Toronto Forma | 308m | 84s | Great Gulf | Gehry Partners

[buildup]

I'd eagerly accept demolition of these warehouses in exchange for Mirvish funding restoration of a block of Victorian row houses on Yonge. Toronto has a great stock of beautiful, superior warehouses on both King & Queen west of Spadina and East of Jarvis, and elsewhere close by. This strip is already completely disrupted by Metro Hall. The Royal Alexander is worth saving.

 

[Lansdude]

Your comparison is a bit of an apples to oranges one, but is somewhat fair. The fact remains that the Toronto buildings met the provincial criteria for heritage and were designated.

Is what is morally good commanded by God because it is morally good, or is it morally good because it is commanded by God?

Your main point is well taken.

 

[adma]

While I do feel there are a few attractive elements to the facade of this, the most attractive building on the block, the building is not unique, exceptional nor historical. The key statement in favour of granting it Heritage Status was the application of a exterior cladding material described as "fragile". The reason few examples likely survived was because the exteior materials chosen are not suited well to our climate.

I think I've cited before that you can gauge when someone is untutored in the realm of heritage when they use the term "historical".

 

[vegeta_skyline]

The world may not even care so much about this project because Gehry already made a name for himself and isn't breaking any new ground. It's the same with the T-D Centre. Whenever people talk about Mies van der Rohe's signature building, they always mention the Seagram Building or the Barcelona Pavilion. Mies kept refining his style, but it's the earliest, strongest examples of an architect's work that live on as the most prominent in the world.

New York can have its Seagram and Bilbao its Guggenheim. I'd much rather have an architects best and most refined work rather than simply his most recognizable/popular one.

 

[jaycola]

I think I've cited before that you can gauge when someone is untutored in the realm of heritage when they use the term "historical".

You can gauge when someone is arrogant and has a superior attitude when they erroneously make condescending comments on a subject to which they have incomplete knowledge.

toronto.ca/heritage-preservation

About the inventory of heritage properties
"Listed" is a term used for properties for which City Council has adopted a recommendation to be included on the Inventory. The recommendations are based on criteria that relate to architecture, history, and neighbourhood context.

Heritage building may be listed as "Heritage" for the historical value they add to the city. If you have an issue with the use of history in designation, take it up with the city.

 

[syn]

I'd eagerly accept demolition of these warehouses in exchange for Mirvish funding restoration of a block of Victorian row houses on Yonge. Toronto has a great stock of beautiful, superior warehouses on both King & Queen west of Spadina and East of Jarvis, and elsewhere close by. This strip is already completely disrupted by Metro Hall. The Royal Alexander is worth saving.

Is this just an idea of yours or has it been floated by Mirvish or someone related to the project?

 

[adma]

You can gauge when someone is arrogant and has a superior attitude when they erroneously make condescending comments on a subject to which they have incomplete knowledge.

toronto.ca/heritage-preservation


Heritage building may be listed as "Heritage" for the historical value they add to the city. If you have an issue with the use of history in designation, take it up with the city.

I'm not debating that. I'm referring to etymology. Sort of like how (to use, admittedly, examples very conspicuously lower than yourself) heritage-phobic oafs are the sort to say "this building isn't historical" or "aw, jeez, now the local grannies in tennis shoes are proclaiming this place historical". That is, "historical" as an adjective common to those who pronounce "library" as "liberry"...

 

[Tewder]

WRT the Anderson...

While I do feel there are a few attractive elements to the facade of this, the most attractive building on the block, the building is not unique, exceptional nor historical.

... and yet the very Statement of Cultural Heritage Value you cited points out:

The architectural significance of the Anderson Building comes from its application of terra cotta in
combination with an exuberant Edwardian Classical design. The Anderson Building is a rare
surviving example of a commercial warehouse with terra cotta cladding in Toronto where, because
of the fragility of the material, relatively few examples remain, as documented in the book
Terra Cotta: artful deceivers (1990, 94).

In other words you are contradicting yourself.

... and the Steinway Building sounds amazing, no question, but how preservation-worthy is it really in a New York context (considering Carnegie Hall, Lincoln Center, or any number of some fifty historic performing arts venues in the theatre district alone).... If uniqueness is the sole litmus test for heritage preservation you are using?

I don't necessarily agree with dtTO, but his point is valid. There's more at stake here than your personal feelings of nostalgia and continuity.

[...]

You speak as though you inherently have some greater ownership over these buildings or some exclusive right to determine their future because they form a part of your personal memories and history. That's what dtTO means by describing your position as "elitist".

I understand that people are frustrated but this is a bizarre twist of logic. These are listed buildings, right? How is it elitist of RC8 to stand up for what has already been deemed worthy of preservation? The pro-M/G crowd can lob insults all they want but it strikes me as somewhat of a crass perversion of ethics to turn this around on people just because the pesky 'rules' are getting in the way of their grand schemes.

Besides, the all-M/G-or-nothing stance presented by some here is a false dichotomy. A case has also been made for the option of creatively incorporating the existing urban fabric into a Gehry uber-development, and a very strong case too given the precedent of many, many other developments in Toronto that are doing just this very thing (the Distillery District, the RCM or 5ive among many others). In fact, these are the type of developments that reflect urban sensitivities in Toronto right now, that are defining who we are as a city. The wholesale destructive approach to development that marks Toronto's past is the approach that feels dated and wanting in this context (though fair game for any of the many empty lots and lands available).

 

[AlvinofDiaspar]

Tewder:

Besides, the all-M/G-or-nothing stance presented by some here is a false dichotomy. A case has also been made for the option of creatively incorporating the existing urban fabric into a Gehry uber-development, and a very strong case too given the precedent of many, many other developments in Toronto that are doing just this very thing (the Distillery District, the RCM or 5ive among many others). In fact, these are the type of developments that reflect urban sensitivities in Toronto right now, that are defining who we are as a city. The wholesale destructive approach to development that marks Toronto's past is the approach that feels dated and wanting in this context (though fair game for any of the many empty lots and lands available).

Actually, you presented another false dichotomy yourself - i.e. inclusion of heritage structures automatically = good; carte blanche redevelopment automatically = bad, without consideration of the architectural and urban worth. Wholesale destructive approach has its place in city-building (just think that a good chunk of our worthy civic icons requires that enabling factor); while preservation (meaningfully done, or not so meaningfully done) does exact an opportunity cost on projects that might otherwise be superlative without said constraints. It all depends on what the proponent is bringing to the table - and in this case, I think the proponent was able to justify it.

AoD

 

[jaycola]

I'm not debating that. I'm referring to etymology. Sort of like how (to use, admittedly, examples very conspicuously lower than yourself) heritage-phobic oafs are the sort to say "this building isn't historical" or "aw, jeez, now the local grannies in tennis shoes are proclaiming this place historical". That is, "historical" as an adjective common to those who pronounce "library" as "liberry"...

If that is the case do not point to my personal statements in a belittling manner to prove a point which you yourself cannot support. It is not very becoming of you. I happen to be a Realtor and have extensive knowledge and experience on the subject having worked on heritage buildings on many occasions.

(jaycola said) While I do feel there are a few attractive elements to the facade of this, the most attractive building on the block, the building is not unique, exceptional nor historical.

... and yet the very Statement of Cultural Heritage Value you cited points out:

"The architectural significance of the Anderson Building comes from its application of terra cotta in
combination with an exuberant Edwardian Classical design. The Anderson Building is a rare
surviving example of a commercial warehouse with terra cotta cladding in Toronto where, because
of the fragility of the material, relatively few examples remain, as documented in the book
Terra Cotta: artful deceivers (1990, 94)."

In other words you are contradicting yourself.

I don't believe I was contradicting my self but disagreeing with the Statement of Heritage Significance made in the city's report. I never claimed this building to be anything other than common.

Referring to another document available on the city's website, I tend to agree with this statement...

The Anderson Building at 284 King St W was constructed in 1915
by architect William Fraser. The Statement of Significance for this
buildings states that it is a rare surviving sample of a commercial
warehouse with terra cotta cladding. However, examples of commercial
buildings with terra cotta cladding by more prominent architects are
found elsewhere in the city. For example: the CHUMCity building at
Queen and John Streets by Burke, Horwood & White (1913); the Bank
of Montreal at Queen and Yonge Streets and Bank of Nova Scotia at
Bathurst and College Streets - both by Darling & Pearson in 1909 and
1912 respectively; the Hermant Building (19 Dundas Square) and
the Royal Bank of Canada at Danforth and Pape avenues by Bond &
Smith in 1913 and 1914 respectively; and the Excelsor Life Building
(36 Toronto Street) by E.J. Lennox (1914).
The Eclipse Whitewear Building at 322 King Street W was constructed
in 1903 by lesser known architects, Gregg & Gregg, who primarily
conducted ecclesiastic works, such as the Bloor Street United Church
(1890), and is thus not representative of their work.

 

[Ramako]

I understand that people are frustrated but this is a bizarre twist of logic. These are listed buildings, right? How is it elitist of RC8 to stand up for what has already been deemed worthy of preservation? The pro-M/G crowd can lob insults all they want but it strikes me as somewhat of a crass perversion of ethics to turn this around on people just because the pesky 'rules' are getting in the way of their grand schemes.

Because the heritage status of a building should be but one many considerations with respect to whether or not to proceed with this development, and yet it's the only thing that many (but certainly not all) opponents of the project seem to fixate on. There is indeed heritage value represented by these buildings but there is also immense value that could be realized by the M+G development, including not only aesthetic, cultural and economic value but also the very practical matter of expanding access to this neighbourhood for prospective residents. (Of course, prospective residents can still be accommodated by a design that integrates the facades of the heritage buildings but which would nevertheless extinguish the low-rise character of the street). RC8 presented his position to dtTO as essentially being, "I like these buildings because of how they make some of us feel, so to hell with any other considerations". That's a rigid position.

Besides, the all-M/G-or-nothing stance presented by some here is a false dichotomy. A case has also been made for the option of creatively incorporating the existing urban fabric into a Gehry uber-development, and a very strong case too given the precedent of many, many other developments in Toronto that are doing just this very thing (the Distillery District, the RCM or 5ive among many others). In fact, these are the type of developments that reflect urban sensitivities in Toronto right now, that are defining who we are as a city. The wholesale destructive approach to development that marks Toronto's past is the approach that feels dated and wanting in this context (though fair game for any of the many empty lots and lands available).

I'd love to see these buildings integrated into Gehry's design in some innovative manner, but I can't see a scenario where these buildings can be saved without severely compromising the project wholesale. These lots aren't very large. A Five Condos scenario isn't an option here, and merely plastering their facades onto Gehry's podium would be nothing more than a disservice to the original buildings and Gehry's design. In absence of an elegant solution that satisfies both sides of the debate, I'd have to choose the Gehry scheme.

 

[junctionist]

I don't even care if the heritage buildings are mundane (which they aren't), I want to see the preservation laws as strong as possible. I don't care if this development fails. To hell with it. I'd sacrifice a hundred of these developments for strong preservation laws, and my city will still end up with the finest contemporary buildings by the best architects.

 

[SP!RE]

Spectacle =/= good architecture, and people are forgetting that here.

I bet Gehry could crumple up a million pieces of paper in any shape or form, and people would drool over it.

Perhaps we could end up with something here that is quality architecture and makes an impact on the architecture scene, but it's just as likely we'll get some visual spectacle that has more faults than good qualities, and makes Toronto look desperate and simple because we drool over whatever we can get. Take the ROM by Libeskind for example; nobody from the architecture world was in support of it; it was heralded by the press and the wealthy alone. We've ended up with a disappointing structure that has not performed well for the ROM, and has been problematic from a maintenance point of view, heritage point of view, and architectural performance point of view. (Aesthetics are more subjective, but I know lots of people, who, though not opposed to crystalline forms, find the execution of its aesthetic to also be a disappointment).

Now, back to Gehry: don't get me wrong. A project like the AGO shows that Gehry is a smart man, and a talented architect. He originally rose to fame because of his creative problem-solving and smart cost management, as well as interesting aesthetics. The AGO is one of my favourites in Toronto.

But I fail to see why we should celebrate a building just because it's a Gehry design. A lot of you are drooling over the Gehry "brand" yet can't put into words WHY. What is so spectacular about these proposed buildings? Please tell me it's more than just "they are tall" or "they look cool". Please tell me we are not that desperate. What are the building's impacts on the local infrastructure? What does it signify about the way we build density in Toronto? Will it perform well as a building? (What a concept.) Is it sustainable? Is it quality work from Gehry or is it a pastiche of ideas that don't work well in the real world / in our climate? What does it say about what Torontonians think architecture should be and how buildings should be designed to perform in Ontario? What does it say about how we design our neighbourhoods and what sort of population we want to give access to downtown Toronto?

I still haven't heard many arguments that are rational and take into consideration real-world architectural concerns. Aesthetics and height are never enough to justify the development of a building, in my opinion.

I don't want to sound pretentious, but as someone who is studying architecture and is constantly hearing about the many varying aspects of building design and performance, (as well as someone who takes an interest in sociology and how cities reflect our society), I am feeling as though the supporters of this project want to glaze over these questions and just want to see something tall and visually stunning put up because we can.

If it helps, I say all this as someone who thinks the Beekman Tower / "New York by Gehry" in NYC is one of the most beautiful towers ever created. It's visually STUNNING. But I will also say that that's not enough to make me support this Toronto project.

 

[freshcutgrass]

I don't care if this development fails. To hell with it. I'd sacrifice a hundred of these developments for strong preservation laws

And the winner of the Throw-The-Baby-Out-With-The-Bathwater Award goes to.....


There's the option that these buildings should never have been "listed" in the first place. But it doesn't really matter that anything can be listed because the "listing" is never meant to protect said listed building from ever being demolished or altered. Like as-of-right density/height zoning, is simply meant to trigger an amendment on a case-by-case basis.

 

[Ramako]

Spectacle =/= good architecture, and people are forgetting that here.

I bet Gehry could crumple up a million pieces of paper in any shape or form, and people would drool over it.

...

Now, back to Gehry: don't get me wrong. A project like the AGO shows that Gehry is a smart man, and a talented architect. He originally rose to fame because of his creative problem-solving and smart cost management, as well as interesting aesthetics. The AGO is one of my favourites in Toronto.

But I fail to see why we should celebrate a building just because it's a Gehry design. A lot of you are drooling over the Gehry "brand" yet can't put into words WHY. What is so spectacular about these two buildings? Please tell me it's more than just "they are tall" or "they look cool". Please tell me we are not that desperate. What are the building's impacts on the local infrastructure? What does it signify about the way we build density in Toronto? Will it perform well as a building? (What a concept.) Is it sustainable? Is it quality work from Gehry or is it a pastiche of ideas that don't work well in the real world / in our climate? What does it say about what Torontonians think architecture should be and how buildings should be designed to perform in Ontario?

This was more or less Traynor's argument back in June, i.e. that fans of these designs only appreciate them because they look "cool" and have no real artistic merit aside from spectacle. I'll re-post what I wrote then, when he asked for people to explain how the designs spoke to them personally:

I love the effect of the white sheets enveloping the podium and towers to various degrees. It creates a vision of modern and industrial looking skyscrapers perpetually rising out of fog or smoke. On the one hand it evokes the very familiar imagery of fog rolling in off the lake, and on the other hand, it reflects modern Toronto's emergence from its industrial past as the "Big Smoke". The tower in the middle has barely began to emerge from the dense fog, creating a sense of mystery and makes one wonder what lies ahead. The fact that it's the tallest and the most robust in form makes one think, "great things", which is indeed what people think of Toronto these days. So in a way these towers are both a comment on the city's past and its future.

With respect to the (twisted metal) east tower, I don't particularly love it like I do the other two, so I wouldn't mind see it revised, but what looks like a pile of twisted metal is certainly evocative of heavy industry. I think that plays into the larger vision of an industrial (and eventually modern) city emerging from the smoke. I kind of see it like a timeline: the east tower is the oldest, most chaotic and least formed - just a mess of steel, the west tower is more organized and modern in form, yet still somewhat industrial (especially given the copper colour), and the middle tower (the top of which you can see emerging from the smoke) is the most modern looking with clean and sharp lines that you'd see on any modern skyscraper. It's also white, which is a colour I often associate with the future and sci-fi.

Anyway, my interpretation may not be particularly insightful or profound, particularly among the architecturally learned who so love to pounce on Gehry's garish designs, but to say that proponents of these towers fall for nothing but spectacle is a little patronizing.