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

Presumably Adam Vaughan. But I'd like to get a solid answer. This shouldn't be done behind closed doors.

From the Dec 16 Toronto City Council Meeting:

http://app.toronto.ca/tmmis/viewAgendaItemHistory.do?item=2013.TE28.2

City Council direct that a working group be appointed by the Chief Planner and Executive Director, City Planning, and the local Ward Councillor and the applicant, composed but not limited to the following persons, or their representatives:

- the Local Councillor as Chair
- the Chair of Planning and Growth Management Committee
- City Planning Staff
- the Applicant
- Local Community (3)
- Local BIA
- Toronto Preservation Board
- Heritage Toronto
- an Urban Planner
- an Independent Architect
- an Art Administrator
- an Ontario College of Art and Design University representative

It was a decision reached on the floor of the council and voted on by councillors - transparency isn't that much of an issue.

AoD
 
Independent Architect, Larry Richards;

Here is something interesting on this fellow.........
Larry Wayne Richards
RAIC Awards--Advocate Award


Since 1975, Richards has curated more than 20 exhibitions on architecture, including CCA: Buildings and Gardens which opened the Canadian Centre for Architecture in 1988-89, and Patkau + 16 which followed two years later. At the University of Toronto, he was instrumental in creating the Eric Arthur Gallery which he continues to coordinate. Here, he has curated shows on Saucier + Perrotte and Norman Foster, and last summer, the travelling exhibition entitled Frank's Drawings: Eight Museums by Gehry


Richards (right) shares a moment with architect Frank G...

http://www.canadianarchitect.com/news/larry-wayne-richards/1000213090/?&er=NA
 
Here is something interesting on this fellow.........

Larry Wayne Richards was also once the dean of the Daniels Architecture school at U of T - I took his intro to architecture course when I was an undergrad there, and he's an exceptionally knowledgeable architect and is very passionate about Toronto!
 
When I look at a building to determine its historical significance, being a warehouse isn't on the list.
I don't see the merits in preserving the facade of a building when it, by itself, says nothing.

It's old. Things that are old are inherently valuable. For example, 8 tracs are valuable. ;)

That being said, one of the things that make the "Entertainment District" interesting is the combination of different scales, eras of architecture and uses. There's a kind of "biodiversity." It's perfectly legitimate to be concerned about the neighbourhood being turned into a monotonous, monolithic Vancouver-like sea of condo banality reminiscent of Southcore or CityPlace. These buildings can be seen as the canary in the coal mine. If these buildings are lost what does it say for the lifespan of similar buildings in the area? It would be ironic if these buildings end up being the turning point in destroying half the appeal of the area (outside of location).

Or maybe it'll up the game of developers? My guess would be no.
 
It's old. Things that are old are inherently valuable. For example, 8 tracs are valuable. ;)

That being said, one of the things that make the "Entertainment District" interesting is the combination of different scales, eras of architecture and uses. There's a kind of "biodiversity." It's perfectly legitimate to be concerned about the neighbourhood being turned into a monotonous, monolithic Vancouver-like sea of condo banality reminiscent of Southcore or CityPlace. These buildings can be seen as the canary in the coal mine. If these buildings are lost what does it say for the lifespan of similar buildings in the area? It would be ironic if these buildings end up being the turning point in destroying half the appeal of the area (outside of location).

Or maybe it'll up the game of developers? My guess would be no.

I agree. People always ask whatsbthe value of these warehouses as if they are some sort of suburban warehouse downtown. The brick buildings do make a good juxtaposition to the new glass buildings. It would be a shame if everything looked like south core or cityplace. My favorite building in southcore is the roundhouse. The reason being is that it is different then everything else there. I'm happy south core and city place exist however king west has and should continue to have variety. Will we be okay with demolishing queen west next?
 
When I look at a building to determine its historical significance, being a warehouse isn't on the list.
I don't see the merits in preserving the facade of a building when it, by itself, says nothing.

Under the circumstances, to paraphrase...

"When I look at a painting to determine its artistic significance, being a stripe which anyone can do with a paint roller isn't on the list. I don't see the merits in my tax dollars going to purchase a so-called work of art which, by itself, says nothing."

voiceoffire.jpg
 
Yes, and thank The Lord we purchased "Voice of Fire" (painted by an American) because it says so much about what we as a nation stand for and believe to be important. (?) Besides, Quebec wanted someone to buy it for them, who better that the Canadian Government.
 
LOL! this painting looks like a flag of some 3rd World country. who ever bought it for Canada, either he was blind or he had no common sense in ART.
 
$1.8 Million???

Well it is (was?) apparently one of the most important pieces in the museum... Likely because of the ridiculous sum of cash we paid for it... "Show me the $1.8 Million trio of stripes"

I can't decide if whoever approved that is either a complete idiot or an incredible genius.
 
Last edited:
The valuing of art is always going to be a contentious issue, but people should try to remember that what is amazing about that painting is that in person, when you stare at it, within a minute or so it turns into a burning mirage of sorts, because of the simultaneous contrast between the bands. It's quite something to experience.
 
I don't see the merits in preserving the facade of a building when it, by itself, says nothing.

It says Tim Hortons, which has massive Canadian cultural importance. Every Timbit is sacred.



Well it is (was?) apparently one of the most important pieces in the museum... Likely because of the ridiculous sum of cash we paid for it... "Show me the $1.8 Million trio of stripes" I can't decide if whoever approved that is either a complete idiot or an incredible genius.


Newman's “Onement VI†sold for $44 million last May. Even in 1989 dollars, $1.76 million was an astute investment. Not that it matters, as if you are going to collect color field art, you would want Barnett Newman in your collection. Let's just say they couldn't afford to buy it today. That's why you need astute collectors to recognize and purchase important works before they go through the roof in price. VOF does have a Canadian connection, as it was commissioned specifically for Expo 67.

How fitting it is that we are poo-pooing color field art, when one of the world's most significant private collectors of it is offering the city an important cultural institution of international importance as part of a condo project, and we are poo-pooing that as well. What did we get from similar sized condo buildings like Aura and Trump....eye sores and zero cultural contributions?

Toronto....you vote in Rob Ford and throw away projects like this to save a whitewashed Tim Hortons outlet. You really are quite stupid.
 
When I look at a building to determine its historical significance, being a warehouse isn't on the list.
I don't see the merits in preserving the facade of a building when it, by itself, says nothing.

11A38BAB-A40B-4621-BF18-CD29B771567E.png

To quote The Big Lebowski, that's just, like, your opinion, man. You obviously you don't understand the whole r'aison d'etre of the Heritage Act if you think the fact a building was used as a boring warehouse disqualifies it. It's only a warehouse? The Distillery District was just a place where they made booze; including a bunch of warehouses which I guess wouldn't be on your list. South Street Seaport? It was a pier. All those 17th century buildings in Boston that were just built as offices or general stores or whatever? Yawn - a dime a dozen! Some building in Rome or Jerusalem that was once where they made pottery for 5 years, 2,000 years ago. Hardly the Coliseum!

Whether you think the building "says something," is not the purpose of heritage preservation.
http://www.mtc.gov.on.ca/en/heritage/heritage_designation.shtml

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....
Why designate? Planning for the future of a strong, vibrant community requires knowledge of the past and an understanding of what we value in the present. Existing buildings, structures and landscapes often define a community’s unique identity and give it character and a sense of place. To help guide change, it is important to identify and protect the places in the community that have cultural heritage value.

A building doesn't have to have singularly remarkable history to be a heritage property. The mere fact that it's typical of what King Street used to look like makes it significant. If you destroy all the buildings that "say nothing," you get a street that's just a hodge podge of modern stuff, most of which won't be up to the design level of M&G. The whole point of heritage designation is to preserve all those boring buildings....To use another movie reference, there's the bit in Raiders of the Lost Ark where Belloq explains to Indy that if he buries his ordinary watch in the desert it will become hugely valuable in a few years just because of its antiquity. So, the point is not that Belloq can go out and get an amazing Rolex, and therefore his watch is useless. No, the point is that if you throw out all the watches there won't be ANY more watches. The continued existence of his watch renders it valuable to those who value something other than the next big thing.

There is a public process for designation and this building went through that process and was deemed significant. And Mirvish didn't oppose it. It's a fait accompli. That's its legal status so arguing it's not significant is like arguing you're really still married to the wife who divorced you.

Toronto....you vote in Rob Ford and throw away projects like this to save a whitewashed Tim Hortons outlet. You really are quite stupid.

No, stupid is not understanding the value of heritage itself, nor the role old buildings play in a city which is like Chapter 1, Page 1 of Jane Jacobs. It's present use is utterly immaterial. If "current use" was a factor I can only imagine what you'd think of a vacant building that's falling apart because it hasn't been preserved. Let's go back to the old Empress Hotel. What was in there? It used to be some bar and it had like Salad King on the ground floor. Burn it down! Says nothing to me - because I don't know anything at all about it, never really noticed it, and don't care to learn. We can put something shiny and new and awesome in its place.

If you want to destroy it you'll have to do better than saying it "says nothing," to you and that it's only being used as a Tim Horton's. Those things are immaterial to the process at hand. The quote above outlines why we preserve buildings and Toronto spent way too long destroying buildings that "didn't say anything" to the point where all we're left with is a few "ordinary" warehouses. Their continued presence alone makes them significant, is what many people are missing. But I guess if our sense of what we "value in the present" is that "great architecture" and the needs for more and more condos trumps our city's history, by all means, tear down that boring donut shop.
 
Last edited:
To quote The Big Lebowski, that's just, like, your opinion, man. You obviously you don't understand the whole r'aison d'etre of the Heritage Act if you think the fact a building was used as a boring warehouse disqualifies it. It's only a warehouse? The Distillery District was just a place where they made booze; including a bunch of warehouses which I guess wouldn't be on your list. South Street Seaport? It was a pier. All those 17th century buildings in Boston that were just built as offices or general stores or whatever? Yawn - a dime a dozen! Some building in Rome or Jerusalem that was once where they made pottery for 5 years, 2,000 years ago. Hardly the Coliseum!

Whether you think the building "says something," is not the purpose of heritage preservation.
http://www.mtc.gov.on.ca/en/heritage/heritage_designation.shtml



A building doesn't have to have singularly remarkable history to be a heritage property. The mere fact that it's typical of what King Street used to look like makes it significant. If you destroy all the buildings that "say nothing," you get a street that's just a hodge podge of modern stuff, most of which won't be up to the design level of M&G. The whole point of heritage designation is to preserve all those boring buildings....To use another movie reference, there's the bit in Raiders of the Lost Ark where Belloq explains to Indy that if he buries his ordinary watch in the desert it will become hugely valuable in a few years just because of its antiquity. So, the point is not that Belloq can go out and get an amazing Rolex, and therefore his watch is useless. No, the point is that if you throw out all the watches there won't be ANY more watches. The continued existence of his watch renders it valuable to those who value something other than the next big thing.

There is a public process for designation and this building went through that process and was deemed significant. And Mirvish didn't oppose it. It's a fait accompli. That's its legal status so arguing it's not significant is like arguing you're really still married to the wife who divorced you.



No, stupid is not understanding the value of heritage itself, nor the role old buildings play in a city which is like Chapter 1, Page 1 of Jane Jacobs. It's present use is utterly immaterial. If "current use" was a factor I can only imagine what you'd think of a vacant building that's falling apart because it hasn't been preserved. Let's go back to the old Empress Hotel. What was in there? It used to be some bar and it had like Salad King on the ground floor. Burn it down! Says nothing to me - because I don't know anything at all about it, never really noticed it, and don't care to learn. We can put something shiny and new and awesome in its place.

If you want to destroy it you'll have to do better than saying it "says nothing," to you and that it's only being used as a Tim Horton's. Those things are immaterial to the process at hand. The quote above outlines why we preserve buildings and Toronto spent way too long destroying buildings that "didn't say anything" to the point where all we're left with is a few "ordinary" warehouses. Their continued presence alone makes them significant, is what many people are missing. But I guess if our sense of what we "value in the present" is that "great architecture" and the needs for more and more condos trumps our city's history, by all means, tear down that boring donut shop.


"A building doesn't have to have singularly remarkable history to be a heritage property."

I disagree, and obviously that's where we diverge. You use some of the same arguments as hoarders who never want to throw anything away. There are buildings that should be preserved for sure, but to argue a warehouse is one of them is the same as saying you "should never throw anything away". The costs of preserving everything old becomes prohibitive and it stifles new architectural initiatives. Let's save buildings with architectural and historical importance and stop wasting time and opportunity saving just any building.

And let's stop using the "historical" designation simply as a tool to stop significant and important projects - which I believe to be the case here.
 
Last edited:

Back
Top