Toronto Forma | 308m | 84s | Great Gulf | Gehry Partners
- Thread starter golodhendil
- Start date
Lenser
Senior Member
wait a minute. will you kick me out on third one?
Nope - stand down! I'm not a mod and I wouldn't kick you out merely for waging a poor argument anyway. Mostly I get the impression you're very impatient for the city to grow supertalls and are annoyed that anyone wouldn't understand that and readily accommodate your desire.
freshcutgrass
Senior Member
Well, if David wanted to demolish heritage buildings for a parking lot, the story may have a parallel. Mirvish Village vs Parking Lot...easy to see which is better. Also, the 1950's was hardly an era of preservation.
Incorporating older buildings into projects sometimes just makes the whole thing look worse. That facsimile of the facade of the Bishop Block they pasted on Shangri La's ass actually looks stupid. What a ridiculous waste of time and money...especially when there are actually worthy heritage sites to blow our money on restoring.
Of all the issues surrounding this project, this is the one that I'm having the hardest time with.
I've heard rumours that prices start as low as $250k. Between Gehry level architectural fees and elevated construction costs associated with Gehry level designs, I would think one would have to sell a lot of them to make enough profits to pay for free art galleries.
Last edited:
ushahid
Senior Member
adma
Superstar
Y'know, if Eclipse Whitewear were such a so-called wreck and an eyesore of a building, then how come Diamond & Myers saw fit to (pioneeringly) adaptive-reuse it in 1970, and how come the successor firm KPMB remains a tenant? I'd like to see some explanation of that from those who choose to take urbandreamers' pics as proof of "see? an ill-designed eyesore, just like the Waverly!" Indeed, once again--eyesore? What's that based upon? The un-showy detail? The paint job? Tims' presence? I look at those photos--I. Do. Not. See. An. Eyesore. And I don't know who would, other than Ford Nation "it's old, get rid of it" yahoos, or condo/developer/real-estate d-bags who have a bee in their bonnet about them urban-hoarding hysterical preservationist types forcing them into retaining these so-called nondescript old crocks. Whether it's expendable on behalf of Mirvish/Gehry is another issue entirely; but it seems like the prospect of World Class Masterpiece is leading certain UTers to wildly overstate Eclipse Whitewear's demerits--almost as if to propagandically force the issue.
But look, for those of you who are naively gaga over "3 gorgeous towers" as if Toronto were a place of mediocrity and misery and poverty: maybe there's a more truly "cosmopolitan" approach to beholding the seemingly nondescript minutiae of our existing city out there. So if we may shift to a *different* world-renowned Toronto art patron...let's consider the more subtle approach of Ydessa Hendeles, of the late lamented Hendeles Foundation.
Who adaptively reused a building that was, well, just as "nondescript" for its 1940s-ish time as Eclipse Whitewear was for *its* time. Even went to the length of retaining the stainless steel UNIFORMS REGISTERED lettering. Just little things. Not "important". Yet somehow, that reverence added up to something meaningful--an artful celebration of a city as a collective of "little things". A subtle cosmopolitanism.
Alas, the Hendeles Foundation is no more. And AFAIK Ydessa never sought listing/designation for her UNIFORMS REGISTERED abode--but hey, she didn't need listing or designation to see value there. And who knows; had she stuck around, she might have sought to replace it with something SANAA-esque, so it isn't like the existing joint was eternal; as w/Mirvish/Gehry, there could always have been the prospect of "something better".
Instead, the building was taken over by Brad Lamb Realty--who ditched the UNIFORMS REGISTERED on behalf of a clumsy self-advertising facsimile. Hey; it's their building now, they have the right to do what they want, and of course, it's more "practical" in proclaiming their presence. But still; the blitheness of the disposal leaves me thinking of that UT undertone of anti-hysterical-preservationist real estate/development-industry astroturf. As for me, between a Ydessa approach to existing urbanity and a Brad Lamb approach to existing urbanity, I'll take Ydessa. Ydessa's cosmopolitanism makes Brad Lamb look like a puffed-up parvenu by comparison.
But look, for those of you who are naively gaga over "3 gorgeous towers" as if Toronto were a place of mediocrity and misery and poverty: maybe there's a more truly "cosmopolitan" approach to beholding the seemingly nondescript minutiae of our existing city out there. So if we may shift to a *different* world-renowned Toronto art patron...let's consider the more subtle approach of Ydessa Hendeles, of the late lamented Hendeles Foundation.
Who adaptively reused a building that was, well, just as "nondescript" for its 1940s-ish time as Eclipse Whitewear was for *its* time. Even went to the length of retaining the stainless steel UNIFORMS REGISTERED lettering. Just little things. Not "important". Yet somehow, that reverence added up to something meaningful--an artful celebration of a city as a collective of "little things". A subtle cosmopolitanism.
Alas, the Hendeles Foundation is no more. And AFAIK Ydessa never sought listing/designation for her UNIFORMS REGISTERED abode--but hey, she didn't need listing or designation to see value there. And who knows; had she stuck around, she might have sought to replace it with something SANAA-esque, so it isn't like the existing joint was eternal; as w/Mirvish/Gehry, there could always have been the prospect of "something better".
Instead, the building was taken over by Brad Lamb Realty--who ditched the UNIFORMS REGISTERED on behalf of a clumsy self-advertising facsimile. Hey; it's their building now, they have the right to do what they want, and of course, it's more "practical" in proclaiming their presence. But still; the blitheness of the disposal leaves me thinking of that UT undertone of anti-hysterical-preservationist real estate/development-industry astroturf. As for me, between a Ydessa approach to existing urbanity and a Brad Lamb approach to existing urbanity, I'll take Ydessa. Ydessa's cosmopolitanism makes Brad Lamb look like a puffed-up parvenu by comparison.
buildup
Senior Member
When did people completely lose confidence in architecture? Why are we convinced a sophisticated, brilliant architect partnering with thoughtful Toronto-based arts developer cannot manage the streetscape without 100 year-old security blankets? Frankly I am eager to see what they would present given a clean slate. They know what's at stake.
If we insist on keeping those old boxes M+G may take that as an excuse to merely deliver what we're demanding - facadistic historo pastiche (adma, help me with this adjective please).
I can imagine tourists in the year 2025 saying Toronto's fairly lively, but the modern architecture is hard to see because its always behind warehouses.
If we insist on keeping those old boxes M+G may take that as an excuse to merely deliver what we're demanding - facadistic historo pastiche (adma, help me with this adjective please).
I can imagine tourists in the year 2025 saying Toronto's fairly lively, but the modern architecture is hard to see because its always behind warehouses.
Last edited:
buildup
Senior Member
Adma, these discussions are lively. But sometimes choices need to be made.
Assuming M+G said the AGO experience wasn't something they wanted to repeat; they didn't want warehouses on their King frontage - a clean slate in other words.
Would you be truly open-minded to seeing what they had to present, or would you feel 'no compromise, no deal'?
Assuming M+G said the AGO experience wasn't something they wanted to repeat; they didn't want warehouses on their King frontage - a clean slate in other words.
Would you be truly open-minded to seeing what they had to present, or would you feel 'no compromise, no deal'?
TJ O'Pootertoot
Senior Member
*facepalm*
Sometimes I can't tell when people are joking.
First of all, I have no idea where you are right now, but unless you're aboriginal you may well be living somewhere where someone objected.
Mild ironic humour aside, Toronto is not that old a city so if there was anything there before those warehouses, it was probably like a glorified wood shack. And how would you know whether anyone objected? That said, the entire reason we have heritage legislation now is...oh, you know what? Figure it out on your own. Really.
Haven't we already seen what they would present given a clean slate? I'd be curious to hear what elements of the current proposal seem somehow compromising given the existing context?
Too many people here are reducing this to which buildings are prettier or more distinctive or cooler or more impressive or whatever. M&G wins on all counts, are you happy? But that is not the issue. The fame of the architect, the number of Ice Caps sold; none of these things matter. I'm really amazed on a board like this how many people fail understand the entire raison d'etre of heritage protection laws. It's not the only issue at stake here, but it is something people here can be awfully dismissive of.
Faith in architecture? I don't even know what that means. Gehry's buildings will, like, spiritually elevate us? Can beautiful buildings save our city somehow from Rob Ford, the crumbling Gardiner, our under-developed transit; anything substantive at all?
There are all sorts of legitimate arguments to be made on both sides about this proposal as it relates to planning concerns, heritage concerns, design etc. "It will be a landmark and win awards and make us famous and the existing buildings are boring boxes," is not one of them.
Last edited:
freshcutgrass
Senior Member
Well, that gallery space is gone anyway. But all that does is fuel the idea that we need to support the Mirvish Collection building.
Every project ever built was not the M&G project, so saying other projects have been built with being M&G is a fairly pointless argument against the M&G project.
The local citizenry thought Rob Ford would make a great mayor....why would you ask such a question.
The current warehouses do not meet the streetscape well at all, and the M&G project is superior in every way. Apparantly there are only ywo factors that matter though...the warehouses exist...and they are "designated". Why should we let real life experience get in the way?
Ironically, I think it is you who fail to understand.
If the point of listing and designating buildings were to make them sacred cows which can NEVER EVER be demolished under any circumstances, then these buildings should never have been designated in the first place.
The entire point of designation is to give the city the power to decide what happens, and that decision is based on weighing what is to be lost against what is to be gained. That is why there are tons of similar listed and designated buildings....this process doesn't exclude them from demolition.
Hipster Duck
Senior Member
(OTOH, it's worth mentioning [as I'm sure I said upthread] there were huge cost and design constraints on Gehry's AGO and I think it's a wonderful job he did. And it changed between approval and realization. If you want to talk not-heritage, the 1990s atrium he destroyed really upset some people, but it's not quite comparable to the current heritage argument, really
The Barton Myers wing of the AGO might not have been on the same level as its Gehry replacement, but it was much more architecturally significant than any of the warehouses that M+G is replacing. While you're at it, why aren't you offended that Lett-Smith's Princess of Wales theatre is being threatened with demolition for this project? That was a far more exemplary building for its time (1993) than some warehouses that could be in any Ontario small town. Plus, it's the biggest generator of pedestrian vibrancy among all of them.
freshcutgrass
Senior Member
freshcutgrass
Senior Member
Speaking of Barton....
Automation Gallery
Superstar
Obviously unlike the warehouses, it has no heritage status which is about the only issue the anti-Gehry/Mirvish crowd can rant about
Last edited:
TJ O'Pootertoot
Senior Member
Yeah, they both grew up in Toronto before World War II. You'd have a real uphill battle trying to argue that Toronto in 1949 (when Gehry was 20) bears any significant resemblance to Toronto of 2013. That's not to say the city isn't relatively conservative compared to some others, but it's a VERY VERY different place and methinks, hearing him talk, Gehry has a bit of a chip on his shoulder about it. It's a very different place from 1989, even.
Who says I'm not? I think the theatre is beautiful and it's sad to lose it. It should be in the discussion too. I was bringing up the Barton Myers thing a bit glibly but the point boils down to this: there are all sorts of buildings and at some point what's more "important" or "beautiful" becomes subjective. Some people here think these towers are masterpieces by Gehry and I'm not going to dispute that. BUT there are plenty of other people who disagree. (Culturally, the theater is a loss too but you could at least argue the gallery off-sets that.)
But, as Automation Gallery helpfully pointed out, the theatre is not designated. Neither was the Myers wing. I'm not anti-M& per se but it's a bit rich to suggest the buildings' legal status is less material than their subjective qualities.
Arguably the theatre could be designated but certainly at this point that would just be a protectionist move and it's really beside the point. My point is that once a building is designated it brings a measure of OBJECTIVITY into the discussion. The heritage attributes are listed and the decision is put in council's hands. It doesn't mean they can't be destroyed but, as I said above, it shifts the discussion. In a trial, the burden of proof is on the Crown to prove guilt and in this discussion the burden is on M&G to dispute the buildings' significance. So, if you take 2 identical buildings and one is designated, the discussion about whether it can/should be demolished is necessarily different, that's what I'm saying.
No, again, you still don't understand. The effect of designation may be that the city gets to decide but that's NOT THE INTENT of designation. Quoting, again, from the province's website:
Designating a heritage property or district helps owners and communities express pride in the heritage value of their property and community and promote awareness of their local history. It also helps them gain public recognition and protection from demolition or unsympathetic alteration.
and
Designation under the Ontario Heritage Act applies to real property, and helps to recognize and protect the heritage features on that property
and
Designation of heritage properties provides a process for ensuring that their cultural heritage value is conserved over time...
I don't see squat in this document about "heritage protection allows council to have a say in whether significant buildings should or shouldn't be demolished." Municipalities always have a say in buildings being demolished. The designation gives them more power to prevent it for buildings deemed significant. So I'll say it one more time:
You're sounding like Rob Ford explaining why his own personal definition of "conflict of interest" should trump what the legislation says. You do not understand the point of heritage designation. Read up.
Last edited:
Wrenkin
Active Member
This answer does not require a history degree: There was nothing there but grass. The north side of King between John and Simcoe was formerly Upper Canada College's sports field.