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

syn: I made the point about Rack House 'M' being developed, along the lines that you also now suggest, on Sept. 2nd at 4:10 p.m. The renderings of Clear Spirit that we've all seen show something along those lines.

Yesterday, I posted the picture from the aA website to show ( since only Andrew3D has so far included a partial picture of it ) the size of Rack House 'M' - eight storeys high and still looking mightily like a condo tower laid on its side to me. Adma has twice backed off his earlier vehement support of this building, once he realized which one it is that we're discussing. Most recently he has posted that, "it's probably a given that more leeway would have been given to its treatment than other elements" given the commercially-driven nature of the development, which is in line with jaborandi's comment, and mine, concerning the ugliness of the structure and is obviously the way Cityscape and Clewes are thinking. So there is one example of a logical reading by several of us of what aA are doing based on the aesthetics and historical significance of Rack House 'M' within an economic context.

The advocates of a District full of 5 1/2 storey, 8-12 storey or 7-14 storey buildings haven't explained how their proposals, which would result in considerably reduced public space between the buildings, would be better. The aA design creates new spaces between the buildings that extends the character of the District, and introduces towers, which seems clearly superior and perfectly appropriate within the context of a city.

Scarberiankhatru talks of the original buildings ( plural ) going, but that isn't true. His comments, "I'd rather have the old brick box ( presumably Rack House 'M' ) than the Clewes box", and his mistaken belief that there is a disconnect between aesthetics and good design ( "who cares what things actually look like or what they replace as long as they are "well designed" " ) are unexplained.

Hydrogen disavows his own opinions, when they're placed under scrutiny, as merely "rhetorical" - which clearly implies that he is unable to defend them.
 
I'm not backing off.

US - what is this - Sunday School?
Your aggressively contrarian, nit-picking monomania is making for a lot of dispiriting and dull reading.
Why not contribute something to the forum other than pushing your personal opinions on us as if they were empirical facts? Over and over again. The same thing. The same thing again. At practically every few posts on this thread. Believe us, we know. We know, we know, we know what you're about to say - again.
You act as if you're the only one here who ever cracked open a book in a University course, took a debating class, or tried to forget about that annoying person at the party who stood around shouting out opinions to the detriment of all the more personable discourse going on around them. It's nice that you have a lot of time on your hands to be able to hover around the forum and see whenever a reply pops up that doesn't suit you - but the ability to read, listen and engage might be an attribute you might want to work on adding to your list of outsize renovations.
I believe I can speak for a few other ciphers on here when I say that most people aren't replying because you're so f*$#%$g brilliant - they're not bothering because your so damn tiresome. It's no fun and it's not necessary.

Alright, I understand this is a personal, flame-ish attack, and I apologize in advance for blowing my stack - again. But I'm getting sick and tired of seeing meaningless nerdish combat getting in the way of a delightful useful thread. You raise and lot of good points in other threads, and many of them deftly and delightfully. But what's with this useless battling?
Believe me, I'd rather think "Oh Good" when I see your avatar pop up, instead of it's current "Oh No" I'm currently feeling.
 
I don't know if anyone has raised this issue, but with these three behemoth rising within several years in the District as well as the development at the used car lot on the north east corner of Parliament and Mills how are they going to deal with all the traffic in that narrow area?
 
Urban Shocker said:
syn: I made the point about Rack House 'M' being developed, along the lines that you also now suggest, on Sept. 2nd at 4:10 p.m. The renderings of Clear Spirit that we've all seen show something along those lines.
Click to expand...

"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."

This is just your assumption though. Based on the renderings, the base looks entirely new, with some token bricks from the Rackhouse. According to the developers the building is being demolished and they're using bricks in the rebuilt base. That doesn't count, to me, as reducing Rackhouse M to 5 storeys.



Urban Shocker said:
Yesterday, I posted the picture from the aA website to show ( since only Andrew3D has so far included a partial picture of it ) the size of Rack House 'M' - eight storeys high and still looking mightily like a condo tower laid on its side to me. Adma has twice backed off his earlier vehement support of this building, once he realized which one it is that we're discussing. Most recently he has posted that, "it's probably a given that more leeway would have been given to its treatment than other elements" given the commercially-driven nature of the development, which is in line with jaborandi's comment, and mine, concerning the ugliness of the structure and is obviously the way Cityscape and Clewes are thinking. So there is one example of a logical reading by several of us of what aA are doing based on the aesthetics and historical significance of Rack House 'M' within an economic context.
Click to expand...

I'm well aware of Rackhouse M and it's size. As I've said many times, I'd much rather have the existing building converted into residential, rather than demolished and rebuilt for the base of a 50 storey tower that's totally out of scale with the existing buildings.

Urban Shocker said:
The advocates of a District full of 5 1/2 storey, 8-12 storey or 7-14 storey buildings haven't explained how their proposals, which would result in considerably reduced public space between the buildings, would be better.
Click to expand...

I don't see how the bases of the current condo projects made a few storeys higher would reduce public space.


Urban Shocker said:
The aA design creates new spaces between the buildings that extends the character of the District,
Click to expand...

And lowrise and/or midrise structures wouldn't do the same


Urban Shocker said:
and introduces towers, which seems clearly superior and perfectly appropriate within the context of a city.
Click to expand...

The city isn't about a single context. If it were, almost any project in any location would be approved. 80 storeys on a quiet Riverdale residential street? Why not? It's the city...right?
 
Shocker, you are the one defined and echoed the sentiments that certain buildings found in the Distillery as useless, unphotogenic and being worthy of replacement by what is, in your opinion, a more photogenic and superior aA tower.

I do note that you have failed to answer the charge that your opinion carries no more weight than any other, and that it remains, as such, an opinion and hardly the voice of authority that you so wish to project on the matter.
 
Sorry if this has mentioned before, but in the small triangle of land split of Eastern Ave and Front St E (beside the large Infiniti dealership they are building) mapped here:

GOOGLE MAP

There appears to be a very small park/garden/landscape piece, with stone work and a some sort of trellis looking piece. Perhaps some kind of ornamental marker for the distillery?

never noticed it before, looks near done, but it certainly adds some much needed visual appeal and uniqueness to that street area..
 
Urban Shocker said:
Scarberiankhatru talks of the original buildings ( plural ) going, but that isn't true. His comments, "I'd rather have the old brick box ( presumably Rack House 'M' ) than the Clewes box", and his mistaken belief that there is a disconnect between aesthetics and good design ( "who cares what things actually look like or what they replace as long as they are "well designed" " ) are unexplained.
Click to expand...

You disagree, so, naturally, whatever anyone else says is unexplained.

One building is going...now. Will another go later on to help save faltering galleries and coffee shops? Wouldn't *no* buildings going be preferable with a national historic site? Many of your arguments treat the rack house as an individual entity, an anomaly within the district. If it wasn't part of the distillery and just some building downtown, I'd agree with many of your points...but it's not an individual building, it's part of a [shrinking] collection.

You also seem to find opinions that Clewes is not a great architect and that the proposed building is mediocre utterly incomprehensible. Taken out of the distillery context, I'll admit that the Clewes condo + podium might be "better" than the rack house, but of what use is that comparison? Virtually everyone who doesn't move within design culture circles would prefer an intact distillery over most of a distillery and a "well-designed" condo...shocking, I know. At the end of the day, at least, what'll get built is not aggressively unattractive, which increases indifference over the project. I certainly won't be gluing myself to the rack house's wall.
 
SeanTrans said:
It's a little much for the Distillery District to get UNESCO status. It's unique to Toronto for sure (and this is one of my main reasons why I have trouble with Clear Spirit), but not to the world.
Click to expand...

In its present state, you're correct. However, it might not be "a little much" were it still the state it was in when G&W closed (or even better, of course, if G&W *didn't* close).

Ultimately, as I've indicated before, there's a certain UNESCO-mindful heritage perspective that might claim the die was cast once the Distillery District was decreed a private-enterprise, profit-making venture--and sure, there were the best expert heritage consultants at hand, but they were enlisted to do deals with the devil, so to speak: they were smokescreens.

So, figuratively (and generically) speaking, those of you who decry the present point towers: where were you when the earlier condos were built within the DD? Just because they're brick and less tall, doesn't make them any more "acceptable" than Pure/Clear Spirit. Despite some illusion otherwise, people who object to the latter aren't doing so on behalf of the former; they're more likely objecting to the latter as compounding the former's sins. And all the more so for using the "high design" angle as a Trojan horse.

And as to the heritage perspective I infer above: hate to say "told ya so", but...

So, now, we have this framed as a silly battle between the Colonial Williamsburg NOTL Balzacians and the Metrosexual Modernists. As silly as a pair of bickering parents. Not so silly is the fact that junior hung himself; can't take the bickering...

Oh, re Shocker's increasingly narcissistic arguments, note, for comparison's sake, this quote from elsewhere
The Annex is also a great example of how clever NIMBY's are marshalling their forces under the banner of heritage, in order to list large Queen Anne monster homes and entire streets, apparently so that that their neighbourhood will never, ever see the construction of contemporary buildings ever again.
Click to expand...
Er, who on earth would share that sentiment in 2007?
 
scarberiankhatru said:
Virtually everyone who doesn't move within design culture circles would prefer an intact distillery over most of a distillery and a "well-designed" condo...shocking, I know. At the end of the day, at least, what'll get built is not aggressively unattractive, which increases indifference over the project. I certainly won't be gluing myself to the rack house's wall.
Click to expand...

I'm a designer and I'd prefer to see the Distillery' built form stay as close to the original as possible.
 
MOD: AP, is there really any need to swoop THAT low and attack someone on THAT basis?

The point that CN raised was that Babble's opinions should be disregarded because his "ability to read, listen and engage might be an attribute you might want to work on adding to your list of outsize renovations." In that spirit, oughtn't we to consider the value of CN's opinions in the light of his addictions, which he's discussed quite openly online?
 
BTW Everyone!

Brick work is going on the podium east side at an alarming rate!

What ya'all think? anyone seen the brick color? any opinions?

I will post pictures asap. :p
 
syn: Rack House 'M' is being reduced from eight to five storeys, the footprint kept the same, windows added along the lines that you suggest, between what appear to be the original pilasters or rebuilt pilasters using the same brick. There would be no point in demolishing this thing and rebuilding it exactly as before, would there?

Again, you repeat your complaint about "scale" but you don't prove that it will be so.

Four towers with a total of, say, 140 storeys would most definitely take up less floor space than a massive eight storey block wedged into the site. And if alklay's vision of a 5 1/2 storey complex were to be built would there be any room to move between the old buildings at all?

Tall towers are part of the vernacular of many cities, including ours. Tewder identifies the proximity of tall with short buildings as a characteristic of Toronto. While others have tried to link the Distillery District development to what's happening in other parts of the city in order to prove that it shouldn't go ahead, I've always maintained that the Distillery District offers a clear slate that allows for a unique solution, and that there isn't a single city-wide context that should be applied everywhere.

scarberiankhatru still hasn't explained why he prefers an unused, derelict, windowless brick box to a housing and retail complex designed by one of our leading architects. The repeated claim that other buildings ( plural ) may be demolished isn't reflected in Cityscape's plan. He offers no evidence to back up his claim that "Virtually everyone who doesn't move within design culture circles would prefer an intact distillery over most of a distillery."

I think that Adma and jaborandi have both made excellent points about the merits and failures of other low-rise solutions in the downtown core.
 
You must log in or register to post here.

Back
Top