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

But "visual literacy" is so much more rewarding!
Click to expand...

poster1.jpg
 
Urban Shocker said:
Our values system is based on standards of excellence in medicine, law, and many other things, including design.

Our daily lives are full of encounters with objects, and systems, that weren't given enough thought at the conceptual stage before they were introduced to the public.

The role of design is to solve problems - a process - on the way to producing objects - a solution. Much of design is common sense, plus the magic ingredient of inspiration.

The magic ingredient that makes some buildings great isn't something that you can quantify - but you can recognize and delight in it, as with any work of art, when you encounter it.

In terms of appreciating art and design, "looking" is just the first part of a two-phase process that includes the payoff of "seeing". But not seeing isn't a moral failing either - it's an enticement to visual literacy and the benefits of that are a reward in itself as with any other form of literacy.

Even without analyzing "how" something is done, our lives are better for art because we are affected by it at an emotional level.
Click to expand...

A real mixed bag here, Shocker. First, with respect to standards of practice and evidence, I would suggest not confusing, for example, medicine with and design. To say the least, it would be a bit of a stretch. In such a situation, invoking the commonality of values without the appropriate, or recognized, range of context makes the notion a rather bloodless one. It suggests one is hiding behind the word rather than exploring or expressing the nature of the values at hand.

Also, comparing leaking coffee pots to the construction of towers in the Distillery suggests somewhat different considerations with respect to the process of design. For example, a very well-designed coffee pot can leak if poorly fabricated. By the same token, those spanking new towers may have leaking roofs once finished (or maybe leak like Spire did). But this may have very little to do with notion of design that I think you wish to invoke here.

If the role of design is, as you suggest, to solve problems, then what problems are being solved by constructing these developments on top of the Distillery buildings? Could this supposed problem (whatever it actually is) have been solved by putting the taller buildings at a greater distance from the exisiting structures, or by producing low-rise structures more appropriate to the general area, or by rehabilitating the buildings that are to be torn down? Is this situation actually a case of constructing a problem after the fact, to which the only solution was the one we see evolving right now at the Distillery? Is the issue of problem-solving being activated here as a means to hiding the more nebulous desires to see this development unfold?

The raising of a magic ingredient - the ineffable that can't be quantified (or even qualified) - suggests something like an appeal to some unseen standard of taste, one that can only be arrived at by agreeing with the self-appointed in-crowd, or with some other wishful arbiters of what constitutes correctness, good taste, or capacity with respect to apprehending the non-quantifiable measures of visual literacy. In essence, the position suggests that one must try harder, or give in and agree with, the supposed standards set by those who pretend they are in a position to set standards - with respect to all things non-quantifiable and magic.

Some people will simply not thrill at seeing this project evolve. It has nothing to do with visual literacy, possessing unspecified values in "good" design or the ability to grasp what appears to be magic ingredients as defined by others.
 
Hydrogen said:
A real mixed bag here, Shocker. First, with respect to standards of practice and evidence, I would suggest not confusing, for example, medicine with and design. To say the least, it would be a bit of a stretch. In such a situation, invoking the commonality of values without the appropriate, or recognized, range of context makes the notion a rather bloodless one. It suggests one is hiding behind the word rather than exploring or expressing the nature of the values at hand.

Also, comparing leaking coffee pots to the construction of towers in the Distillery suggests somewhat different considerations with respect to the process of design. For example, a very well-designed coffee pot can leak if poorly fabricated. By the same token, those spanking new towers may have leaking roofs once finished (or maybe leak like Spire did). But this may have very little to do with notion of design that I think you wish to invoke here.

If the role of design is, as you suggest, to solve problems, then what problems are being solved by constructing these developments on top of the Distillery buildings? Could this supposed problem (whatever it actually is) have been solved by putting the taller buildings at a greater distance from the exisiting structures, or by producing low-rise structures more appropriate to the general area, or by rehabilitating the buildings that are to be torn down? Is this situation actually a case of constructing a problem after the fact, to which the only solution was the one we see evolving right now at the Distillery? Is the issue of problem-solving being activated here as a means to hiding the more nebulous desires to see this development unfold?

The raising of a magic ingredient - the ineffable that can't be quantified (or even qualified) - suggests something like an appeal to some unseen standard of taste, one that can only be arrived at by agreeing with the self-appointed in-crowd, or with some other wishful arbiters of what constitutes correctness, good taste, or capacity with respect to apprehending the non-quantifiable measures of visual literacy. In essence, the position suggests that one must try harder, or give in and agree with, the supposed standards set by those who pretend they are in a position to set standards - with respect to all things non-quantifiable and magic.

Some people will simply not thrill at seeing this project evolve. It has nothing to do with visual literacy, possessing unspecified values in "good" design or the ability to grasp what appears to be magic ingredients as defined by others.
Click to expand...

I was just about to respond to US on that, but what's the point? Great post.
 
unimaginative2: Why is your hypocritical actress friend so anti-development? She makes a living from working in a new building that has been created from two disused former tank houses that were completely gutted, in that very same development.
 
I'd certainly prefer, US, if you didn't stoop to the level of sweeping and general condemnation of my friends based on a few lines of an internet post.

Once again, I think there's a rather large difference between the adaptive reuse of two buildings, retaining their outside and some of their internal structure as well as the same general scale and design, and the complete demolition of a heritage structure and its replacement with another building of a completely different style and built form. I can't fathom why you choose not to see that.
 
There was no sweeping condemnation of your friend in US's post.

Everyone's so flippin' hyperbolic in this thread.

Y'all settle down for a patch.

42
 
Just put us all on your "ignore" list then, interchange! I did that with Hydrogen once he disavowed ownership of his own opinions as "rhetorical" and life has been much easier.

Unimaginative2: I merely indicated the inconsistency of someone who benefits financially from working in one renovated building in the complex but dismisses the wisdom of allowing other businesses and housing to be permitted in another part of it. It sounds like a plotline for the next George F. Walker play about whiny yuppies and their spawn who want one set of rules for them and another set of rules for everyone else. That's all :)
 
Oh for heaven's sake (and I can't believe I'm defending my poor friend here) she doesn't make money there. It's virtually a volunteer gig. If that was how she made her living, she'd be one of those homeless we talk about in all those other threads.

Housing...for whiny yuppies? That theatre can be visited and enjoyed by everybody. Once again, for the thousandth time, it's not destroying a heritage building. Finally, it doesn't prevent other uses (like live music) because it might keep the condo owners awake.
 
Doesn't she have to be a member of Actor's Equity to perform for Soulpepper? If they're not paying them properly I'm cancelling my ticket for Thursday night.
 
I merely indicated the inconsistency of someone who benefits financially from working in one renovated building in the complex but dismisses the wisdom of allowing other businesses and housing to be permitted in another part of it.
Click to expand...

My impression was that the friend didn't like that it was a tower, not that she was anti-development. I guess I misunderstood.
 
She's quite disappointed, if fatalistic, about immense towers. She doesn't sound like a happy camper at all. For one thing, she won't be able to stare at the immense blank wall of Rack House 'M' when she has a bite in Pure Spirits, and will have to face a lobby for a condo tower instead. Maybe if she sits near the window of Pure Spirits and cranes her neck upwards she'll even see people looking back at her from their new condos. Drat! How beastly! How dare things change! How dare these people move in and change the view with their tall buildings! Life's a bitch!
 
Hydrogen said:
If the role of design is, as you suggest, to solve problems, then what problems are being solved by constructing these developments on top of the Distillery buildings? Could this supposed problem (whatever it actually is) have been solved by putting the taller buildings at a greater distance from the exisiting structures, or by producing low-rise structures more appropriate to the general area, or by rehabilitating the buildings that are to be torn down?
Click to expand...

I should have thought the problem was obvious - it's the same problem in any property development scheme: how to maximize the developer's profit within a given site. That precludes moving the towers to property the developer does not own and cannot build on.

It's been pretty well settled that no one is concerned about historic preservation here. Ganjavih and now Unimaginative's friend are in agreement that gutting buildings in the Distillery is something they approve of.
 
I approve of gutting buildings to suit the needs of organizations like Soulpepper. The exterior architecture is maintained, the old buildings have a new purpose, and serve to draw people in. The general character is maintained and the unique nature of the district is exploited to create something new and useful. But I also disapprove of 50 floor condos in the middle of the historic district, because I feel it takes away from the very reason why it's unique. And I don't consider myself inconsistent.

Finally, someone on the pro-condo side has figured out after all, no one (even the hard-line "preservationists", where I would consider myself more moderate) is advocating Colonial Williamsburg or the Museum of Victorian Distilled Liquors. Though I would advocate for the preservation of in a more general sense.

Unimaginative brings up an excellent point about how activity might be thwarted by condo residents. There are bars and restaurants with patios, plus programmed outdoor events. Would the condo owners complain after moving in, like over in the Entertainment District? I could see that happening.
 
AndreaPalladio said:
I should have thought the problem was obvious - it's the same problem in any property development scheme: how to maximize the developer's profit within a given site. That precludes moving the towers to property the developer does not own and cannot build on.
Click to expand...

Exactly. So why all the talk of Cityscape really caring about the District when it's obvious this is all purely motivated by the bottom line? The "problem" that needs to be solved in the Distillery has been created by the developers.

It's been said about a million times (seemingly) but it needs to be said again. I don't think anyone has a problem with Cityscape making a profit. The Distillery, however, should take precedence over their earnings. The city routinely turns down developments or applies restrictions based on the area and other considerations - I don't' see why they couldn't have done the same here.
 
SeanTrans said:
Unimaginative brings up an excellent point about how activity might be thwarted by condo residents. There are bars and restaurants with patios, plus programmed outdoor events. Would the condo owners complain after moving in, like over in the Entertainment District? I could see that happening.
Click to expand...

I agree. I think these are considerations that are being completely overlooked by many. Can the Distillery support the number of residents they're planning to introduce while still maintaining it's schedule of events? It would seem to make more sense to have a more modest number of residents and have some patience until the Distillery is connected to the rest of the city as outlined in the West Donlands Precinct Plan.
 
You must log in or register to post here.

Back
Top