Toronto IMMIX | 131.06m | 38s | QuadReal | a—A

[ksun]

Well, if that's the case, so does any town that's not an Asian-style boomburg.

straw man argument. When did I ever say Asian style city building is great.
but the desperate strive to protect anything that is over 50 years old and include it in the new development is pretty funny and sad. In 500 years, this tower may be 600 years ago, and will still NOT be heritage and people will not stand on Yonge st and admire it. That's for sure.

Most Asian cities are too dense to effectively preserve most of the old buildings, many of which are of wood, not stone. However, there are plenty of Asian cities, the smaller ones where thousands of years old architecture and gardens are meticulously preserved, but I guess you have never been to Asia, have you? Most Canadians' experience with "Asia" is Singapore and Hong Kong probably. You think the entire Asia is like Singapore, Shanghai and Tokyo. Have you been to Kyoto and Suzhou for example before dissing the entire Asian style boomburg? Your typical disrespect for Asia only shows your utter ignorance. Even Shanghai, a relative new city has far more valuable and well protected heritage building than Toronto. But I guess you are too arrogant to know.

 

[caltrane74]

The additional sidewalk space on Yonge Street will be delightful for passing pedestrians.

 

[greenleaf]

This is closest, photo I can find, pre- facade changes by the tire company in roughly 1940-41.

NW corner of Yonge & Grenville (~1916-1919)

It looks like there was another window:

----


Looking at old Goad's maps (here, click on 15), the fire station did have a setback form the sidewalk, so the fact that that is in the new proposal can be considered being sympathetic to the heritage landscape.

 

[Tewder]

straw man argument. When did I ever say Asian style city building is great.
but the desperate strive to protect anything that is over 50 years old and include it in the new development is pretty funny and sad. In 500 years, this tower may be 600 years ago, and will still NOT be heritage and people will not stand on Yonge st and admire it. That's for sure. "

'For sure'? Ok i'll bite... why not?

Even Shanghai, a relative new city has far more valuable and well protected heritage building than Toronto. But I guess you are too arrogant to know.

'Valuable' is relative. Why judge heritage in Toronto according to standards in other places, i.e. China or Europe? The priorities are very different.

 

[ChesterCopperpot]

He won't answer - he was asked the question before back on page 1

 

[67Cup]

I certainly have nothing against Asian cities and know that many of them have carefully preserved key elements of their past. Kyoto and Kyungju in South Korea are two of the most fascinating historical cities I have ever visited, anywhere. (And I am scheduled to get to Angkor Wat in April. That's been on my bucket list for ages.) But I don't see why the choices of ancient cities in Asia are directly relevant to the preservation of a fire hall tower in Toronto. Toronto does not have a long history, but all the more reason for preserving what remains from that history. The tower does not have anything like the magnificence of, say, the Shogun's Palace in Kyoto, but it still represents a valuable link with the city's Victorian and Edwardian past. Saving it requires only a little planning and it will distinguish this building from the hundreds of glass podia and towers that are going up around the city. It will give the block a little character.

By the way, none of us will be around in five hundred years to see who is it right, but my guess is that if the tower is still there in those distant times, people will, in fact, want to see it.

 

[condovo]

straw man argument. When did I ever say Asian style city building is great.
but the desperate strive to protect anything that is over 50 years old and include it in the new development is pretty funny and sad. In 500 years, this tower may be 600 years ago, and will still NOT be heritage

The clock tower holds meaning to wide sections of the community *today.* It's a decades-old landmark on Yonge Street and a symbol of sorts for the LBGT community. Again, heritage isn't just about aesthetics. That said I'm sure the tower will look quite charming with a little TLC.

 

[wolfewood]

He won't answer - he was asked the question before back on page 1

Yep. ksun is seriously best left to the ignore list. He's easily one of the most annoying posters on this site. At least people like adma and freshcutgrass debate with you, ksun just leaves snarky remarks and runs off.

 

[NBGtect]

Some people don't care about our history at all. They just dump their experiences from other places and make huge assumptions and gross conclusions without knowing the full scope. The clock tower is amazing. It should be released from it's constraints and be shown off. Let's get rid of the Hockey Hall of Fame too because some people don't like hockey. But like Alfred said in The Dark Knight, "some people just want to watch the world burn".

 

[Stupidandshallow]

Yeah.. This isn't doing anything for me. It looks really heavy to me. I'm having a difficult time imagining this base not feeling overwhelming on the street.

I also find the use of steel here boring. It's still a banal glass box.

 

[ndawgg]

Think what you want about the aesthetics of the clock tower, but based on its status as being the place where so many LGBT people first gathered in a public place, (and the terrible abuse they suffered) I think this is a significant piece of history and I'm very happy it's being preserved.

 

[adma]

Think what you want about the aesthetics of the clock tower, but based on its status as being the place where so many LGBT people first gathered in a public place, (and the terrible abuse they suffered) I think this is a significant piece of history and I'm very happy it's being preserved.

And actually, the key thing here is that *that* might be the more powerful excuse for retaining the tower than mere, uh, "heritage aesthetics."

In which case, I find it noteworthy that ksun has *not*, *not*, NOT taken that into account in his dismissal--even though the matter of the St. Charles' iconic role within Toronto's LGBT realm has been raised as a *very* paramount matter in this thread. It's as obtuse as arguing against the Texas School Book Depository because it's just another old brick warehouse, or the Lorraine Motel because if you've seen one postwar motel, you've seen them all.

And I trust--or hope--that it's just ksun being obtuse, rather than, y'know, homophobia or something. (Then again, he *might* be the sort who'd dismiss the LGBT community as "marginal" in most people's lives; therefore, why be coerced into commemorating them, etc etc)

Ksun--I await a clarification, and an answer.

 

[Automation Gallery]

I'm very happy it's being preserved.

Not to mention, re-locating the structure back to the spotlight on Yonge street, whats there not to like

 

[Tewder]

In which case, I find it noteworthy that ksun has *not*, *not*, NOT taken that into account in his dismissal--even though the matter of the St. Charles' iconic role within Toronto's LGBT realm has been raised as a *very* paramount matter in this thread. It's as obtuse as arguing against the Texas School Book Depository because it's just another old brick warehouse, or the Lorraine Motel because if you've seen one postwar motel, you've seen them all.

... which raises an interesting point in that maybe this is a very appropriate place for some sort of official commemoration, actually transforming the clock tower into a monument on its base sides? It could be Toronto's Stonewall!

 

[Thanos]

What i find funny is that users like ksun and thekingeast usually mock Toronto's heritage preservation however they rave about the heritage preservation in cities like Boston and Montreal. If something as significant and historic as this clock tower were to be destroyed in Montreal, i can guarantee you that the developer would be hanged by the people.