[alklay]

I want what US is smoking!!!

 

[Tewder]

Tewder, let's get this clear, I have never suggested maintaining the area as a museum.

I know that, and I am honestly not claiming you do.

Fascinating that words such as "appropriate" and "reasonable" bother you so much, [...]What is so wrong with such terms?

...because like the word 'moral' they are devoid of tangible meaning. They are subjective concepts, not objective ones. Case in point: what you feel is appropriate and what I feel is appropriate for the Distillery site are two completely different things."

One can turn this around and ask: are you believer in the unreasonable or a promoter of the inappropriate? One would hope not.

I'm sure to some people, I am....but that's not my point. I am a believer in, and promoter of, what I think works for the site in terms of new building design, aesthetics, urban planning etc.

As to subjective points of view, you're not trying to suggest that you have the objective, accurate and singularly correct view as to what is proper development for the area (or is it a case of anything goes because you like it)?

I'm not advocating that 'anything goes'. I am strongly for the protection and preservation of the heritage buildings themselves, and the site proper. From what I've seen of this, I like it a lot...especially the Yonge Centre!!

And no, I don't think my opinion is better or more informed than yours. My opinion is simply a reflection of what I'd like to see there.

 

[Hydrogen]

...because like the word 'moral' they are devoid of tangible meaning. They are subjective concepts, not objective ones. Case in point: what you feel is appropriate and what I feel is appropriate for the Distillery site are two completely different things."

No, words like "appropriate" and "reasonable" do not lack tangible meaning in how they are being utilized here; in fact their use is context-specific. Their use is not being employed as means to stating objective facts, but rather, they are used in a subjective manner. I thought this would have been obvious as at no point have I argued anything from an objective point of view; my posts - like yours - are stating a subjective points of view by virtue of the fact that aesthetic statements are being made.

The words I chose were originally used to make reference to the considerable differences in scale and size of the new projects being planned and built beside and directly within the confines of the Distillery area. Part of the original purpose for establishing the Distillery District was to maintain the original stock of buildings found in that area, and to find new uses for them. Present redevelopment plans call for the demolition of a number of these original buildings.

But if you dislike these specific words and how they are being used, maybe you should stay away from terms like "respectful" and "sympathetic," as they, too, could be construed as taking an objective stance. It still require some explanation as to how a nearly forty storey modernist tower will be "sympathetic" to the surrounding one and two storey brown-brick buildings across the laneway. It's not entirely clear how surrounding the immediate area with glassed-in parking, residential and retail buildings is "respectful." You might like these projects - which is fine - but you have not provided clear evidence concerning how such structures sympathize and respect the existing buildings - particularly when some of the buildings of the Distillery will be torn down to make way for these new developments. That's an interesting expression of "respect," wouldn't you say?

I'm sure to some people, I am....but that's not my point. I am a believer in, and promoter of, what I think works for the site in terms of new building design, aesthetics, urban planning etc.

Different people will have different points of view as to what's right and what's not. You might have all the beliefs in the world as to what works and so on, but you fall into the trap you accused me of earlier. What works for you may not work for others.

And no, I don't think my opinion is better or more informed than yours. My opinion is simply a reflection of what I'd like to see there.

That's more than fine! My concern is with what will be built there, because once it's there, it's staying there - be it a stroke of brilliance or horrible mistake, or anything in between.

 

[adma]

The pattern of attempting to link significant local buildings ( Union Station, the TD Centre, Old City Hall ) and sites ( Fort York ) to the hulking, windowless, disused, brick box of Rack House 'M' in order to create the impression of interchangeability continues ... and continues not to convince.

Ah, but notice that my more pertinent "significant local building/site" reference point was not the TD Centre, but what the TD bank pavilion replaced, i.e. Carrere & Hastings' Bank of Toronto.

And even with an inherently interesting philosophical question--especially in our days of revisionist studies of Robert Moses and his like: given what we gained back in 1966-68, are sacrifices like this still worth making today? Are they worth a second look? Especially when we look to the south at what *did* emanate from a later "heritage-friendly" age, at DX/Ernst & Young--which, some may argue, diminishes *both* the old Stock Exchange *and* Mies. Maybe the earlier uncompromising spirit of "necessary sacrifice" is superior to the latter-day spirit of necessary compromise?

As I've asked before: would the story of (and impression left by) the heritage preservation movement be different if Mies designed Penn Station's replacement?

Perhaps it's ambitious macro-issues and philosophical deconstructions like that re preservation that a lot of this line of discussion *really* should be headed into--which might, ultimately, turn the whole issue (or even the whole heritage movement) unto its head.

But as it stands, if I go by what I sense the general open-ended state-of-the-art heritage-activist-community mood out there c2007 (which *isn't* just about these sentimental strawmen of facadectomies and Pioneer Villages), if anything "does not convince", it's the method of US's persistence in demonizing "the hulking, windowless, disused, brick box of Rack House 'M'". In fact, I feel that said state-of-the-art would view his chirpiness about its demolition/reconstitution/whatever as bordering on heritage psychopathy. It isn't in the plans per se, it's in US's presentation of/attitude t/w them--which, perhaps, he might argue in terms of the existing demolished/reconstituted elements as ingredients in an architectural cuisine and heritage naysayers being like a "meat is murder" crowd, etc, who knows. Like everyone who'd take issue is a reactionary SAS-hating Stig Harvor toady, etc.

Though I do sense in US the germ of a certain "functionalist" revisionist approach to the heritage issue--sort of like Uno Prii's 77 Elm being rated higher than Rack House 'M' because it continued to serve a currently valid function and is "truer to our time". Trouble is (and all-but-totally separate from the merits of 77 Elm), it winds up negating what heritage has come to be all about; and to be honest, within heritage circles, it'd go over about as well as Bell Curve theory--even among those who aren't that bad w/Prii and/or 77 Elm.

Look, it isn't as if other US concepts/fantasies--for instance, turning the Toronto School into something like legislated style dogma--aren't bizarre and borderline fascistic, either...

 

[scarberiankhatru]

'Generic' structures like "hulking, windowless, disused, brick boxes" are so much more valuable when preserved precisely because they are never preserved. What's the point of saving any part of the distillery if we're going to pick and choose only the 'pretty/special' buildings? They're all disused brick boxes.

So they renovated most of them and said "...And......that's it! We've saved all that's worth saving! The rest shall be erased from memory and is no longer part of the district. If you disagree, too late! You should have been fighting this when you were in elementary school. Many of you feel sorry for this rack house...that is because you're crazy. It has no feelings and the condo is much better."

 

[Hipster Duck]

For context purposes, does anyone have a picture of the doomed "Rack M" warehouse and its surrounding buildings?

I would like to jump in on this conversation but I need a clearer idea of what building this is, and how it fits in with its surroundings.

Personally, I am sitting on the fence with respect to the Clear Spirit building.

My grounds for disliking it include the fact that it is about 9X taller than the next tallest historic building in the area, thus throwing off the scale and, perhaps more importantly, that it destroys the harmony of the campus of historic industrial buildings - perhaps some of the best preserved and most integrated in all of North America.

My grounds for liking it include the fact that the best urban areas are not museum pieces; that this is rather striking modern architecture that could be effectively juxtaposed against the historical fabric of the distillery district better than a low-rise brick structure that apes the heritage architecture.

 

[Sir Novelty Fashion]

Interesting analysis.

My own grounds for disliking it isn't the fact that the towers are 9x higher than the heritage district, but are 5x higher than the *new* low-midrise neighborhood the city wants to build here and in the West Donlands. It seems teriffically inconsistent to have these sticking up out of nowhere.

My grounds for liking it is that I like tall pointy objects. (Thus I'm on this forum.)

 

[CapitalSeven]

Good point, HiDu. There's so much argument from idealogical purity going on, that precious few seem to know or care what the sangreal, umm sorry wreckhouse, umm sorry rack house, in question looks like.

Many of the great buildings in the architectural canon were built on the wrecked (intentionally) foundations of their ancestors. Do *we* really want to lash ourselves to this hulk? What does it owe us? It held up the hooch that got our Victorian forbears squalidly drunk. Gee *thanks* G&W!

 

[scarberiankhatru]

Seems the distillery has been partially preserved so the condo will have something to be juxtaposed against. Of course, the condo could do the same across the street with all the other condos, juxtaposing without just imposing.

 

[Tewder]

No, words like "appropriate" and "reasonable" do not lack tangible meaning in how they are being utilized here; in fact their use is context-specific. Their use is not being employed as means to stating objective facts, but rather, they are used in a subjective manner..

...but the bottom line is that they are in fact subjective.

Part of the original purpose for establishing the Distillery District was to maintain the original stock of buildings found in that area, and to find new uses for them. Present redevelopment plans call for the demolition of a number of these original buildings.

I agree with you that this is wrong.

But if you dislike these specific words and how they are being used, maybe you should stay away from terms like "respectful" and "sympathetic," as they, too, could be construed as taking an objective stance..

To be fair though, contextually speaking, I used these words in reaction to people who were criticising highrise development at the Distillery as being unreasonable and inappropriate. I wasn't dismissing their perspective, I was trying to show that there can be another way to envision development for the site that can also be considered 'reasonable' or 'appropriate', and that is equally as 'context/site'-specific.

It still require some explanation as to how a nearly forty storey modernist tower will be "sympathetic" to the surrounding one and two storey brown-brick buildings across the laneway.

US has done a great job of explaining this viewpoint, and I think I've already commented on it.

Different people will have different points of view as to what's right and what's not. You might have all the beliefs in the world as to what works and so on, but you fall into the trap you accused me of earlier. What works for you may not work for others.

Agreed, but I don't think I have ever accused lowrise development for the Distillery as being inappropriate. I have called it 'mundane', which obviously is just my opinion.

 

[Edward Skira]

Looking at it from the west.

Looking at it from the east.

It looks to me that Rack House M is the taller building on the left past the bicycles. The one with the banner on it.

 

[Urban Shocker]

Dropping by a site and looking ( and - even better - seeing ) is always a useful thing to do. I get the impression that quite a few of those discussing these buildings haven't actually seen them in the flesh.

adma adds Carrere and Hastings's demolished Bank of Toronto building to the growing list of structures that are supposed to have interchangeability with the Distillery District ( specifically rack House 'M' ) when he asks "are sacrifices like this still worth making today?" I don't see how any sensible person could possibly equate the loss of the one with the recycling of the brick and wood from the other. More a mercy killing than a sacrifice, surely? Sometimes you have to destroy in order to create.

Hipster's "harmony of the campus of historic industrial buildings" is being enhanced by the addition of low-rise podium buildings that match them in scale and create more of the characteristic Distillery District narrow lanes between buildings. And the towers give us the design-opposite harmony ( new/old; short/tall; glass/brick ) that has been remarked upon previously by others.

Within the context of a city seeking to revitalize a former industrial site that fell into disuse, tall buildings are a perfectly acceptable way of creating "somewhere" out of "nowhere" ... surely?

 

[Edward Skira]

Photo by Mike In TO:

Building on the left.

 

[Urban Shocker]

Rack House 'M' is the tall building on the left of Ed's photograph with the metal fire escape stairs.

 

[scarberiankhatru]

Which is the nowhere...the whole distillery or just the rack house?