[Marko]

I think it might have been the way they were planted and the electrical conduit not allowing one of those tree remover machines to get in there and remove them cleanly. I doubt it was their first choice, but the mulch itself is at least going to be re-used somehow. It could be on the Living Arts lawn already...

 

[owen]

i'm no arborist, but i don't think transplanting is as simple as plopping it down in a new spot, especially with trees of that size, especially that this time of year...
i like that this project is happening, though!

 

[adma]

Ah yes - the cheap shot artist returns as predicted. Thank you.

I may be new here, but I'm no messageboard amateur. Architectural amateur in your opinion maybe, but your point is seldom very clear from what I've learned on here.

Note: I said "messageboarding amateur", not "messageboard amateur". That is, an amateur that messageboards, not an amateur at messageboarding.

And if my "point is seldom very clear" to you, well...there's one point that's perfectly clear. You desperately need a refresher course in 1980s Canadian architectural history, and maybe with a touch of international Postmodern-movement history as well. Which will probably send the message that...whatever your personal misgivings about the style of the place, it truly is a keystone work of its time, in Canada and even internationally.

Otherwise, you might as well be little better than the Joe & Jane Blow blog-responders who rant when NYC grants landmark status to something "ugly" "antiurban" "what the heritage movement was designed to counter" like this

 

[Marko]

You're doing it again - trying to make me look bad by comparing me to someone or something completely unrelated is a weak way to make your point and only makes you look bad, not me.

Look Adam, I really don't give a shit what you think of my opinion. I have never once attacked any poster for their opinion - even though I may disagree with it - which you seem to have no problem lowering yourself to doing. It's perfectly alright for people to disagree, especially on subjective things like architecture - so I really don't understand your fixation here.

Is there any reason to keep taking shots at me, other than to make yourself feel superior?

 

[vistaway]

Back on topic.

Update on demolition...trees are gone from both the Civic and Library Squares; currently removing walls along the garden side and last few walls near the amphitheatre; lights have been removed and construction lighting is being installed; most of the concrete floor has been removed; planters are being emptied (nice to see the soil is being reused elsewhere) and destroyed.

There are a few images of the proposed redevelopment in the Great Hall, but these are the ones from initial announcement, and are not necessarily current. The final design is not yet complete.

Some images:

 

[Marko]

Just watching that webcam for a minute - all that concrete is coming up off the square very easily. They'll probably have jackhammers and/or backhoes in there tomorrow for the heavier removal, unless there's some more delicate prepwork to be done.

 

[drum118]

Oct 07

Had to laugh at council as the councilors were questioning why there not more workers on site. Clearly they they never look how projects are built or torn down.

Then they where complaining about the noise.

Staff had some fun trying to explain what was taking place and why.

 

[adma]

You're doing it again - trying to make me look bad by comparing me to someone or something completely unrelated is a weak way to make your point and only makes you look bad, not me.

Look Adam, I really don't give a shit what you think of my opinion. I have never once attacked any poster for their opinion - even though I may disagree with it - which you seem to have no problem lowering yourself to doing. It's perfectly alright for people to disagree, especially on subjective things like architecture - so I really don't understand your fixation here.

Is there any reason to keep taking shots at me, other than to make yourself feel superior?

Because you're disagreeing from the POV of stubborn amateur ignorance, so, take my advice again. Before you judge the relative importance or unimportance of Mississauga City Hall, You. Need. A. Refresher. Course. In. 1980s. Architectural. History.

That is the reason for my fixation. And from a recent-past heritage standpoint, it's ultimately enough to render one's like or dislike of the architecture immaterial. It. Is. An. Internationally. Important. Building. For. Its. Time. And as such, it transcends its own time, despite whatever shortcomings, etc.

And the jurors who chose the design (including, I suppose, James Stirling via seance) would likely still not dispute the point to this day...

 

[Marko]

Knowing/liking/understanding/appreciating 80's architecture does not automatically equal liking this building. You make it sound like I'm the only one who has ever expressed a dislike for it and it's simply inconceivable that I don't agree with you.

As. For. Your. Suggestions...

 

[adma]

Knowing/liking/understanding/appreciating 80's architecture does not automatically equal liking this building. You make it sound like I'm the only one who has ever expressed a dislike for it and it's simply inconceivable that I don't agree with you.

So you don't like it; fine--but this issue isn't about whether you like the building or not; it's about your past questioning of the building's importance--which is an issue totally beyond like/dislike. It's about amateur ignorance. (And as previously mentioned, the same goes for your assumption that the jury which chose the design was somehow swayed by the philistines on council--actually, I suspect that said philistines on their own would have been more likely to veto it on grounds similar to yours, but oh! world-class architects on the jury! you can't cross them!)

Look at it this way, if you want to have your cake and eat it too: even Boston City Hall's more knowing opponents aren't denying that it was as internationally important to 1960s architecture as Mississauga City Hall was to 1980s architecture. That doesn't stop them from thinking it's a POS that should be ripped down ASAP or that its architecture-buff defenders are akin to Hollywood's Polanski apologists, or something...

 

[Solaris]

Had to laugh at council as the councilors were questioning why there not more workers on site. Clearly they they never look how projects are built or torn down.

Then they were complaining about the noise.

thanks for the photos drum118 ...

I love idiot Councillors ... first they complain why there are not more workers on site to speed up the project progress, AND at the same time they are complaining about noise ?? anyone in their right mind KNOWS that construction equipment will inevitably create noise !!

 

[interchange42]

Marko, Adma, I hope you will both agree that your current discussion here has gone on long enough now. Back to the square redevelopment.

42

 

[vistaway]

Updates as of today:

Pretty much the all the hardscaping on the square has been demolished and is being filled-in/leveled with gravel. The crews are finishing removal of the last walls along the west/garden side (the east side is done).

On to the pictures:

The garden is about to lose the enclosed feel:

Removing the walls has really opened the square up to the street:

 

[drum118]

Shot these going to a meeting Monday. All the brick walls are gone. The whole Square is down to waterproof top allowing the decking to be repair where it has to.

 

[scarberiankhatru]

Strangely, or perhaps not strangely, all this de/construction seems to complement Mississauga City Hall...maybe the pillars and ampitheatre and so on just seem more 'authentic' with some significant - though intentional - wear and tear, as if adding some ruination to neo-historical stuff almost cancels out the "neo."