NB: I'm still responding to this particular Toronto-Harbour-Commission-building tangent in this thread, with the anticipation/hope/whatever that it'll be taken into its own thread (somehow).
That you would advocate tearing down THC or Hermant Annex, all the while claiming sensitivity to preservation issues is puzzling beyond belief, and only underscores the dangerous consequences of fusty thinking, whether the issue is preservation options or political/funding neglect.
Speaking of "puzzling beyond belief", I think you misread my quote.
The most practical thing, never mind the "historical correctness" issue, would be to keep the thing in situ. (Or else to demolish it; which in its way, might be the more "historically correct" solution, if one wants to approximate a 1910s/20s judgment call.)
I
wasn't personally advocating its demolition; rather, I was stating that if 2009 were like 1919, a building like this probably
could be demolished with little fuss. The broadly-sweeping preservation movement as we know it isn't even half a century old, born out of and snowballing from the losses of Penn Station, et al, and the near-losses of Old City Hall, et al.
And to be honest, if I were to look at things even from a present-day abstract POV of the development or commercial real estate industry, I can see how a building like the THC can be viewed as a pain in the neck to deal with. It's overbuilt and impractical, an awkward Beaux-Arts mini-palace for an institution with a chequered history. Because of its prima donna architecture, it's virtually impossible to add onto with any practical-minded grace; and because of its positioning on the site, it's virtually impossible to build around it without it looking like a ridiculous toy. So, then, what
can you do with an albatross like this without the city heritage Nazis breathing down your neck? Given that, I can understand the wishful-think involved re moving it out of the freaking way to a so-called "more appropriate" waterfront location where it can be "better appreciated".
But please, don't read that as personal advocacy. Just read that as a macro-assessment of the hypothetical outermost parameters of the situation at hand, i.e. I'm playing devil's advocate, I'm taking a position not my own. OTOH the advocate in me would tell that abstract POV: drop dead, it's your problem. And re the so-called heritage albatross: God bless this mess.
Sometimes it takes a little strategic insensitivity, or counter-sensitivity, or recognition thereof, in order to attain the highest form of "sensitivity to preservation issues".
This building's very unique original context is lost here, and that it was indeed designed for a waterfront location is abundantly clear from pictures posted.
But as I stated, the "very unique original context" was a temporary condition--and the "landlocking" through landfill was already anticipated by the the time THC was built. And if any institution was well aware of that fact, it was the Toronto Harbour Commission. It was designed to be
seen--not to be specifically seen
from the water; indeed, its positioning may have been more of a cue for than a denial of the landfill that was to come.
You see, you still don't "get it".
And you remain guilty, in your erstwhile claim that even the most vociferous preservationist would have no problems w/the THC being moved, of a gross misreading of where the preservationist realm is at today. But now that you're reminded of it, you're trying to spin some ideal of "reasonability" against what I'm presenting to you (which reminds me of men's-rights groups saying "if feminists were reasonable" bla bla bla); or else projecting more anal-retentiveness upon myself than there is. Look: it should be clear in the rawest terms that the Hermant Annex is "lesser stuff" than THC; so it isn't like there's an inconsistency between my going to bat more for one than the other--unless you actively
want the hysterical-preservationist strawman to be absolutely paranoid about anything, anything at all being destroyed, especially if it's on a heritage inventory bla bla bla.
And if you find any of that "puzzling beyond belief", hey, remember: I'm the sort who can claim "sensitivity to preservation issues" while recognizing that an act of architectural (and indeed, human) destruction might well be the most important aesthetic event of our lives.
Doesn't mean I'd advocate more like it. Just that it's one heck of a fait accompli.
(And incidentally, I'm not claiming that as a common heritage POV, either. But sometimes it takes a marginal stance to attain a clear view of the mainstream.)
