[syn]

Only to you, ganja and syn. Nobody else, at any level of government or in "heritage", lifted a finger or made a murmur about it as far as I know.

If I recall there was some controversy when these towers were proposed. Unfortunately the deal was done rather quietly (and quickly) with little-no opportunity for public input.

Just because the government doesn't protest a particular development doesn't make it appropriate.

 

[alklay]

Nobody...at any level of government or in "heritage", lifted a finger or made a murmur about it as far as I know.

A further wrong. But two wrongs do not make a right.

 

[adma]

FCP isn't just a signpost for the district - it fits in contextually as well.

Actually, the traditional party line's been that FCP was more of a context *violator*--esp. at street level: a low, banal, scaleless podium, clashing with older neighbours on Bay, wrecking a long blockfront of heritage buildings, wrecking the one-time symmetry btw/the TD Tower and the Toronto Star Building, etc. When it came to the critics in the 60s and 70s, Ed Stone couldn't win...

 

[ganjavih]

The podium may be weak, but nobody minds that there's a tall modern tower at that site.

The argument that no one in government lifted a finger to oppose this tower at the Distillery District being used as evidence that it was the right decision is laughable.

No matter how you look at it, it's shite.

 

[Tewder]

Works for me. A foreground of heritage against a backdrop of 'big city'. Layers! This is downtown, after all.

Still, I guess Boston has got it wrong too then?

farm3.static at Flickr

 

[ganjavih]

Funny, I was just reading an article about that. Many Bostonians aren't happy about the glassy highrises looming over the historic city centre. It is a slightly different situation though in that it's the city centre and you could argue the need for highrise buildings. Also, Boston's city centre has many large historic buildings that allow for more of a balance between the old and the new. It's the same idea as modern supertalls being built around the old skyscrapers at Yonge and King... much more appropriate. The Distillery District is much more sensitive to being overpowered.

 

[Tulse]

What I see in that photo, ganjavih, is an isolated area hived off from the rest of the city, something that is more like a small theme-park ("Olde-Tymey Town") than a living part of a metropolis.

In any case, the character of the whole area will change with the advent of the West Donlands redevelopment -- will you find those buildings similarly intrusive?

 

[ganjavih]

It depends on the height of the buildings that are closest to the Distillery. Most of the planned neighbourhood doesn't appear to consist of tall point towers though.

Interesting and unfortunate that the tallest buildings are clustered around the Distillery. Why? Unnecessary. Simply bad planning.

 

[alklay]

The theme park arguement baffles me too: the area is full of theatres, shops and restaurants, and surrounded by the city. How much more 'living' does it have to be? Does an area have to have point towers to be a 'living' area? Are the various neighbourhoods that do not have point towers in the middle of them, like the beaches or Annex, less 'living' than Cityplace?

And no one is arguing that there should not be residential in the neighbourhood. The argument is about built form.

 

[Urban Shocker]

Just because the government doesn't protest a particular development doesn't make it appropriate.

Just because you don't like it doesn't make it inappropriate.

The argument that no one in government lifted a finger to oppose this tower at the Distillery District being used as evidence that it was the right decision is laughable.

The argument was more along the lines that only a small, isolated, vocal subset of Urban Toronto had their noses out of joint when the hideous, windowless hulk of Rack House 'M' bit the dust.

No matter how you look at it, it's shite.

Actually, I think these images capture the play of verticals and horizontals, of new buildings with old, of brick and stone with glass and steel - and the perspective changes that are part of the dialogue Clewes sets up as you walk around this new residential, cultural and retail district - very nicely indeed.

 

[syn]

It depends on the height of the buildings that are closest to the Distillery. Most of the planned neighbourhood doesn't appear to consist of tall point towers though.

Interesting and unfortunate that the tallest buildings are clustered around the Distillery. Why? Unnecessary. Simply bad planning.

This is what I didn't understand either. The entire concept was to build this area with smaller towers...yet someone decided the Distillery needed the large ones? As a completely useless area, this would've been a great spot for some large, iconic 'signpost' towers. Some contextually appropriate mid-rises expanding from the Distillery would've been perfect.

 

[syn]

The theme park arguement baffles me too: the area is full of theatres, shops and restaurants, and surrounded by the city. How much more 'living' does it have to be? Does an area have to have point towers to be a 'living' area? Are the various neighbourhoods that do not have point towers in the middle of them, like the beaches or Annex, less 'living' than Cityplace?

And no one is arguing that there should not be residential in the neighbourhood. The argument is about built form.

You have no idea what you're talking about. Take Paris, for example. Aside from La Defense, it's a giant theme park. How could you not know that?

 

[Urban Shocker]

This is what I didn't understand either. The entire concept was to build this area with smaller towers...yet someone decided the Distillery needed the large ones? As a completely useless area, this would've been a great spot for some large, iconic 'signpost' towers. Some contextually appropriate mid-rises expanding from the Distillery would've been perfect.

It would be contextually inappropriate to copy the built form of the Distillery, since the vacant lands to the east of it aren't a disued former industrial complex.

 

[syn]

It would be contextually inappropriate to copy the built form of the Distillery, since the vacant lands to the east of it aren't a disued former industrial complex.

Right. So no more midrises anywhere in the city since we don't want to be copying the built form of a disused former industrial complex. Makes perfect sense.

 

[Rowe]

Oh god I can't wait for the West Don Lands. Thank you Pan Am.

Are the condos near the distillery district taller because they are close to a neighbourhood people want to live in?

Coming into the planning industry soon and I can say that heritage has been plowed into us (depending on the professor). Heritage is important to keep, and that is the beauty of the distillery district. From what I am reading it seems like some want a "NO DEVELOPMENT" belt around this district. The history will always be in the district, no glass tower can take that away from this area.