[interchange42]

I put the we quotes because I do not believe that everyone is on the same page about this: there will always be differences of opinion about modern infill structures amongst historic buildings, and the populace may be evenly split on that, or not so evenly. So who is "we"? Half the population? 40%? 4%? You don't know, and neither do I, what percentage of the population you speak for, so "we" makes assumptions.

42

 

[wmedia]

I put the we quotes because I do not believe that everyone is on the same page about this: there will always be differences of opinion about modern infill structures amongst historic buildings, and the populace may be evenly split on that, or not so evenly. So who is "we"? Half the population? 40%? 4%? You don't know, and neither do I, what percentage of the population you speak for, so "we" makes assumptions.

Don't get me wrong, I do agree with what you are saying regarding the "we". I was just responding to your comment about not considering 30 years time. I think it should always be in everyone's mind how buildings might be judged in future, even though I admit it's an in-exact science at best!
My own unscientific poll of the general public (i.e. non-architects or tall building freaks/aA die-hards) is that I have not found a single person who likes the current tower in the Distillery District. I fear this development is going to be a case of architects being out of touch with the public. This is just my personal view however.

If low-rise was not practical, I would've preferred to have seen something along the lines of the wonderful London on the Esplanade, rather than this typical grey/green aA box tower.

 

[syn]

Indeed, they're making history with this development - the addition of the new to the old creates an entirely new entity.

They could make history by tearing it all down and filling it with modern structures - creating an entirely new entity.

 

[alklay]

Don't give anyone any ideas!!

 

[Urban Shocker]

They could make history by tearing it all down and filling it with modern structures - creating an entirely new entity.

They could have made history by doing nothing and letting the whole complex of disused former distillery buildings gradually collapse. Eventually, you, alklay and unimaginative2 could set up home together in the ruins of Rack House 'M' and pretend you're in Escape From New York.

 

[alklay]

Ah yes, more false choices.

 

[Urban Shocker]

They could make history by tearing it all down and filling it with modern structures - creating an entirely new entity.

Ah yes, more false choices.

 

[Edward Skira]

My own unscientific poll of the general public (i.e. non-architects or tall building freaks/aA die-hards) is that I have not found a single person who likes the current tower in the Distillery District.

I would imagine the people who bought there like the idea. And I would wager big money few of them are architects, tall building freaks or Peter Clewes.

 

[wmedia]

I would imagine the people who bought there like the idea. And I would wager big money few of them are architects, tall building freaks or Peter Clewes.

Possibly, but I'd also guess a lot of them bought for the location rather than any appreciation of aesthetics and context of the actual structure, but who knows for sure. Maybe I should knock on a few doors with my survey clipboard!

 

[Edward Skira]

Take away the Distillery (aesthetics and context of the actual structure) and you have one of the lousiest places downtown to put up a new condo. Would Pure Spirit have worked in the portlands today? I think not. So the Distillery was very much the reason they came so early to this new frontier.

 

[Rowe]

To be honest in 100, 200, or 500 years, these buildings will probably be gone. Every King leaves their mark. In the 22nd and 23rd century people may look back on the 'amazing green glass towers Toronto used to have so many of.' In the 18th century, the distillery district were factories. They weren't anything special or seen as a new historic district in Toronto, they were for jobs and economic growth. Same goes for the new fix on glass condo towers in Toronto for the 21st century. Other centuries had their mark (downtown cores with heavy polluting factories), and now it time for ours.

Historic buildings are important, don't get me wrong. But people need to understand time moves on, and so do people and their cities. History isn't lost when a heritage building goes down, it makes room for new history to be created.

 

[Parkdalian]

Possibly, but I'd also guess a lot of them bought for the location rather than any appreciation of aesthetics and context of the actual structure, but who knows for sure. Maybe I should knock on a few doors with my survey clipboard!

I know a few people in the existing tower and they think it's good-looking. Why wouldn't they? It's their home! "Yeah, I just paid $300,000 for a condo in a really ugly building!"

As for asking the entire city their opinion: likely the majority would say "no" to the tower. But the majority would also say "no" to pretty much anything except a magic teleporter that brought historic buildings back from the 19th century (and even then...). Clearly, this should not be our guiding principal in planning.

 

[syn]

Ah yes, more false choices.

Just as false as yours I presume?

You're suggesting that by building new structures among the old (and in this new tower's case, the demolished) they're creating new history.

The fact is, anything that's done is making history. They could tear all the buildings down and replace them with a sea of flagpoles and they'd be making history. City Hall could order the demolition of every heritage building in the city and have them replaced by trees, and they'd be making history.

The point here is that these developments do not respect the history the Distillery represents through its built form.

 

[Tewder]

The point here is that these developments do not respect the history the Distillery represents through its built form.

There are different ways to respect history. US has done a far better job than I could of describing how these buildings do respect their surroundings despite rising above them too...

I'm okay with this. The intent behind the revival of the Distillery was never to create a museum. The vision was to 'revitalize' a collection of heritage structures, creating a living and thriving District through the arts, design, entrepreneurship and residential etc. They have done this, and very successfully. The modern towers are just as much a part of the identity of this rising new neighbourhood as the original distillery buildings. Taken each on their own they have very different things to offer than when taken together as a symbol of a city that does indeed respect heritage while recognizing how vital it is to continue to create, to reinterpret, and to redefine urban spaces and the public realm. In this sense I don't see a huge difference between the Distillery and the continually evolving St. Lawrence market area.

 

[greenleaf]

If the towers weren't there, I think the Distillery would feel like some sort of Disneyland "Old-Timey Town", creating a bizarro dichotomy of authentic and inauthentic space occupying the same area. The Distillery would have the original built form, cobblestones, and other Victorian whimsies that make it feel real. However, standing in isolation, the District would turn its back on the community and in time make it feel quite fake.

The towers need to be there. They make the district feel like a neighbourhood rather than some fantasy Victorian World that one visits a couple times a year to remember how things used to be. Regardless of how tall the new buildings are or if they should have only been mid-rise buildings, the towers do integrate the Distillery with the rest of the city, and will be a part of the continuity of early 21st century Toronto style for spaces higher than 4 floors (podium & point tower; glass & brick architecture; Peter Clewes' work).