dire grave than they knew before.

In the yet-to-come final analysis, I can see the Distillery District pointed to as a litany of one failed good-idea-at-the-time after another, which goes back to its post-Gooderham roots as an Allied Lyons development/land-banking tool. Those 90s brick condos to the NE? Few would point to those as "sensitive solutions" these days. The Distillery District proper? Tourist trap that's been leaking high-grade tenants and feels like something out of the Simpsons. The Clewes towers? A puzzling electroshock jolt out of tourist-trap slumber. It's like each succeeding step "learns" from previous failures and travesties by offering up newfangled opposite-reaction failures and travesties. About the only unfailure-ish thing here is the Young Centre; which indicates that perhaps the proper way to go for the DD would have been, indeed, as a straightforward non-touristy museological/cultural/institutional affair...

 

[syn]

This is what I and others have been saying, and Ed's picture shows how great this is turning out.

What he's referring to isn't being developed at the Distillery - it's already there. The new condos aren't being built in the "backdrop"; they're right in the District.

 

[Urban Shocker]

The Pure Spirit tower that is nearing completion is just as close to the old Cooperage building, and to the block of old buildings along the south side of Distillery Lane, as the Clear Spirit tower will be to the Young Centre. So a tall tower is already a part of the complex and not a "backdrop" to it.

Even if a tall condo tower were to be built "right up against the Young Centre" there's nothing inherently wrong with locating a theatre next to a tall building.

Regarding adma's "non-touristy" option, I'm left wondering what he'd propose instead? It hasn't worked as a Queen West gallery district magnet, so that wouldn't be a practicable cultural use. Removing all the retail and restaurants, cancelling all the programmed events, leaving Rack House 'M' as-is, and not building the housing would de-clutter it of current and potential uses that wouldn't fit with his plan - but what to put in there instead? There are only so many more theatre and performance spaces the city can absorb, given the demand - and those are crossover "touristy" things that he may not like anyway. And what cultural/institutional bodies are currently in need of space? In general, I'm baffled by his suggestion. Should Peter Gatien set up shop? He's got some nice letters of support from the ROM and AGO apparently, and Circa will have art prominently featured. I dunno ...

 

[adma]

I get the drift--too much of an opposite "museological" approach might have run into the same ill-starred dilemma as another "distillery district" type of attraction, the Seagram complex in Waterloo. Or, would it? Ideally, in hindsight, perhaps G&W *would* have been best suited for that vaunted/desired Museum Of Toronto, together with an assortment of archival/research/storage facilities which would have made good unobtrusive use of the existing building stock. Maybe it would have been less "populist" than the present arrangement, but it would have maintained more of the "inner sanctum" mystery that characterized G&W back when it smelled.

The fundamental problem may be a sort of Thatcherite/Canary Wharf undertone from the start, i.e. the Distillery District as a "private landholders and developers do it best" demonstration, which really works best with tabula rasa or at least more incremental situations. In the case of G&W, it's led to one forced issue after another, either on the condo-redev side or the tourist-trap side. It feels fatally inorganic, in a "single big evil anonymous corporate landlord" sort of way. And the newest towers seem to be falling back into a "geez, we're frustrated, we really wish we had a tabula rasa" thing...

 

[3Dementia]

Adma: I'll admit to constant "brain freeze" when I read your posts (I only use 7% of grey matters when no-one is looking or reading... the usual) so I'll zero in and attempt to understand one element of your purple prose... Thatcher/Canary.

If you are suggesting that the perimeter "historic district" of Canary is a failure akin to Distillery, I strongly disagree. I love the district and its (too) sleepy nature is changing... remember the avalanche of Canary office towers precluded any residential... which is finally happening. I think the district will be a very vibrant and "different" London destination.

 

[adma]

The actual Canary Wharf tableau you offer might fit more into the "more incremental situation" category. What I'm suggesting is that the market-based model that might "work" for Canary Wharf doesn't work when the historic district is absolutely albatross-central to the enterprise. Indeed, the outcome of the Distillery District is a potential Case #1 in arguments of either "heritage doesn't work", or "this didn't work for heritage"--or both in conjunction, as voiced by some Wendell Cox-ian urban contrarian.

But to repeat: I *do* have to withdraw some of my purple prose and invective re Rack House 'M', because I brain-farted into misunderstanding which particular building that was.

 

[Tewder]

What he's referring to isn't being developed at the Distillery - it's already there.

...but how close or distant is okay by you then, or respectful enough? The point is that the Distillery buildings don't exist in an artificial vacuum. There are no gigantic theatrical scrims surrounding the neighbourhood blocking out anything that was built post-1850. Rather, the heritage buildings (hopefully, imo) form the core of a dynamic and porous, evolving city neighbourhood. Wont this be far more interesting, and offer a far more sustainable destiny for the already-protected buildings in question, than some museum that people do or do not visit, or than the current incarnation of the site which is fairly ignored by visitors and Torontonians alike?

The new condos aren't being built in the "backdrop"; they're right in the District.

No, actually they're being built around the District.

 

[Urban Shocker]

I see it slightly differently, Tewder. As a result of having one architect ( or at least aA with a supporting role from the heritage-conscious E.R.A.) the new buildings have a coherent look that contrasts the new with the old but also makes something entirely new out of the whole complex. The new additions - such as the prow-like podium for Pure Spirit and the low arm building that will fill in the southern flank of the complex - build on the established character of the place by giving us new laneways similar to what already exists and a feeling of enclosure. The tower buildings, built and unbuilt, are definitely "inside the walls" of the unique little village that the Distillery District will eventually become. The closest comparison I can think of is a Tuscan hill town - San Gimignano, complete with towers, maybe.

 

[syn]

...but how close or distant is okay by you then, or respectful enough? The point is that the Distillery buildings don't exist in an artificial vacuum.

I never said they do.

There are no gigantic theatrical scrims surrounding the neighbourhood blocking out anything that was built post-1850. Rather, the heritage buildings (hopefully, imo) form the core of a dynamic and porous, evolving city neighbourhood.

That could be accomplished without 40 and 50 storey towers that are totally out of scale.

Wont this be far more interesting, and offer a far more sustainable destiny for the already-protected buildings in question, than some museum that people do or do not visit, or than the current incarnation of the site which is fairly ignored by visitors and Torontonians alike?

This museum comparison nonsense really has to come to an end. No one has argued for the Distillery becoming a museum (it isn't one now). The vast majority of posters don't have a problem with residents there either. The problem is the built form of proposed developments and their effect on the Distillery.

Under the West Donlands plan the Distillery would've been nicely integrated into the developing fabric of the area. 40 and 50 storey towers aren't necessary to bring residents to the area; smaller scaled developments that took context into consideration would've been far better.

Yes, I know, the developer makes a profit. As I've stated repeatedly, I don't buy that argument. The city turns down developments all the time for various reasons. They could've done the same here.

No, actually they're being built around the District.

No, they're not. All the Pure/Clear Spirit towers are inside the Distillery. You could make a case for the Pure Spirit tower being on the perhiphery, but you can't say the same for the Clear Spirit Towers.

 

[Urban Shocker]

Pure Spirit is just as close to the older buildings as Clear Spirit will be - one coherent compound is being created and there is no reason - given that a historically listed group of former industrial buildings are part of this new entity - that it should be interchangeable in appearance with the new buildings that are going to be constructed in empty land adjacent to it.