…and with that return volley, enough of trading insults back and forth. Any more responses in kind will come with a holiday from UT.
42
42
Toronto Forma | 308m | 84s | Great Gulf | Gehry Partners
- Thread starter golodhendil
- Start date
buildup
Senior Member
That's a straw man argument, no-one has raised it. I have not heard anyone suggest the grand warehouses of King West of Spadina (and other examples) should be tampered with. People keep trying to drag this debate into other contexts. Speaking for myself, I would sacrifice (modest sarifice) these warehouses for what Gehry is proposing. Conversly I would not trade King West of Spadina for Canderal.
Last edited by a moderator:
adma
Superstar
Though one thing to consider re the generic century-old-warehouse-bashing in this thread: when it comes to "world class" NYC, it may justifiably be argued that the signature urban design achievement over the past decade involves the repatriation of, well, an "ugly", "unaesthetic", "obsolete" 1930s freight railway viaduct structure. Like, if any of you think warehouses aren't worth seriously regarding as heritage, imagine how absurd and out-there the case for the High Line once might have seemed--so if anything validates the inherent farsightedness of a comprehensive, open-ended "existing conditions" way of beholding our urbanscape, it's the process which led to the High Line's creation.
Of course, the High Line isn't a supertall. More like a superlong.
Of course, the High Line isn't a supertall. More like a superlong.
Silence&Motion
Senior Member
As one of those people repeating Alex Bozikovic's claim, I should add that the possibility that Mirvish might actually lose money on this project makes me even less supportive of it. The worst possible outcome - and one of the reasons I've decided to oppose the project in its current form - would be for the heritage buildings to get demolished and then sit as an empty lot while Mirvish waits for "market conditions to improve" (or decides to just sell it off to another developer).
I'm not, in principle, against rich people making money off condo developments. I am against private interests trumping the public good. Great architecture is a public good, but so is heritage, community consultation, planning policy, etc.
The TD Centre is a great work of architecture, but it also set a precedent for large-scale development that resulted in dozens of lesser buildings getting put up in the 1960s and '70s.
buildup
Senior Member
Some people object that he might make big money, others object on the basis he might lose money. I don't see any reason he'd demolish unless he had reached the 70% sold mark or something like that. I see these proposed buildings adding to the public good - practically the ONLY project that comes with a world-class art collection! Is your last point (above) an argument against the very existence of the Central Business District - the Financial Core? This thread gets more outlandish by the day.
freshcutgrass
Senior Member
I've got to comment on two feats of logic here.....
One could simply oppose anything by conjuring up a worse case scenario.
Right...let's not build anything good, because it simply encourages people to build poor copies of it.
One could simply oppose anything by conjuring up a worse case scenario.
Right...let's not build anything good, because it simply encourages people to build poor copies of it.
buildup
Senior Member
freshcutgrass.
I agree, many of those opposed to the project are throwing the kitchen sink at it - outlandish, unrelated, illogical, straw man objections. It continues to confirm my theory - Tall Poppy Syndrome!
I agree, many of those opposed to the project are throwing the kitchen sink at it - outlandish, unrelated, illogical, straw man objections. It continues to confirm my theory - Tall Poppy Syndrome!
argus
Active Member
Just as so many supporting it do so without recognizing that M-G may not turn out to be the dream they are wishing it to be.
There is a certainty when it comes to what will be lost in the process.
There is a certainty when it comes to what will be lost in the process.
TrickyRicky
Senior Member
That may be the case for some posts buildup but why try to silence the debate? The very fact that this lengthy debate exists is proof positive that arguments both ways are widely subscribed to and that the project as envisioned is controversial. I would be willing to bet that given the fact that this forum is largely made up of individuals who are pro-development and personally interested in architecture and design, if presented with the facts the vast majority of people in the city would oppose this project. This is not an argument against the development itself. Subjected to democratic scrutiny probably no contemporary building would ever get built. Perhaps the very fact that the project is controversial is a good argument for it to proceed. It's just that characterizing those who oppose it as isolated or unreasonable is ironic because they more likely represent the majority position.
buildup
Senior Member
That argument can be applied against any initiative.
I could also say that what will be lost is known and limited, whereas the upside opportunity is less certain but potentially much greater.
buildup
Senior Member
Not trying to silence debate, since I'm participating. BTW - I'd accept your bet. I do not think most people would be against it. However, its possible most people who would take the time to pen a view would be negative because that is the nature of the blog-world. Silent majority would be suportive, that's my bet. My issue has been that many of the argumenst against are blantantly false - case in point the demand it would place on transit. This argument has been proven wrong numerous times but keeps resurrecting. This suggets some argumenst are bad faith and driven by other agenda. That's all Im saying.
adma
Superstar
Well, not just "pro-development", but oftentimes with a vested interest (architects, planners, developers, real estate agents, etc).
By comparison, the "existing conditions"-based perspective I've been offering is more that of random-fire free agency, and doesn't much care if said current-day "vested interests" are subverted in the process...
buildup
Senior Member
I don't know how to assess a perspective self-described as "random-fire", other than to accept the definition.
If there are posters here with vested interests, that's fine. We can assess their arguments objectively, providing they are remotely relevant. Even if these vested interests are current tenants who don't want to vacate, neighbours tired of development, or frustrated players promoting competing projects...
So I have disposed of another false objection - that those in favour of the project have more vested interests than those opposed.
NEXT.
If there are posters here with vested interests, that's fine. We can assess their arguments objectively, providing they are remotely relevant. Even if these vested interests are current tenants who don't want to vacate, neighbours tired of development, or frustrated players promoting competing projects...
So I have disposed of another false objection - that those in favour of the project have more vested interests than those opposed.
NEXT.
Tewder
Senior Member
Although the High Line did have its already well established precedent with the Promenade Planté in Paris, I do get your point!
adma
Superstar
Not that the "warehouses aren't heritage" crowd would know what said precedent is.