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

[buildup]

Of course--but the counter-argument is, "not just any old thing". And this really goes beyond Mirvish/Gehry; in a nutshell. that the trite Peter Pan argument is so slippery, it could be used to advocate demolishing virtually *anything*. Even, let's say, Queen's Park Legislature on behalf of something by Zaha Hadid...

What, you're back for more? You are a glutton for punishment.

I'm sure J.M. Barrie would find your extrapolations defeating.
I will spell it out for you. We could afford to trade Mirvish & Gehry for the current strip.
This does not mean we could also trade Queen's Park for Zaha Hadid. A certain amount of subjective judgement is required. Its not that slippery a slope if you're sure-footed.

 

[k10ery]

it could be used to advocate demolishing virtually *anything*. Even, let's say, Queen's Park Legislature on behalf of something by Zaha Hadid...

Come to think of it, this is a great idea! Is she available?

But as much as the Pink Palace is an eyesore, it's useful to have it there as a reminder of the dangers of backroom deals in public works contracts. We'd better keep it.

 

[Hanlansboy]

Here's a brain scratcher for you (for me, everything is, blonde you know). What, specifically designates a heritage building worth saving as opposed to one that is ok to be destroyed in favor of a new tower? I've read on this site, and several others, people saying in some cases it's a good thing to tear down the old to create the new, and in others, the opposite, but why is that? Technically, a heritage build is......

http://www.urbanindia.nic.in/publicinfo/byelaws/Chap-8.pdf

So, where does that leave us? There's plenty of room for mis-interpretation , do we tear down the old if the new is going to be deemed revolunationary, or a beautiful addition to or skyline, or, do we keep the old in favor of preserving our cities heritage? It's a tough call, but, I look at it this way, if we decided to preserve all our older buildings, the downtown core wouldn't exist, the tricky part is determining what is worth saving, and what is not. In the Mervish Gehry project, if they provide exactly what they propose, then yes, by all means, tear down the old in favor of three new towers that, love them or hate them, will definitely add a unique characteristic to our mostly generic smooth lined, flat rooffed, glass and steel boxed skyline towers. Time will tell, I just hope the worst case scenario, aka approving it revised for only half it's proposed height, doesn't happen, if it does, why bother?

 

[Automation Gallery]

For goodness sakes, these are just old warehouse/factory buildings, and nothing worth freaking out over....there are piles of them all around town that have been demolished or on the chopping block that no one gave or gives a hoot...

Regarding razing the heritage...a lot of this negativity here is about what is to be built,
and not so much about what is being lost.

 

[AHK]

For goodness sakes, these are just old warehouse/factory buildings, and nothing worth freaking out over....there are piles of them all around town that have been demolished or on the chopping block that no one gave or gives a hoot....

Agreed. My understanding is that these were ordinary warehouses used as aggregation, storage, and distribution facilities for goods arriving by, or leaving via freight trains using the yards immediately south of King Street. Hardly unique or historical in their original function, or their construction. The buildings - other than perhaps the Princess of Wales theatre - are not to my knowledge associated with any major historical event or personage. The amount of concern on the basis of their being OLD (at least in the terms of Toronto), or of being of a much smaller scale than the proposed replacements, seems to me to be hard to justify.

 

[gristle]

For goodness sakes, these are just old warehouse/factory buildings, and nothing worth freaking out over....there are piles of them all around town that have been demolished or on the chopping block that no one gave or gives a hoot...

Agreed. My understanding is that these were ordinary warehouses used as aggregation, storage, and distribution facilities for goods arriving by, or leaving via freight trains using the yards immediately south of King Street. Hardly unique or historical in their original function, or their construction.

So, in other words, let's tear them down in order to accommodate some buildings of which no one has seen the final design. By the way, the Gehry structures will just be ordinary condo buildings, and nothing worth freaking out over. There are piles of those across the city - many replacing the old brick warehouse structures (which are diminishing in number). Really, another condo building. Who gives a hoot? (Except for the soopertall fans).

 

[Automation Gallery]

By the way, the Gehry structures will just be ordinary condo buildings, and nothing worth freaking out over. There are piles of those across the city - . Really, another condo building. Who gives a hoot?

Hahaha Like i said......a lot of this negativity here is about what is to be built,
and not so much about what is being lost. ..........Gee, and its all because it might be too tall or great for Toronto

 

[someMidTowner]

Who gives a hoot? (Except for the soopertall fans).

I don't know, why don't you ask the thousands of people that joined UrbanToronto in the days following the leaked video and press conference. Ask every news agency which covered the press conference (something that doesnt happen for just "another condo building"). Explain why there are 71 pages to this thread compared to some of the already under-construction projects with a dozen or two pages. If you think nobody gives a hoot, you must not be paying attention.

 

[gristle]

Why don't you read the posts I was citing.

And yes, this will be just another three condo buildings - the towers. Are they to be something else? Regarding the page numbers about this topic, you appear to impressed, above all, by numbers. It's the details of the development that you miss out on - as in that there are a growing number of these brick structures that will be vanishing in the next few years. They are not derelict, but actually in demand for commercial use.

 

[someMidTowner]

I did see the post you were citing, and I am certainly not in favour of demolishing the heritage buildings in question. Just pointing out the ridiculousness of your "who gives a hoot".

End transmission.

 

[gristle]

No, transmission is still ongoing. I was paraphrasing AG. See his post. And, uh, it should be clear that I give a hoot - about the vanishing building stock in the area. Just in case you're not getting it.

 

[yyzer]

So, in other words, let's tear them down in order to accommodate some buildings of which no one has seen the final design. By the way, the Gehry structures will just be ordinary condo buildings, and nothing worth freaking out over. There are piles of those across the city - many replacing the old brick warehouse structures (which are diminishing in number). Really, another condo building. Who gives a hoot? (Except for the soopertall fans).

So which is it? On the one hand, you say that no one has seen the final design....on the other, you say that these will be 'ordinary condo buildings'....you can't have it both ways...

I think anyone with an ounce of intelligence can immediately see from the models, that the Gehry structures will be amazing - there is nothing 'ordinary' about them at all....and this is not even mentioning the base, which promises to be incredible....

There are a lot of people out there that 'give a hoot', and not all are supertall fan boys...this project will add to Toronto, not detract from it..

 

[adma]

Agreed. My understanding is that these were ordinary warehouses used as aggregation, storage, and distribution facilities for goods arriving by, or leaving via freight trains using the yards immediately south of King Street. Hardly unique or historical in their original function, or their construction. The buildings - other than perhaps the Princess of Wales theatre - are not to my knowledge associated with any major historical event or personage. The amount of concern on the basis of their being OLD (at least in the terms of Toronto), or of being of a much smaller scale than the proposed replacements, seems to me to be hard to justify.

Somehow, it seems to me that mentalities like this have never used a good, old fashioned, comprehensive/generalist architectural guidebook to a city before. Y'know, like the Pevsner Guildes in Britain, the AIA Guide to New York City, McHugh in Toronto. They prefer newfangled glossy stuff (or sites, or apps) which emphasise the sleek, new, coffee-table and of-our-age. And grungy stuff like the existing Mirvish block is but obsolete "old hat" for "reactionary historical buffs" rather than something worth positively reflecting on. Shame...

 

[adma]

There's nothing wrong with it; it's just that there's an odd, paradoxical historical blindness to singling out "that, and that alone". It's a potboiler--under the circumstance, to suggest "yeah, you can tear everything else down but keep the terra cotta" really does amateur injustice to the idea of retention here. It's like suggesting that the single thing worth saving on Yonge btw/Dundas and Gerrard was the Sam's sign...

Then again, reflecting back on this--I guess one can say that of everything on the block, the Anderson facade is the one that best offers itself to the proverbial "postage stamp facadectomy". (The other warehouses are too much solid-masses-of-brick-construction to merit such a treatment.) Of course, such facadectomies all too often wind up as the kinds of travesties which give preservation a bad name--which is another reason why I advise "if you have to save, don't just save the terra cotta"...

 

[AHK]

Somehow, it seems to me that mentalities like this have never used a good, old fashioned, comprehensive/generalist architectural guidebook to a city before. Y'know, like the Pevsner Guildes in Britain, the AIA Guide to New York City, McHugh in Toronto. They prefer newfangled glossy stuff (or sites, or apps) which emphasise the sleek, new, coffee-table and of-our-age. And grungy stuff like the existing Mirvish block is but obsolete "old hat" for "reactionary historical buffs" rather than something worth positively reflecting on. Shame...

Adma - the way you presume to know all about me from the little that was in my comment is amazing. I did not pass any judgement on my feelings with respect to the buildings. As it so happens, I do like their built form, they do add character to the city. I walk by them every day. What I indicated was that in the grand scheme of things, amongst the many attributes which a building may be judged when assessing its historical merit - unique design, site of important events, association with notable historical figures, and so on, on those attributes, these buildings do not have major, outstanding characteristics. An attempt to try and bring some balance and perspective into the dialogue.

Frankly, I find your arrogance and intolerance to those with other perspectives than your own is a wonder to behold - astounding, and not in a good way.