[Parkdalian]

Syn, I think the issue here is more that people don't really understand by what you mean by "respectful." I think the towers as they are, are respectful of their neighbourhood. By "respectful" do you mean:

1. They should be shorter.
2. They should not be modern in design.
3. They should not feature glass or steel.
4. Or something else?

If you do mean any of these things, why do you think these concerns represent "respect" more than the buildings do now?

A Clewes tower in Riverdale would shade backyards - a legitimate concern for homeowners whose property values would decline because of this. Here, shade is not really an issue. Are you concerned they ruin postcard images of the neighbourhood? You can still take plenty of those without the towers.

Do they ruin the neighbourhood's old-timey feeling for you? I think this might be what you are trying to get at, and what many people here revolt against. Although history is important, we shouldn't be lulled into the feeling that we are immersing ourselves in another time by strolling through the Distillery District with a Balzac's coffee in our hands. The current use of the Distillery is very different from its original use, and although a connection to the past is important, we will never have an "authentic" feeling of history in this neighbourhood no matter how hard we try. If the area was "authentic," for instance, we would be presented with overworked factory employees toiling in what we consider inhuman conditions. So, we shouldn't try to fake a feeling of the past. We should, instead, forge ahead to build something new and interesting that retains portions of the past.

 

[syn]

Syn, I think the issue here is more that people don't really understand by what you mean by "respectful." I think the towers as they are, are respectful of their neighbourhood. By "respectful" do you mean:

1. They should be shorter.
2. They should not be modern in design.
3. They should not feature glass or steel.
4. Or something else?

If you do mean any of these things, why do you think these concerns represent "respect" more than the buildings do now?

This has been mentioned numerous times throughout this thread by myself and others, but it's a long thread so you may've missed it. The collection of towers going up are completely out of scale with the heritage buildings in the district. The building going up will include a large glass and brick wall enclosing the south side, almost making the district seem like a series of condo amenities than a well planned neighbourhood. (http://www.architectsalliance.com/portfolio/in-progress/distillery-district).

Architects Alliance came up with an excellent development in Mozo, a critically acclaimed success. A similar approach would've worked very well in the Distillery.

A Clewes tower in Riverdale would shade backyards - a legitimate concern for homeowners whose property values would decline because of this. Here, shade is not really an issue. Are you concerned they ruin postcard images of the neighbourhood? You can still take plenty of those without the towers.

That's but one concern. Would the pros outweigh the cons? I'm willing to bet if a Clewes condo was going up in Riverdale a certain fan of modernism would find some way to defend it.

Do they ruin the neighbourhood's old-timey feeling for you? I think this might be what you are trying to get at, and what many people here revolt against. Although history is important, we shouldn't be lulled into the feeling that we are immersing ourselves in another time by strolling through the Distillery District with a Balzac's coffee in our hands. The current use of the Distillery is very different from its original use, and although a connection to the past is important, we will never have an "authentic" feeling of history in this neighbourhood no matter how hard we try. If the area was "authentic," for instance, we would be presented with overworked factory employees toiling in what we consider inhuman conditions. So, we shouldn't try to fake a feeling of the past. We should, instead, forge ahead to build something new and interesting that retains portions of the past.

I have no problem with blending the old and new. Toronto is a city that has an unfortunate history of replacing the old with the new, rather than integrating the two. Unlike London, Paris, etc. Toronto has few historic districts. I think the design of additions to the area deserve a little more consideration than simply trying put the largest condos possible there. Again, I'll point to Mozo as an excellent project that fit the context of its area perfectly. The scale, massing, use of materials all resulted in a distinctly modern building that fit in perfectly with the other existing historic structures in the area.

While these may be nice towers in their own right, I get the feeling in the future people may look back at the Distillery with it's collection of large towers and ask "What were they thinking?!!"

 

[Urban Shocker]

Taken as a whole, as a complex that includes both heritage buildings and new residential towers, the scale of the new buildings is welll integrated. The new podium buildings are in proportion to the earlier distillery buildings and work in consort with them to expand the network of pedestrian lanes that is characteristic of the complex. From a distance, when construction is complete, the three towers will signpost the district - the heritage buildings won't be visible at all. Up close, as has been pointed out before, the mass and large floor plate of the Gooderham & Worts buildings more than outweighs the visual mass of the point towers, particularly when you take into account the foreshortening effect that takes place as you get closer to the base of a tower. I noticed that last week, as I walked from east to west through the complex. Tower shrinkage and podium growth! Try it, you'll like it.

 

[Parkdalian]

Architects Alliance came up with an excellent development in Mozo, a critically acclaimed success. A similar approach would've worked very well in the Distillery.

I have no problem with blending the old and new. Toronto is a city that has an unfortunate history of replacing the old with the new, rather than integrating the two. Unlike London, Paris, etc. Toronto has few historic districts. I think the design of additions to the area deserve a little more consideration than simply trying put the largest condos possible there. Again, I'll point to Mozo as an excellent project that fit the context of its area perfectly. The scale, massing, use of materials all resulted in a distinctly modern building that fit in perfectly with the other existing historic structures in the area.

While these may be nice towers in their own right, I get the feeling in the future people may look back at the Distillery with it's collection of large towers and ask "What were they thinking?!!"

I like Mozo, too, but does everything have to be built like it? Do you not like the Radio City/National Ballet School? If mixing different styles and sizes can be done elsewhere, why not here?

I feel like what you are saying is that the Distillery District is so precious that any modern additions should essentially not be noticeable. Clear/Pure Spirit "stick out"; Mozo does not. The modern additions should be like the bridesmaids next to the bride. Which is a fine point of view, but it's valuing the old over the modern simply for its oldness. "Toronto has few historic districts" - if the rest of Toronto is a mix of styles and heights, why shouldn't this part, too? Shouldn't the District be a living, breathing part of the city, and not a "historic district" - aka, a museum?

 

[ganjavih]

Shouldn't the District be a living, breathing part of the city, and not a "historic district" - aka, a museum?

Who says that historic districts aren't living breathing parts of cities? Just because Toronto doesn't have any, it doesn't mean they have no value.

I feel like what you are saying is that the Distillery District is so precious that any modern additions should essentially not be noticeable.

No, that's not what he means. He (and I) mean they should be respectful. Mozo is respectful, and quite visible.

Good blending

Bad blending

 

[syn]

I like Mozo, too, but does everything have to be built like it? Do you not like the Radio City/National Ballet School? If mixing different styles and sizes can be done elsewhere, why not here?

Where did I write that everything has to be built like Mozo? I'm referring to a very specific context here (The Distillery)

I feel like what you are saying is that the Distillery District is so precious that any modern additions should essentially not be noticeable. Clear/Pure Spirit "stick out"; Mozo does not. The modern additions should be like the bridesmaids next to the bride. Which is a fine point of view, but it's valuing the old over the modern simply for its oldness. "Toronto has few historic districts" - if the rest of Toronto is a mix of styles and heights, why shouldn't this part, too? Shouldn't the District be a living, breathing part of the city, and not a "historic district" - aka, a museum?

Ganjavih covered this nicely. There are many vibrant historic districts around the world. As you've pointed out, there's a lot of areas in the city with a mix of styles and heights; why does it have to be the same in the Distillery, a relatively small area that's going to be dominated by these massive buildings?

 

[Urban Shocker]

Despite your obsession with the idea that some sort of built Godzilla stalks the Distillery, the footprints of the three towers will be very small compared to that covered by historic buildings on the site and the new podiums. Reading your posts I sometimes wonder if you've ever been there, or have judged the visual weight of the tower against the historic buildings as you walk around the site, before you regurgitate your same old whine about "massive buildings". Allthough the towers are visible from a distance ( and the older buildings aren't ) the situation is quite different when you're walking through the Distillery - though God forbid reality should ever intrude into your carefully constructed fantasy world.

 

[syn]

Despite your obsession with the idea that some sort of built Godzilla stalks the Distillery, the footprints of the three towers will be very small compared to that covered by historic buildings on the site and the new podiums. Reading your posts I sometimes wonder if you've ever been there, or have judged the visual weight of the tower against the historic buildings as you walk around the site, before you regurgitate your same old whine about "massive buildings". Allthough the towers are visible from a distance ( and the older buildings aren't ) the situation is quite different when you're walking through the Distillery - though God forbid reality should ever intrude into your carefully constructed fantasy world.

Yes, I've been there on a number of occasions. Have you? It seems like anything produced by one of your favourite architects gets a thumbs up.

As you can see, it'll have a significant presence. The visual weight of the tower is going to be completely out of scale with the existing buildings (and yes, I am aware the tower will only take up a portion of that base).

 

[grey]

The visual weight of the tower is going to be completely out of scale with the existing buildings

From where, that aerial view? We already have the example of Pure Spirit's beautifully scaled podium and setbacks resulting in an unintrusive presence. It is physically there and you can literally experience it right now at ground level. How will this site be any different?

 

[syn]

From where, that aerial view? We already have the example of Pure Spirit's beautifully scaled podium and setbacks resulting in an unintrusive presence. It is physically there and you can literally experience it right now at ground level. How will this site be any different?

I'll quote HipsterDuck who put it quite nicely earlier in the thread:

I disagree with that statement. The towers clearly stand out from nearly every vantage point in the Distillery district unless you are facing away from them - in which case you will soon be confronted by the new tower in the future. I don't necessarily have a problem with contemporary architecture in a historical setting, but it has to pay deference to the structures in the area that made the place so desirable to begin with. While the distillery district is not a museum, it does preserve a near perfect record of industrial architecture of the period in a campus-like setting. Great industrial architecture from the 19th century is a dime a dozen; several great examples of 19th century industrial architecture that work together as an ensemble is as rare as hen's teeth and, frankly, a glass tower taller than the chimneys that were once the campaniles of this complex ruins that ensemble-like feel.

To put it in an analogy that modernist sympathizers would begin to understand, this would be like taking a really fine example of lowrise modern campus architecture - say Saarinen's GM technical center in Warren, MI or Ron Thom's Trent University - and building some sort of PoMo highrise of 50 storeys smack dab in the center of it. Would this ruin the striking beauty of these ensembles? Absolutely.

 

[grey]

I respectfully disagree. When you're standing next to Pure Spirit, it doesn't feel as though you're standing next to a huge tower. It feels just like one of the wider Distillery streets. From street-level vantage points where the tower is visible, I think it enhances, not ruins, the ensemble-like feel of the Victorian buildings. The orange, brown and green tones of the brick Victorian structures stand out vibrantly against the minimalist, monotone tower and its clean lines. The tower doesn't draw attention to itself. The tower setback on the podium protects the street experience from close up, and despite the materials and design, which are completely out of place in the district's time period, the eye is not drawn to the tower in the presence of the Victorian environment from further away. This, for me (and I think 90% of other people who don't post on forums for architecture and urban planning geeks) is why it works.

I don't have the time track them down, but there are many, many really good examples of modernist design blended with historic buildings. PureClearGooderhamSpirit are good examples. BJL's point tower next to the Royal Alex is an example that doesn't work so well.

 

[syn]

I respectfully disagree. When you're standing next to Pure Spirit, it doesn't feel as though you're standing next to a huge tower. It feels just like one of the wider Distillery streets. From street-level vantage points where the tower is visible, I think it enhances, not ruins, the ensemble-like feel of the Victorian buildings. The orange, brown and green tones of the brick Victorian structures stand out vibrantly against the minimalist, monotone tower and its clean lines. The tower doesn't draw attention to itself. The tower setback on the podium protects the street experience from close up, and despite the materials and design, which are completely out of place in the district's time period, the eye is not drawn to the tower in the presence of the Victorian environment from further away. This, for me (and I think 90% of other people who don't post on forums for architecture and urban planning geeks) is why it works.

I don't have the time track them down, but there are many, many really good examples of modernist design blended with historic buildings. PureClearGooderhamSpirit are good examples. BJL's point tower next to the Royal Alex is an example that doesn't work so well.

In the Distillery I find the tower impossible to miss. It may have clean lines but the contrast is what makes it so noticable. I actually have the least issue with the current tower. When the next two show up, however, it'll be difficult, if not impossible to miss them.

 

[Urban Shocker]

Why would one want to miss out on any fine contemporary architecture - the Three Graces of the Distillery especially?

It seems like anything produced by one of your favourite architects gets a thumbs up.

Anything? Everything, surely? He's not known as The Great Man for nothing.

 

[Urban Shocker]

As you can see, it'll have a significant presence. The visual weight of the tower is going to be completely out of scale with the existing buildings (and yes, I am aware the tower will only take up a portion of that base).

Pedestrians will not experience the Distillery from that aerial perspective. They will experience it from street level, where the podium and historic distillery buildings form the majority of their field of vision and the towers will be increasingly foreshortened as they are approached.

 

[junctionist]

"Toronto has few historic districts" - if the rest of Toronto is a mix of styles and heights, why shouldn't this part, too? Shouldn't the District be a living, breathing part of the city, and not a "historic district" - aka, a museum?

If variety is a spice of urban life, what's wrong with a city that can boast a mix of historic districts and districts with a lot of variety? Historic districts are living, breathing parts of cities where modern life happens in a preserved architectural context, not museums. The shops sell modern goods and the people in the apartments and hotels are live contemporary lifestyles. They're better than museums of the pioneer village variety because the buildings continue to be truly functional and enjoyed while modern life happens inside and out. (Plus, there's no admissions fee.)