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

innsertnamehere said:
Difference is that these are generic 19th century warehouse buildings (with the exception if the Anderson building), compared to mainstay toronto landmarks.
Click to expand...

But generic 19th century warehouses are an endangered species in Toronto. I'm in favour of the Mirvish-Gehry proposal, but only if these warehouses are moved to a location where they will be fully appreciated. If we had thousands of these buildings it would be another matter, but we don't.
 
For all the manufacturing that went inside these buildings, they represent an interesting history. For the next century (if not longer), downtown Toronto may see no manufacturing. Manufacturing happens these days in sprawling factories in the suburbs that bear no resemblance to these buildings. So to have this history evident in preserved buildings is something important for downtown. I'm not advocating for museums--these buildings are suitable for a variety of contemporary uses and will likely remain versatile for a long time.
 
My vote is for demolishing the roundhouse in Roundhouse Park, putting these buildings on the edge and turning the rest into open grass and an intimate outdoor theatre/seating area.

2ut0vwi.jpg

* Millenium Park, Chicago http://4.bp.blogspot.com/_SPwZe10-u1k/TAGPmwhZq-I/AAAAAAAAAHU/C3YLzHXRbdQ/s1600/
 
Last edited:
DtTO said:
My vote is for demolishing the roundhouse in Roundhouse Park, putting these buildings on the edge and turning the rest into open grass and an intimate outdoor theatre/seating area.
Click to expand...

Steam Whistle, Leon's, and the Toronto Railway Museum might have something to say about that.
 
AlvinofDiaspar said:
And that has to do with the Mirvish+Gehry project because?

AoD
Click to expand...

his example is a piece done by Gehry? maybe trying to make fun of the people opposed to the destruction of the warehouses by advocating for the destruction of a building considered so historic that no one would ever bother trying?
 
innsertnamehere said:
his example is a piece done by Gehry? maybe trying to make fun of the people opposed to the destruction of the warehouses by advocating for the destruction of a building considered so historic that no one would ever bother trying?
Click to expand...

Funny; because Millennium Park did not involve any such preexisting condition or destruction--unless DtTO is implying something about MP being built atop "utilitarian railroad facilities" and, well, a roundhouse is a "utilitarian railroad facility" and Toronto blew an opportunity by saving and planning around it rather than sweeping it away on behalf of something Magnificent And Spectacular Like Gehry.

Memo to DtTO: even Chicagoans well atuned to their architectural heritage would think you're *BLEEP* from Palookaville to suggest such an idea.
 
Last edited:
adma said:
*I'm so incredibly self absorbed, that'll make an assumption and immediately assume it to be 100% accurate without any verification whatsoever.* - Funny; because Millennium Park did not involve any such preexisting condition or destruction--unless DtTO is implying something about MP being built atop "utilitarian railroad facilities" and, well, a roundhouse is a "utilitarian railroad facility" and Toronto blew an opportunity by saving and planning around it rather than sweeping it away on behalf of something Magnificent And Spectacular Like Gehry.
Click to expand...

*Now, based on that assumption, you are an idiot, DtTO.* - Memo to DtTO: even Chicagoans well atuned to their architectural heritage would think you're an wannabe idiot from Palookaville to suggest such an idea.
Click to expand...

Hey, adma, has it ever occurred to you that your assumption is not what I actually meant? I guess it hasn't, but unfortunately for you, that's the case. In fact, my comment was a direct response to isaidso's suggestion that the warehouses should be moved to a place where they would be more appreciated. What better place than a large new park to view them, and an open theatre hinting at their former surroundings? Getting rid of Roundhouse would just be icing on the cake.

isaidso said:
I'm in favour of the Mirvish-Gehry proposal, but only if these warehouses are moved to a location where they will be fully appreciated.
Click to expand...
 
Last edited by a moderator:
DtTO:

So you're suggesting that we should move a heritage building to a park that already has an existing heritage building in place (one that speaks to the history of the location that it sits on, no less) and in order to accommodate that move, we should tear down that said building. I don't know about you, but that is wrong at so many different levels.

AoD
 
Lenser:

Well, considering there wasn't even a proposal to put anything like the Gehry bandshell anywhere near Roundhouse Park, indeed. I am not sure what that "vote" was about. Besides, I think the Roundhouse is of significantly higher value than Anderson Building, considering its' uniqueness in the city.

AoD
 
Agreed, AoD. I'd hate to lose the roundhouse, period. Both sides of my family have a rich history of railroad careers and buildings like that hold special significance to me.

Gotta say though, this business of moving around old buildings because they're suddenly deemed 'in the way' of glorious new projects disturbs me. I am not against the practise per se but I do find it potentially troublesome how a building can be glibly re-contextualized and given a new faux-history... seems like a kind of a Disneyfication of architecture. I suppose I ought to get used to it because it's clearly going to keep happening.
 
Lenser said:
Gotta say though, this business of moving around old buildings because they're suddenly deemed 'in the way' of glorious new projects disturbs me. I am not against the practise per se but I do find it potentially troublesome how a building can be glibly re-contextualized and given a new faux-history... seems like a kind of a Disneyfication of architecture. I suppose I ought to get used to it because it's clearly going to keep happening.
Click to expand...

I think it depends somewhat on your view of 'history', either as something that is static in the past or as something that continually unfolds. It's both of these things really. The moving of a building is not always negative, it's just part of its ongoing story, as is adaptive reuse... unless we're talking about a certain specific context of time and place being deemed significant for preservation, and surely the Roundhouse at this location absolutely is. I just don't see any credible reason for moving it.
 
AlvinofDiaspar said:
DtTO:

So you're suggesting that we should move a heritage building to a park that already has an existing heritage building in place (one that speaks to the history of the location that it sits on, no less) and in order to accommodate that move, we should tear down that said building. I don't know about you, but that is wrong at so many different levels.

AoD
Click to expand...

To be honest, AoD, my suggestion wasn't exactly all that realistic (even logistics of moving the buildings that far, aside). However, I really don't see the value of the Roundhouse. It's an antiquated building that has no use in the area. It takes up a whole block, acting almost like a suburban mall with that Leon's store. Sure, the museum is kind of cool, but I don't think it benefits the area's residents all that much. An open green space with a theatre would be much more appreciated, IMO.
 
Last edited:
DtTO said:
To be honest, AoD, my suggestion wasn't exactly all that realistic (even logistics of moving the buildings that far, aside). However, I really don't see the value of the Roundhouse. It's an antiquated building that has no use in the area. It takes up a whole block, acting almost like a suburban mall with that Leon's store. Sure, the museum is kind of cool, but I don't think it benefits the area's residents all that much. An open green space with a theatre would be much more appreciated, IMO.
Click to expand...

Yeah, there's something about that area that just seems like an uninviting public space. It's too industrial. Too uninviting. It seems like it would be a chore to cross it. Compare that to an even bigger public space: High Park. When I walk near there, I'm drawn in. It seems eminently crossable and accessible.

Dundas Square. Same thing. Sure it's all concrete. But the lights and colours, the activity, makes it seem so "accessible" to the pedestrian.

Roundhouse Park... notsomuch. I've never been able to put my finger on it.

On the other hand, the ENTIRE area along Bremner, going West all the way into City Place gives me that same pedestrian-hostile feeling.
 
You must log in or register to post here.

Back
Top