rdaner
Senior Member
^Holy Shit!
And then what would you do with the ugly, windowless, steel-reinforced brick box you've created?
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.
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.
it should have never been necessary.
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.
Did anyone suggest such a thing? I think not; so why bring it up?
Actually, from my point of view the brownfields are the impetus for development (as in the waterfront redevelopment efforts). The Distillery was already there. There were already a number of condos built in the area.
How do you know this? One must assume potential outcomes largely depend on the specifics of an actual plans.
I completely agree with US, and the irony here is that his approach is actually *more* sympathetic and *more respectiful* to the notion of a Distillery 'district', than is that of the 'purists' around here. 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? My sense is no.
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?
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.