[RC8]

Really? What kind of scientist? I'm an economist. Pleased to meet you.

Evolutionary Ecologist (Biologist).

For a scientist advancing the virtues of empiricism, you sure now how to make conclusions based on fallacious reasoning and speculative bias. You're doing Karl Popper proud.

Read my previous post the 67Cup about why I'm not directly responding to this question. I explain it clearly.

I'm not making conclusions, I'm proposing constructive solutions based on a theoretical framework grounded on empirical evidence. You are just dwelling on meaningless artsy ideas that lead nowhere and offer no solutions.

My argument is really straight forward: keeping heritage buildings makes neighbourhoods more desirable and that's a good thing. If it means that wealthier people move in as rents go up so be it (as you can see class-warfare is your own personal trauma, not mine) - so long as we have sound planning regulations that just means that demand will be met elsewhere and there's no reason why those new neighbourhoods can't be made to be very desirable too.

By not protecting heritage buildings, however, we risk reducing the desirability of a neighbourhood, and we steal an irreplaceable asset from the local community. We would also reduce the economic potential that a neighbourhood has as a tourist destination, and would by increasing density lose the human scale that many heritage buildings provide.

Logically, based on the information I handle and in the particular case of Toronto, arguing against the preservation of heritage shows a total disregard for the common good and the pursue of happier healthier societies. Apart from saying that it would make the city cheaper and not backing it up you haven't provided a single argument against this.

I have explicitly asked you how you would proceed and how that would benefit the greater good. I'm open minded if people show convincing arguments backed up by some evidence. You have failed to answer over and over again. You are therefore not capable of having a constructive discussion. You keep falling back on irrelevant subjective psychedelic human constructs that are worthless and I have no time for.

Maybe doing that is acceptable in political philosophy (whatever that is), but I'm done going around in circles. If you want to reply please do so in the following form:

- I, Brockm, propose that we do __________ regarding heritage buildings in Toronto because it would benefit the greater good by _______. I don't agree with the notion that the market hand in hand with regulations would generate desirable neighbourhoods elsewhere if these buildings were protected because _________. I don't consider heritage buildings irreplaceable assets to the community due to __________. The reason why London, Paris, and NY are the most desirable cities in the world is _________, and _________ is an example that you can have very desirable dense places with low rent thanks to the lack of heritage buildings.

Either that or you admit that you don't give a damn about the greater good (which is fair enough but needs to be stated). Up to you.

 

[RC8]

For example, I would love to see a test area of Toronto--say Lawrence/Keele/Eglinton/Dufferin--completely relax all zoning restrictions for a set period of time--10 years perhaps?--and other than having a strong design review panel approve of outstanding architecture, let anyone redevelop their property in the zone. I think it would result in astonishing vibrancy & fresh ideas--like the early builders in NA encounter (part of me believes the bad guys in development are really the urban planners, politicians, and unions too stuborn to change.)

Absolutely, that'd be brilliant. I still think we should keep heritage buildings and such, but urban planners are often incredibly stubborn and getting in the way of progress.

It always bothers me when here in North America you can't turn a house into a restaurant or grocery shop, for example. Providing people a healthy amenity walking distance from their homes is a crime. Unacceptable.

But ultimately the blame lies with bad regulations and not with regulations themselves. Having a brothel drug-tolerant dance-club open up next to your detached suburban home may make it a lot less safe for your kids to play out in their front yard and such. Frankly an undesirable development for the neighbourhood.

 

[urbandreamer]

Perhaps?

The reason why London, Paris, and NY are the most desirable cities in the world is _they are the hQ of empires_, and _Berlin_ is an example that you can have very desirable dense places with low rent thanks to the lack of heritage buildings.

 

[brockm]

Although to be honest, I do see BrockM's point. Overall I believe in the same brand of Libertarianism that he does. I just happen to think somehow maintaining the character of a neighbourhood while adding large numbers of new units is possible. I don't think any project in Toronto to date has achieved my ideal though.

For example, I would love to see a test area of Toronto--say Lawrence/Keele/Eglinton/Dufferin--completely relax all zoning restrictions for a set period of time--10 years perhaps?--and other than having a strong design review panel approve of outstanding architecture, let anyone redevelop their property in the zone. I think it would result in astonishing vibrancy & fresh ideas--like the early builders in NA encounter (part of me believes the bad guys in development are really the urban planners, politicians, and unions too stuborn to change.)

Hear, hear.

 

[brockm]

Evolutionary Ecologist (Biologist).



I'm not making conclusions, I'm proposing constructive solutions based on a theoretical framework grounded on empirical evidence. You are just dwelling on meaningless artsy ideas that lead nowhere and offer no solutions.

My argument is really straight forward: keeping heritage buildings makes neighbourhoods more desirable and that's a good thing. If it means that wealthier people move in as rents go up so be it (as you can see class-warfare is your own personal trauma, not mine) - so long as we have sound planning regulations that just means that demand will be met elsewhere and there's no reason why those new neighbourhoods can't be made to be very desirable too.

By not protecting heritage buildings, however, we risk reducing the desirability of a neighbourhood, and we steal an irreplaceable asset from the local community. We would also reduce the economic potential that a neighbourhood has as a tourist destination, and would by increasing density lose the human scale that many heritage buildings provide.

Logically, based on the information I handle and in the particular case of Toronto, arguing against the preservation of heritage shows a total disregard for the common good and the pursue of happier healthier societies. Apart from saying that it would make the city cheaper and not backing it up you haven't provided a single argument against this.

I have explicitly asked you how you would proceed and how that would benefit the greater good. I'm open minded if people show convincing arguments backed up by some evidence. You have failed to answer over and over again. You are therefore not capable of having a constructive discussion. You keep falling back on irrelevant subjective psychedelic human constructs that are worthless and I have no time for.

Maybe doing that is acceptable in political philosophy (whatever that is), but I'm done going around in circles. If you want to reply please do so in the following form:

- I, Brockm, propose that we do __________ regarding heritage buildings in Toronto because it would benefit the greater good by _______. I don't agree with the notion that the market hand in hand with regulations would generate desirable neighbourhoods elsewhere if these buildings were protected because _________. I don't consider heritage buildings irreplaceable assets to the community due to __________. The reason why London, Paris, and NY are the most desirable cities in the world is _________, and _________ is an example that you can have very desirable dense places with low rent thanks to the lack of heritage buildings.

Either that or you admit that you don't give a damn about the greater good (which is fair enough but needs to be stated). Up to you.

You are now advancing an argument that I can sink my teeth into and probably have a productive debate with you. And this deserves thoughtful responses. And I promise to give it. But I need to catch a flight right now.

I'm not being fecetious. I appreciate that you've fully laid out your position such that I can understand the premises on which your position is built. We could have been here a long while ago without the questioning of my motives and accusations of being a shill for developers.

But I really do need to get to Pearson.

 

[brockm]

I want to thank you for the marvellous excerpts of lectures from PHIL 110, Introduction to Political Philosophy. It is so long since I actually sat through such a course that I doubtless need a refresher. And you captured the tone so perfectly. I can almost hear the hectoring insecurity of the beginning assistant professor who is stuck with the course because the more senior professors are so tired of teaching it. I congratulate you on your literary skills, sir!

I may owe you an apology. I used the "denomination" and "faith" language of the structures of the Christian church as an analogy for divisions of opinion within libertarianism largely because I suspected any religious language would get a rise out of you. Obviously given your little rant, I succeeded more than I anticipated. Perhaps I was insensitive in playing with your evident insecurities. But no, an actual apology would be insincere. I do acknowledge that I used the language deliberately, knowing that it might nettle, however.

I don't think of libertarianism as inherently kooky, though like most ideologies, some kooks hold the position. I associate it not so much with any intellectual eccentrity but rather with a personality type, contrarian, rebarbative, prone to generalizing statements based on little evidence, insecure in social relations, low EQ. That is surely an error on my part, little more than prejudice. No ideology can be reduced to psychology and it is folly to underestimate those who differ from one's own position. It is just that from time to time, the prejudice seems to be reinforced... Still, I ought to struggle against it.

Thank you for at last indirectly addressing the question about whether the preservation of the block in question has any discernible effect on housing costs. You have, of course, effectively admitted that you have no actual evidence for your original claims in this thread. QED.

I note that you spent most of your Friday night penning a series of screeds against your self-created foes in this thread. I hope you have a better Saturday night. It's a sunny Spring day where I live and I plan to enjoy the day. So, goodbye from here.

I will admit that being associated with Rand is a bit of a sensitive issue for me. It happens almost every day.

Secondly, I admit to being very prone to not behaving well when people openly question my integrity. It is like kryptonite for my calm.

Also, I am intentionally ignoring what appears to be a cleverly executed way of characterizing me as a poorly adjusted person.

 

[jje1000]

Can we move this stuff into the Buildings and Architecture forums?

 

[neubilder]

Would an ADMINISTRATOR please purge this thread and place this discussion in the 'Buildings, Architecture & Urban Design' forum, under a title called something like 'Challenges / Threats to Heritage Conservation and Planning in Toronto'

 

[valkoholic]

Although to be honest, I do see BrockM's point. Overall I believe in the same brand of Libertarianism that he does. I just happen to think somehow maintaining the character of a neighbourhood while adding large numbers of new units is possible. I don't think any project in Toronto to date has achieved my ideal though.

For example, I would love to see a test area of Toronto--say Lawrence/Keele/Eglinton/Dufferin--completely relax all zoning restrictions for a set period of time--10 years perhaps?--and other than having a strong design review panel approve of outstanding architecture, let anyone redevelop their property in the zone. I think it would result in astonishing vibrancy & fresh ideas--like the early builders in NA encounter (part of me believes the bad guys in development are really the urban planners, politicians, and unions too stuborn to change.)

Not to drag this thread even more off topic, but I agree with your test area idea but would caution that design review panels aren't as great as some might hope. I've seen the city's and waterfront drp in action, pretty disappointing. I'm not sure how they could be done better, but the ones in this city need work.

 

[RC8]

Perhaps?

Re: Berlin:

But Berlin has very stringent height limitations. Not to mention a stock of heritage buildings to rival the most impressive cities in the world.

If we were going to follow the guidelines per Berlin we should limit buildings to 3-4 stories high on historical streets (their height limitations in each neighbourhood are determined by the predominant height of what has been there for 100 years+), and 6-7 stories in side streets to add density at a human scale.

Replacing our stock of modified pre-war houses (Dufferin North of Bloor, for example) with well designed 6-7 story apartment buildings sounds absolutely reasonable to me. I'd be the first person to approve of such a deal, old houses or not. Razing King Street East seems on the other hand completely unnecessary.

If anything Berlin shows to me that by limiting densities you improve the quality of neighbourhoods over larger geographical areas by 'spreading' the desirable tenants and retail around.

As far as I can see Berlin are even protecting their modernist stock through heritage designations!

http://www.fondazione-delbianco.org/seminari/progetti_prof/progview.asp?id=2025

 

[adma]

Secondly, I admit to being very prone to not behaving well when people openly question my integrity. It is like kryptonite for my calm.

Also, I am intentionally ignoring what appears to be a cleverly executed way of characterizing me as a poorly adjusted person.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Raffles,_Gentleman_Thug

Then again, "intentionally ignoring" seems to have done the Fords wonders...

 

[adma]

Would an ADMINISTRATOR please purge this thread and place this discussion in the 'Buildings, Architecture & Urban Design' forum, under a title called something like 'Challenges / Threats to Heritage Conservation and Planning in Toronto'

Though even there, I suspect that brockm will see fit to hog the spotlight.

Just more proof that Libertrollians are the strangling kudzu of many a web forum...

 

[gristle]

(part of me believes the bad guys in development are really the urban planners, politicians, and unions too stuborn to change.)

Yes, of course, the unions! They're always blocking the poor developers (especially all those unionized folks in the building trades). And those nasty urban planners who actually remind developers that they're building in this place called a city. And the politicians, the nasty result of this democratic electoral process - always in the way of libertarian ideals, damn them. Urbandreamer, you seem to have forgotten the people - y'know - the mere in habitants of the place. They too can stymie the poor developers and their idealist pursuits of bucks and greatness in their own minds.

Oh gawd, where is Ayn Rand when you need her the mostest?

 

[CanadianNational]

Mods, I'd like to request the irrelevant mass of arguing taking up the bulk of this thread be excised and placed in another section of the forum - please.

 

[greenleaf]

Just more proof that Libertrollians are the strangling kudzu of many a web forum...

What an apt description.