FutureBuilder said:
Montreal has a lot more historic buildings than Toronto. It's an older city and for the greater part of its history it was more significant (economically, culturally and economically) than Toronto. Sorry, but you simply cannot compare the historic architecture of Montreal to Toronto. The Old Port of Montreal is a gem; we have nothing similar in Toronto. I wish we did. But if you look through the list of "Historic" buildings in the City of Toronto, a lot of those have absolutely no historical significance at all. Councillors (for political reasons) have added many of the buildings for their own petty reasons. I wish we had an independent planning/building department like other cities do.
Didn't you ever see what the Financial District looked like before urban renewal after WWII? What about the old Toronto area in the east end, around St. Lawrence? Front Street? Jarvis Street? Yonge? These areas were filled with very impressive architecture and history, and the streetscapes were beautiful. Naturally you don't think anything is comparable when what was comparable has already been demolished. The Old Town is a preserved district with some modern buildings, even though many of its buildings look simpler than the building at the centre of this thread. (Take a look at the
average building along St. Paul Street, for instance.)
Look through the various threads here on Urban Toronto with hundreds of pages of historical photos. Carrere and Hastings, one of the leading architectural firms had several projects in Toronto, even one in The Junction. We even had stone-paved streets. Obviously, Toronto didn't equal Montreal back then. So what? That doesn't mean this was some provincial hicktown without anything significant. Such denigration is baseless.
I suppose to put this situation in perspective, you'd be saying that the Vancouver or Calgary of today has produced very little, if anything, of heritage value just because Toronto is the economic and cultural leading city. One city's leading success does not preclude impressive achievements in a smaller city. In fact, Torontonians clearly had a lot of ambition in bridging the gap. Late 19th century Toronto had plenty of landmarks and some streetscapes that would fit in a European capital city.
You're also conflating history with heritage. Heritage can either mean architectural or historic significance (or both). Buildings may be valuable heritage buildings at the local neighbourhood level, city level, or national level.
As for this proposal. The location is perfect. Some people don't realize that Toronto is a growing city and a top 15 financial centre in the world. There is no way to totally stop a condo redevelopment in the downtown core. You can modify designs, but when I hear people say "I hope the project is killed by the City" or "I hope the City doesn't allow it" I shake my head. The world just doesn't work that way. I personally don't see why any of the building at King/Sherbourne should be kept.
If a condo development is in some way detrimental, shouldn't we have a way to stop it? I see growth as an opportunity to build upon the positive rather than to destroy it. If you want to talk about the leading financial centres of the world, we can pull up some impressive preservation records. Those without such records would love to be in a position to plan growth around heritage.
Then there's the fact that the new building no architectural identity and it's not complimentary in any way, be it in scale or design. It's just many storeys of absolute banality crowned by a questionable mechanical section. The new architecture is demonstrative of the sophistication of the developer who ruins heritage buildings today.
