[Parkdalian]

Well, the voters of the Pug Awards respectfully disagree that Pure Spirit does not fit into the Distillery District. The building came in second place for residential.

I understand the meaning of blending or context - I may not be a senior member, but I am not soft in the head - what I'm saying is that some people are positioning fitting into the existing context as an unquestioned good. Whereas I feel that often the best art and the best neighbourhoods are created by changing or breaking the existing context in unexpected, exciting ways. Ya know, sometimes ugliness is actually beauty?

Sure, in residential streets you don't want a tall building mid-block to shadow back yards or create negative planning precedents, but these aren't the issue here. I find the Distillery energized by these additions. Precisely because they are not "respectful" they get the neighbourhood's blood flowing a bit.

 

[syn]

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.

Really. I thought we'd all be floating over the Distillery.

The picture was to demonstrate scale, something I didn't think you'd have trouble figuring out.

 

[Ramako]

I think that Clewes himself said it best:

A resounding vote against contextualism

JOHN BENTLEY MAYS
Globe and Mail

April 18, 2008 at 12:00 AM EDT

"They are wraparound buildings that are sculpted," Mr. Clewes said. "There's no deeper idea than that. They are simple, neutral buildings. But for us, what's important is always the spaces between the buildings, instead of the buildings themselves. There is a kind of hierarchy and progression in the spaces around the buildings.

Some years ago, when the Distillery District was under different management, three condominium blocks of a more conventional variety went up in the vicinity. The designers laboured hard to make the facades of these projects fit in among the weathered, attractively worn brick Victorian structures. So why not go along with critics who argue for more of such contextualism, a closer visual match of new buildings to old ones?

"Because they're wrong," Mr. Clewes said. "We need to create buildings of our time. Architecture is a record of where a city and a culture was at a particular time. This precinct is an industrial artifact, a social presence within the culture of Canada. It's important that we not blur the distinctiveness of this precinct, but rather amplify it. The exceptions in the urban framework articulate the city. The [earlier three towers, built before architectsAlliance's involvement] speak of a time in Toronto when people said, 'Let's be apologetic, let's say we're not inserting additional density in this precinct.' This isn't what we should do now."

 

[syn]

"Because they're wrong," Mr. Clewes said. "We need to create buildings of our time. Architecture is a record of where a city and a culture was at a particular time. This precinct is an industrial artifact, a social presence within the culture of Canada. It's important that we not blur the distinctiveness of this precinct, but rather amplify it. The exceptions in the urban framework articulate the city. The [earlier three towers, built before architectsAlliance's involvement] speak of a time in Toronto when people said, 'Let's be apologetic, let's say we're not inserting additional density in this precinct.' This isn't what we should do now."

He must really hate Mozo then.

 

[old boy]

I think that Clewes himself said it best:

One of the reasons I love Toronto is that it's so amorphous. Even though a lot of people will disagree, I think the city has shown respect for it's past by concerns such as " contextualism ". But it's no straitjacket either. Be thankful there are people llike Clewes around that are willing and able to turn received ideas on their head, at least up to the point that his idea might dominate. The last few years have been extraordinary with the next few years promising more, and better . This city will continue to surprise, you if you have a mind for it.

 

[Uncle Teddy]

He must really hate Mozo then.

King Street is mainly made up of 2 and 3 storey buildings in this part of town. One could argue Mozo did not fit in nor did Kings Court as both tower over the area. Or is 20 storeys OK but 35 not?

 

[Ramako]

King Street is mainly made up of 2 and 3 storey buildings in this part of town. One could argue Mozo did not fit in nor did Kings Court as both tower over the area. Or is 20 storeys OK but 35 not?

In addition, this part of town does not have a unitary design aesthetic in the same way that the Disterally does. Any distinctiveness that exists around Adelaide and Sherbourne is already blurred.

 

[grey]

Really. I thought we'd all be floating over the Distillery.

The picture was to demonstrate scale, something I didn't think you'd have trouble figuring out.

His point is perfectly valid. The impact of scale obviously changes with perspective.

 

[syn]

King Street is mainly made up of 2 and 3 storey buildings in this part of town. One could argue Mozo did not fit in nor did Kings Court as both tower over the area. Or is 20 storeys OK but 35 not?

If I recall Mozo is only 12-13 storeys.

 

[syn]

His point is perfectly valid. The impact of scale obviously changes with perspective.

Yes, and their impact obviously changes depending on where you`re standing. Unfortunately people won`t be standing right beside these towers or all bases all the time. He`d have us believe they won`t have that much of a visual impact from ground level when in the Distillery, but the fact is they will.

 

[grey]

Okay, so I'm standing on Mill Street and I can see the condo tower from a distance and I'm thinking "that tower being there offends me because it is very tall compared to the rest of these buildings."

I'm sorry, I just don't buy it.

 

[Urban Shocker]

Really. I thought we'd all be floating over the Distillery.

The picture was to demonstrate scale, something I didn't think you'd have trouble figuring out.

It doesn't demonstrate tower/podium/heritage building scale in the complex as a whole since it focuses on only one corner of the Distillery. And the scale of a tower changes in proportion to a podium beneath it, and to adjacent historical buildings, depending on how near or far you are from it. The scale of the CN Tower on our skyline in relation to the CBC headquarters on our skyline is quite different at Yonge and Sheppard than it is when you're at Front and John, for instance.

 

[Hipster Duck]

I understand the meaning of blending or context - I may not be a senior member, but I am not soft in the head - what I'm saying is that some people are positioning fitting into the existing context as an unquestioned good. Whereas I feel that often the best art and the best neighbourhoods are created by changing or breaking the existing context in unexpected, exciting ways.

That depends on where. Most people would be up in arms on this forum if suddenly a building were plopped in the grass forecourt of Mies' TD Centre, since it would ruin the integrity of the complex. That was my point initially - we have one of the finest ensembles of early industrial architecture in North America and our response is to build a 50-storey tower in the middle of it. I mean, I like a layered city as much as the next person, but where beauty already has established itself on the basis of a composition of unity, let's not mess with it.

Okay, so I'm standing on Mill Street and I can see the condo tower from a distance and I'm thinking "that tower being there offends me because it is very tall compared to the rest of these buildings."

I'm sorry, I just don't buy it.

Weren't you the guy who thought that the 1-storey LCBO at King and Spadina was an abomination? In terms of scale, that LCBO was a bad fit there and this tower is a bad fit here.

 

[grey]

Weren't you the guy who thought that the 1-storey LCBO at King and Spadina was an abomination? In terms of scale, that LCBO was a bad fit there and this tower is a bad fit here.

I was the one who kept reminding people that it was only a temporary abomination, but more to your point, yeah, one storey would have been an abomination at that location. I think the context there is different, though, and I'm not an extreme contextualist demanding blanket normalized heights everywhere. As I mentioned before, I'm not crazy about the Clewes/BJL proposal across from Roy Thompson Hall. To be totally honest, I wasn't in favour of point towers in the Distillery a few years ago, but having seen the result, I'm pretty happy with it.

 

[Parkdalian]

That depends on where. Most people would be up in arms on this forum if suddenly a building were plopped in the grass forecourt of Mies' TD Centre, since it would ruin the integrity of the complex. That was my point initially - we have one of the finest ensembles of early industrial architecture in North America and our response is to build a 50-storey tower in the middle of it. I mean, I like a layered city as much as the next person, but where beauty already has established itself on the basis of a composition of unity, let's not mess with it.

This comparison is a little off, don't you think? The TD Centre has massive historical design importance for the city due to the fact it was planned to look the way it does, and its cohesion is a central part of its design aeshetic. The Distillery District grew out of a gradual accumulation of buildings of varying styles as the Distillery slowly expanded. Although the Distillery's industrial architecture is important to Toronto's design history, its cohesion was not the central reason it was built the way it was. We see cohesion because it is all "Victorian architecture." Also, no one is building any towers in the "centre" of the Distillery District, either. The towers circle the periphery and arguably help frame the area.

A more fair comparison would be to what is happening to the O'Keefe Centre with the L Tower. I don't mind the L Tower, despite its Libeskind gimmickery (maybe because of it?), but I know some Modernist purists see it as a desecration of Dickinson's forms. If you are going to argue for contextualism, that might be the better wedge.