rdaner
Senior Member
^Holy Shit!
unimaginative2
Senior Member
I'm not an architect, but I can think of many possible uses. The interior of the Waterloo Seagram buildings are magnificent, despite their lack of windows, thanks to abundant natural light from above and preservation of the fascinating interior wood structure. There's no reason why the same can't be done at Toronto's distillery. Ugliness is obviously subjective, so I respect your judgment but my opinion and that of many others is that those rack houses are interesting and historic structures which make up a vital part of the built heritage of a National Historic Site.
Andrew3D
Active Member
And many of us think these new towers may improve on the area while enhancing the aesthetics of the distillery as well. If it were not for the developer of this project, most if not all of these structures may have started to fall into disrepair. Never mind the rack house, we could be losing a lot more right now.
I'm glad to be on Urban Shockers side of the fence on this one, no matter how much everybody bickers on here those towers will be built and those of us that are pro point will be happy in the end.
unimaginative2
Senior Member
I agree that the developers have taken many positive steps with respect to the restoration of the building. That doesn't mean that they should have the right to build anything they want on the site. I'd be happy if a developer were to restore Union Station, but that doesn't mean I'd support them tearing down the wings and putting up towers. TD Centre could use a little refurbishment, but that doesn't mean I'd want them filling the plaza with buildings.
ShonTron
Moderator
The proof will be in the pudding. I still think we could be headed for a real big mistake here, especially with the Pure Spirit Parkade.
If I learn to like it (they have to do a perfecto job), I'll be happy, but just really think this is juxaposition to the exteme when it should have never been necessary.
Jarrek
Active Member
Holy crap indeed. And what better place to put it then right in the middle of a historic district.
I mean, they've should have built a couple in the middle of Fort York as well!!!
I mean, they've should have built a couple in the middle of Fort York as well!!!
scarberiankhatru
Senior Member
Are you suggesting it should never have been necessary to lose the rack house to a condo to prevent the rack house from possibly being lost to time? I agree...it is a peculiar method of preservation.
Urban Shocker
Doyenne
Nobody has suggested that the developer should be given the right to build "anything they want" on the site. Spectral and vague theoretical futures for other buildings, on other sites, with other histories, with other owners, serving other purposes are conjured up ... that have nothing to do with what is actually happening in the Distillery District.
The first proposal went through the due process, and the construction of the first building is well under way. The dance between the developers and the City that will result in the next phase of building is now taking place, with several public meetings already held and attended by interested parties.
The first proposal went through the due process, and the construction of the first building is well under way. The dance between the developers and the City that will result in the next phase of building is now taking place, with several public meetings already held and attended by interested parties.
syn
Senior Member
It's possible to restore buildings. I think people are fooling themselves if they think Cityscape is taking these buildings down because they have no other choice.
scarberiankhatru
Senior Member
No no no, the rack house can't possibly be restored...it must be sacrificed to save the other buildings [that have already been saved]. A condo is the only option!
Urban Shocker
Doyenne
I think the narrow walkway they've created by situating the long Pure Spirit podium quite close to the original block of old buildings to the south of it - building on the existing sense of enclosed space that is characteristic of the Distillery District - will work well.
I like the angularity of Pure Spirit too - tower and podium are at angles to one another when you're up close - which matches views from the walkway of the original buildings ( walking west from Trinity Street along Distillery Lane ). At pedestrian level, the architects have expanded the essence of what is already there through thoughtful design decisions, and I believe the long arm building that will run along the south side of the site will give us more of the same. I think the spaces he creates between buildings are a notable strength of Clewes's designs.
I like the angularity of Pure Spirit too - tower and podium are at angles to one another when you're up close - which matches views from the walkway of the original buildings ( walking west from Trinity Street along Distillery Lane ). At pedestrian level, the architects have expanded the essence of what is already there through thoughtful design decisions, and I believe the long arm building that will run along the south side of the site will give us more of the same. I think the spaces he creates between buildings are a notable strength of Clewes's designs.
H
Hydrogen
Guest
I'm just hoping that every effort will be made to hide the parking garage behind something other than a wall that broadcasts that its hiding a parking garage.
Tewder
Senior Member
Quote:
I mean, how far should the preservation argument be taken? Are they advocating that the Distillery be maintained as a museum? Should we recreate the distillery complex in the style of a Black Creek Pioneer Village.
It's all a matter of degree, isn't it? On the one hand you are arguing that it is okay to pervert a historic site by changing the use and function of these buildings, updating them and re-envisioning how they relate to each another, while on the other hand decrying contemporary, highrise development around the site as somehow inappropriate or insensitive to the heritage status of the buildings?
Quote:
The Distillery buildings provide the impetus for the development of a new Toronto neighbourhood in an area that until recently was nothing but a wasteland of abandoned buildings in the midst of brown fields and urban blight.
I disagree, because as you say there are brownfields everywhere. In this context it is the Distillery itself that drives, and that is at the heart of development in the Distillery District area.
Quote:
Faux victorians or low rise/low density in-fill would be mundane and uninspired here
Well, this is only my opinion or hunch, but I do find faux anything to be somewhat mundane, and I find it hard to imagine that any development that would be so concerned with 'politeness' in terms of height and scale would not be equally polite in other ways, namely bold or daring design.
I mean, how far should the preservation argument be taken? Are they advocating that the Distillery be maintained as a museum? Should we recreate the distillery complex in the style of a Black Creek Pioneer Village.
It's all a matter of degree, isn't it? On the one hand you are arguing that it is okay to pervert a historic site by changing the use and function of these buildings, updating them and re-envisioning how they relate to each another, while on the other hand decrying contemporary, highrise development around the site as somehow inappropriate or insensitive to the heritage status of the buildings?
Quote:
The Distillery buildings provide the impetus for the development of a new Toronto neighbourhood in an area that until recently was nothing but a wasteland of abandoned buildings in the midst of brown fields and urban blight.
I disagree, because as you say there are brownfields everywhere. In this context it is the Distillery itself that drives, and that is at the heart of development in the Distillery District area.
Quote:
Faux victorians or low rise/low density in-fill would be mundane and uninspired here
Well, this is only my opinion or hunch, but I do find faux anything to be somewhat mundane, and I find it hard to imagine that any development that would be so concerned with 'politeness' in terms of height and scale would not be equally polite in other ways, namely bold or daring design.
ShonTron
Moderator
Again, the pro-condo people are exaggerating the feelings of those who take issue with what's happening and what's being proposed. Do we necessarily want a tourist trap? Do we want to ban residential uses? No. I think there is a consensus that the district can and needs to be more than a static museum, which has already taken place with creative and sympathetic reuse of the existing buildings.
I think the counter-arguments take the position that the new buildings are just too close, too overwhelming, too different in scale, and worried about the parking garage as a harbinger of things to come. There seems to be a sense that it's all or nothing, and it shouldn't be.
To repeat: It is not a "fear of heights". It is not a desire for a single-use tourist trap. It is a concern that the execution of the condo developments will an error that will be very hard to fix, and a loss of heritage - perhaps not the buildings themselves, but the intact collection of these buildings that is so rare here.
H
Hydrogen
Guest
I don't think anyone has argued that the Distillery be preserved as a museum, so there is no need to raise that strawman argument. The issue is appropriate development both immediately surrounding and directly within the area of the Distillery District. As for perverting history, spare me. Not once have I suggested restarting a Distillery in the area. The issue is about appropriate development.
Yes, it is a matter of degree, because no matter how good something is, there can always be too much of it. I think this is such a case. There is too much development being planned around and directly within this small collection of buildings. There is plenty of room immediately east. In terms of design, would it be difficult to suggest setting the taller buildings further back from the immediate area of the Distillery? Would it be so wrong to suggest building more to scale within the immediate area? Would any of this be so unreasonable? I'd like to see an argument that says it is so.
The Distillery can be considered an impetus development, but why does development automatically mean surrounding it with three very tall buildings right within the area? Is that all development means to you? Why the fixation with faux Victorians as the only possible alternative to what is going to be built in the area? It seems more than just a little odd to suggest such an either/or scenario, and as a result to close one's mind to the possible range of alternatives.