Stacked, above ground parking lots can always be adapted to some other use when private vehicles are banned from cities, or when all the oil runs out and people push their disused wrecks into the ravines, or when vehicles that don't pollute the environment are commonplace and we don't feel we have to hide them away in shame any more when not being driven, or as a result of some other as yet unforseen eventuality.

Given the evolution of uses for the Distillery District buildings that's now taking place, a versatile, adaptive approach to the parking garage would be entirely appropriate - though I can see how those who would want to treat the Pure Spirit parking garage like a museum of 2007 values might never want to see it change.
 
Urban Shocker said:
Stacked, above ground parking lots can always be adapted to some other use when private vehicles are banned from cities, or when all the oil runs out and people push their disused wrecks into the ravines, or when vehicles that don't pollute the environment are commonplace and we don't feel we have to hide them away in shame any more when not being driven, or as a result of some other as yet unforseen eventuality.
Click to expand...

I don't see how a large, above ground parking lot is desirable in the Distillery District.

Urban Shocker said:
Given the evolution of uses for the Distillery District buildings that's now taking place, a versatile, adaptive approach to the parking garage would be entirely appropriate - though I can see how those who would want to treat the Pure Spirit parking garage like a museum of 2007 values might never want to see it change.
Click to expand...

If it wasn't there in the first place they'd have nothing to worry about.
 
scarberiankhatru said:
The rack house will evolve into a demolition site...at least we can't cite the developers for lack of variety.
Click to expand...

True. Perhaps they can raze the entire complex. A permanent crane with a wrecking ball can be erected, a signpost for the new demolition district.
 
Excellent idea! Then we can say not only did the new development save the already saved distillery buildings from deteriorating at same vague point in the future, it'll preempt the retail endeavours housed within the buildings from ever being unsuccessful.

If the rack house goes, maybe all the other distillery buildings will suddenly collapse in a form of sympathetic seppuku.
 
Urban Shocker said:
unimaginative2 claims that "ugliness is obviously subjective". While it is his right to believe that, say, Rack House 'M' is the loveliest structure ever built and the Parthenon is the ugliest, there are standards of aesthetic beauty in design, architecture, visual art, music etc. that can be appreciated and generally agreed on if not quantified. Based on the renderings I've seen, I'll wager that the low-rise contemporary podium building of Clear Spirit, which will be closer in scale to the old surrounding buildings than the windowless hulk of Rack House 'M' that it'll replace, will be an improvement not just because people will actually live in it. Rack Houses 'G' and 'J' are smaller, similar to the Tank Houses that form the Young Centre, and fit the character of those other buildings. There are further enhancements, in scale with the established character of the old buildings and the site, happening elsewhere - the podium of Pure Spirit and the low-rise arm building at the south end of the site create laneway spaces between buildings - and the brick and wood of the demolished Rack House will be incorporated in the new structures, further linking the demolished old with the built new.
Click to expand...

Boy, you're creepy-chirpy in the way you use the word "demolished".

US, if UT existed 40 years ago, you'd be arguing (in a Thatcherite TINA spirit)on behalf of the wisdom of demolishing Carrere & Hastings' Bank of Toronto on behalf of Mies.

All right, maybe that's genuinely not too "weird" in the context of the time. Maybe more like, if 40 years ago were 30 years ago. Maybe sooner still (substituting some suitable contemporary equivalent to Mies, perhaps). And by extension, even relative to the here and now--and reversed; that is, the evident superiority of the Mies TD bank pavilion used to *retrospectively* justify the demolition. As in, "I'd do it the same way today".

And using that as an argument for other demolitions of/monkeying with hitherto sacrosanct heritage landmarks; sort of like hearkening back to a heroic age not overly tied down by old-crock sentimentalism. It didn't hold back Mies; why should it hold us back now?

And hey; it isn't like the Bank of Toronto's been obliterated without due. There's the model in Mies' pavilion ("linking the demolished old with the built new"); and the reassembled columns on the Guild Inn grounds. It lives.

US, if you were put in charge of heritage in Toronto, you're practically begging for a Pim Fortuyn assassin's bullet...
 
"linking the demolished old with the built new."

Hmmm....

Early Eaton Centre proposals that would have maintained only the Old City Hall clock tower surrounded by commerce.

Or Metro Centre plans, of which some might have kept the Great Hall of an otherwise demolished Union Station.

While the Distillery District plans are not nearly as severe as these famous cases, I think most here are very thankful those two modernist ideas were never carried out. Adma's getting over-the-top above, though exaggerating points has been common in this thread.

Edit: CN: I'm starting to agree with you too. I know there has been a lot of debate here, sometimes getting silly on both sides. Adma's a bit too much for the reasons you point out.
 
"US, if you were put in charge of heritage in Toronto...."

This sentence is completely uncalled for and frankly, an awful thing to write. Coming on the heels of the 'execution' picture, I think it's especially crass. Adma: I've really liked your posts, but c'mon....

The tone of ongoing attack and defensiveness in some of these threads is depressing, and making making them downright unpleasant to wade through as well.
 
I'm not the first person to be chewed out ;) by adma.

The pattern of attempting to link significant local buildings ( Union Station, the TD Centre, Old City Hall ) and sites ( Fort York ) to the hulking, windowless, disused, brick box of Rack House 'M' in order to create the impression of interchangeability continues ... and continues not to convince.
 
Urban Shocker said:
unimaginative2 claims that "ugliness is obviously subjective". While it is his right to believe that, say, Rack House 'M' is the loveliest structure ever built and the Parthenon is the ugliest, there are standards of aesthetic beauty in design, architecture, visual art, music etc. that can be appreciated and generally agreed on if not quantified. Based on the renderings I've seen, I'll wager that the low-rise contemporary podium building of Clear Spirit, which will be closer in scale to the old surrounding buildings than the windowless hulk of Rack House 'M' that it'll replace, will be an improvement not just because people will actually live in it. Rack Houses 'G' and 'J' are smaller, similar to the Tank Houses that form the Young Centre, and fit the character of those other buildings. There are further enhancements, in scale with the established character of the old buildings and the site, happening elsewhere - the podium of Pure Spirit and the low-rise arm building at the south end of the site create laneway spaces between buildings - and the brick and wood of the demolished Rack House will be incorporated in the new structures, further linking the demolished old with the built new.

The "let's hide the parking garage" argument reminds me a bit of the "shameful opera house loading dock that isn't desguised as something else" point of view.
Click to expand...


Well if you're going to accept that there are reasonable, commonly-held standards of beauty, I can sure as hell guarantee that Harbour Square would fall on the 'ugly' side of that spectrum.

I can't see what's wrong with hiding aspects of a building that standards of aesthetic beauty in design and architecture that can be appreciated and generally agreed on would deem to be unappealing. Every architect, from Andrea Palladio to Mies van der Rohe has hidden unattractive but necessary parts of their buildings.

The pattern of attempting to link significant local buildings ( Union Station, the TD Centre, Old City Hall ) and sites ( Fort York ) to the hulking, windowless, disused, brick box of Rack House 'M' in order to create the impression of interchangeability continues ... and continues not to convince.
Click to expand...

Ahh, but that's where you haven't been paying attention. I've taken great care not to link the commonly held "most important" parts of significant local buidings to the buildings that will be demolished at the Distillery. I said the wings of Union Station, or the plaza of TD Centre would be built upon. I think most would agree that's wildly inappropriate even if the Great Hall, and banking pavillion and two original towers, were preserved. Quite the same, I consider the distillery to be a complete whole, and its National Historic Site designation would agree with me. For that reason, I don't believe in amputating arms or legs of one of Toronto's most significant heritage sites just because they don't happen to be the most popular bits to put on a postcard.
 
The purpose of developing the site is to make it work, not to preserve expendable parts of it that prevent it from doing so.
 
Urban Shocker said:
The purpose of developing the site is to make it work, not to preserve expendable parts of it that prevent it from doing so.
Click to expand...

The site could work without dropping these ridiculously out of scale towers in the middle. There are a lot of possible options.
 
You must log in or register to post here.

Back
Top