Tulse
Senior Member
Can't we just say this topic has been Godwinned, and move on?
Toronto IMMIX | 131.06m | 38s | QuadReal | a—A
- Thread starter Automation Gallery
- Start date
Bayer
Senior Member
I don't think we can say that it has in this context. But what matters is that the proposal provides for the preservation of the clock tower.
ptbotrmpfn
Senior Member
Ok guys and gals please do not ridicule me for this but. I'm glade they are keeping that clock tower as its become like a second iconic or stand out feature along Younge street IMO. Next to the Sam the record man sign. keeping SOME history what ever it is is always a plus for me.
Last edited:
Mongo
Senior Member
It's funny that many of the same people here who are so outraged that anybody suggests that the clock tower might not be worth conserving, are perfectly fine with Ryerson reneging on their agreement to display the Sam the Record Man sign -- which was arguably just as important to the cultural history of Toronto (and certainly much more famous in the rest of Canada).
ksun
Senior Member
I agree. Let's move on.
I am perfectly fine with preserving the clock tower as part of the condo. It is not like that it is the first time we make substantial efforts just to keep something completely insignificant attempting to pass as history. Each city has its own way of doing things and there is nothing wrong with that.
innsertnamehere
Superstar
at the end of the day however it is still a corporate logo, which invalidates it to a certain extent. I still question the need to "preserve" bankrupt corporate brands.
NBGtect
Active Member
Ksun, Now you think that the clock tower is 'completely' insignificant? How can we move on when you keep chiding forum members? It's almost like you want the last word or something. Good luck with that! Some of us are proud residents of Toronto who also don't back down to ignorant comments.
stjames2queenwest
Senior Member
Is Sam the record man sign not going up now? I thought it was decided it was going on that health services building right at the kink in dundas at Victoria. No?
AlvinofDiaspar
Moderator
Tearing down a bona fide heritage structure is a little different from not displaying (but not destroying) a commercial sign at its' original location. Perhaps a closer equivalent would be preserving the "Stollery stone" for the sake of a Foster - or Snohetta ?
It will be going up at the City of Toronto Public Health building.
Anyways, time to get back to the merits of this proposal. The tower is staying regardless what one feels about it.
AoD
Last edited:
Mongo
Senior Member
Both the Sam the Record Man sign and the St Charles Tavern clock tower served as highly visible signposts to indicate the location of a significant gathering place for a fraction of the population of Toronto. The St. Charles Tavern was obviously the more significant in meaning of the two, to the people who gathered there, but Sam the Record Man, while not quite as significant to individual people's lives, was significant to a much larger total number of people (and consequently was much more famous outside of Toronto). Combining the depth and breadth of significance, I would rate the two locations as being roughly equal in historical importance (with the St. Charles Tavern being obviously much more significant to the LGBT community, and Sam the Record Man being much more nationally famous as a symbol of Toronto).
What Ryerson did was shameful and disgusting, in my opinion. They made a solemn agreement to preserve and display the sign, in exchange for being allowed to build on the Yonge Street location, and then turned around and said "You know what? We're not going to bother following the agreement we sign, and you can't make us!"
edit -- did not know that it was going to be displayed at the City of Toronto Public Health building. That's a decent resolution.
Last edited:
AlvinofDiaspar
Moderator
More disgusting and shameful than a developer that short-circuited the heritage process (however flawed and politicized that process may have been) and unilaterally decided to chip off architectural elements at a certain intersection while putting the public at risk? At least the request was made to City Council in this case, and City Council approved the changes to the agreement.
OT but FYI: http://www.toronto.ca/legdocs/mmis/2014/pg/bgrd/backgroundfile-70198.pdf - renderings at the end
AoD
Last edited:
salsa
Senior Member
Recall that kusn posted these thoughts not too long ago. It sure didn't sound like you were "perfectly fine" with preserving it.
NBGtect
Active Member
He was being sarcastic that while the clock tower isn't good enough for him, he understands that it's good enough for us.
Enough on this.
It's clear that ksun is contemptuous of things that he doesn't perceive as affecting him directly, and he has no interest in listening to others or learning from them.
He needs to understand however, that continually being provocative for the sake of nothing other than riling other members up is not allowed on UrbanToronto. If ksun posts about this again, it will be considered trolling and he will be dealt with.
That said, everyone else needs to move on as well for the time being. The case for the clock tower as a worthwhile historical marker has been made.
42
It's clear that ksun is contemptuous of things that he doesn't perceive as affecting him directly, and he has no interest in listening to others or learning from them.
He needs to understand however, that continually being provocative for the sake of nothing other than riling other members up is not allowed on UrbanToronto. If ksun posts about this again, it will be considered trolling and he will be dealt with.
That said, everyone else needs to move on as well for the time being. The case for the clock tower as a worthwhile historical marker has been made.
42
Tewder
Senior Member
... but the St. Charles was indeed famous, and vastly identifiable as a symbol of Toronto to many, gay and straight alike. It was well known even to suburbanites and Canadians further afield who'd never stepped foot in Toronto, much in the same way that 'San Fran' was, as an early symbol of 'gaydom', as little known and misunderstood as it was to mainstream society.
Not to undervalue the Sam's sign - I like it a lot and am glad that it will live on - but in terms of historical significance there is just no comparison between the St. Charles (the clock tower remnant in this case) and all that it stands for metonymically speaking, which makes a fine symbol for human rights in this city and country. In this sense it is not just significant for LGBTers, it is a statement about our values as a society in general. How we could not consider this fundamental to our history is absolutely beyond me.