No.

Many of the films which get the most press do come out later of course, (because they chalk-full of stars possibly), but the vast majority do not come back.

Whether they come back or not is not always an indication of the quality of the film, either: some very good but quirky films just don't have a large enough potential audience in some distributors minds for them to shell out the bucks to distribute them. That is especially true for foreign language flicks, and it remains the exception rather than the rule for them to be released theatrically here.

42
 
Still others get release, but that ends up being a one week run at the Carlton that you have to scramble to get to.

Still others go straight to video. I'm still catching up on movies from the 04 festival on the movie channels.
 
"Jane Jacobs would still defend it on contemporary sterility..."

That's not enough of an argument in this specific case. Streets have to function well. Buildings have to have some architectural merit or beauty to preserve them. The strip across from Festival Tower has no architectural significance and this part of town has outgrown this cluster.

There are other credible arguments for its replacement.

It has been argued that Festival goers will not shop or stop in for coffee. They might not, but lots of other people would. It's a busy part of town, and getting busier.

It should also be acknowledged that the Toronto International Film Festival is probably the single biggest global cultural event Toronto stages. It is the Tourist Board's dream event. That single event hugely raises the prestige and visibility of Toronto globally. Optics are important here.

A large building of scale taking up the entire block would be a welcome addition. Great height is not necessary or particularly desirable in this location, but scale is. This area demands drama, glamour, innovation, flare, sexiness, and modernity. The development must convey all of this.

Perhaps a development that vastly contrasts, yet compliments with what will surround it.

Got a SketchUp started on that already.
 
"Jane Jacobs would still defend it on contemporary sterility..."

That's not enough of an argument in this specific case. Streets have to function well. Buildings have to have some architectural merit or beauty to preserve them. The strip across from Festival Tower has no architectural significance and this part of town has outgrown this cluster.
Click to expand...

(1) How, pray tell, does King Street *not* function well with the existing strip across from Festival Tower--other that, maybe, its being too old and too modest and, well, "outgrown" by your standards?

(2) How is said strip devoid of "architectural merit or beauty"--unless you judge said "merit or beauty" through the absolutism of glossy contemporary archi-porn and a few token best-of-the-bests of the past? Yes, maybe it's not "significant" by Old City Hall standards; but the manner in which you state your case treats whatever urbanist paradigm shifts Jane Jacobs begat the same way Fox News treats whatever feminist paradigm shifts Betty Friedan begat. That is, you have to account for things in less blithe a manner--just because *you* say it doesn't "function well", doesn't mean it doesn't.

It should also be acknowledged that the Toronto International Film Festival is probably the single biggest global cultural event Toronto stages. It is the Tourist Board's dream event. That single event hugely raises the prestige and visibility of Toronto globally. Optics are important here.

A large building of scale taking up the entire block would be a welcome addition. Great height is not necessary or particularly desirable in this location, but scale is. This area demands drama, glamour, innovation, flare, sexiness, and modernity. The development must convey all of this.
Click to expand...

Yes, "optics are important here". And if you scratch a little more deeply, plenty of TIFF visitors and superstars do *not* find anything wrong with the existing scale across from the Festival Centre. In fact, when they consider what's being lost, they'd think what you're proposing is a waste--and it's nothing to to with overwrought matters of "architectural distinction". It's the old Jane Jacobs trickle-down effect.

What you're proposing is a slick, wooden-headed parvenu rendition of "drama, glamour, innovation, flare, sexiness, and modernity"--wooden-headed in the way you're dismissing existing conditions as nothing more than a trifle. Okay, maybe there is a certain Hollywood crowd that'd go for that; but it might be the kind of crowd which'd demolish a noted Neutra or Schindler design for a glitzy ultracontemporary showoff. (And with the alibi that said Neutra and Schindler "doesn't function well" in 2007.)

Got a SketchUp started on that already.
Click to expand...

And the message here is..."Lookit me! Me got a SketchUp!" Me big sophisticated computerized architectural design fellow!"

Finally, re

"Jane Jacobs would still defend it on contemporary sterility..."
Click to expand...

It makes no sense, because you didn't quote me properly. "Over contemporary sterility", not "on contemporary sterility"...
 
It should also be acknowledged that the Toronto International Film Festival is probably the single biggest global cultural event Toronto stages. It is the Tourist Board's dream event. That single event hugely raises the prestige and visibility of Toronto globally. Optics are important here.

A large building of scale taking up the entire block would be a welcome addition. Great height is not necessary or particularly desirable in this location, but scale is. This area demands drama, glamour, innovation, flare, sexiness, and modernity. The development must convey all of this.
Click to expand...
I guess every world city in Europe didn't get the memo. Demolish all the outdated buildings on the Champs Elysees! Oxford St isn't modern and dramatic enough!

I hope we've learned not to demolish old buildings in the name of glamour and flare by now. This isn't Shanghai.
 
I think what you're describing is a bunch of older houses turned into restaurants, siting in front of an empty parking lot.

but that empty parking lot is being turned into a monster, modern building that will effectively cut off all sight lines looking north; all you'll be able to see when standing on that little strip is glass and more glass.

I think the effect of having both the big and new on one side, and the older and smaller on the other, will be a nice contrast.
 
I was totally taken by surprise the other night when I noticed that the Film Centre was ACTUALLY under construction.

I was skeptical back in February when they held yet another “ground-breaking†event. So glad to see that ugly surface parking lot in the middle of the entertainment district gone!

Louroz
 
ouch.

adma decapitates another heretic.

I'll now ask his corpse a question: with all of the miserable, ragged, and incoherent strips of streetfront in this city, why would you recommend demolishing such a robustly inhabited and architecturally complete block? There clearly better places for you to live out your sketch-up fantasies.

Toronto is relatively short on downtown, historic architecture, and while I am no dogmatic preservationist by any means, it seems obvious that this is a place with some level of critical mass. Toronto is a city of fragments and juxtapositions of period, style, and scale - it works best when it veers away from monolithic visions. I would think that the more high density, neomodern projects that surround it, the more this strip will be treasured as an idiosyncratic jewel.
 
...and let's get the word 'charm' in here too. It may not be as cute as the south side of Front, east of Scott, but the south side of King, packed with restaurants here, actually has a little charm. I would be very disappointed to see it disappear, antd I hope the city has the strongest possible protections in place to preserve it.

42
 
Quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
It should also be acknowledged that the Toronto International Film Festival is probably the single biggest global cultural event Toronto stages. It is the Tourist Board's dream event. That single event hugely raises the prestige and visibility of Toronto globally. Optics are important here.

A large building of scale taking up the entire block would be a welcome addition. Great height is not necessary or particularly desirable in this location, but scale is. This area demands drama, glamour, innovation, flare, sexiness, and modernity. The development must convey all of this.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------


I guess every world city in Europe didn't get the memo. Demolish all the outdated buildings on the Champs Elysees! Oxford St isn't modern and dramatic enough!

I hope we've learned not to demolish old buildings in the name of glamour and flare by now. This isn't Shanghai.
Click to expand...

And this isn't Europe! Go.
 
And this isn't Europe! Go.
Click to expand...

Maybe we should level that entire row and make it a parking lot, to retain some of the area's current charm after the modern Festival Centre is complete.
 
P1040151.jpg


^
I can't believe anyone would have any objections to this. Many cities' downtowns feature similar neighbourhoods, except on a larger scale. An area like this would be my ultimate dream for the waterfront.
 
And this isn't Europe! Go.
Click to expand...

While it'd be silly to declare this row on a level with Haussmann Paris, it's absolutely nitwit-parvenu-yuppie asinine to offer the alibi that rows like this are blithely expendable just because "this isn't Europe". Sort of like the yokel argument that we shouldn't be bothering with preservation at all because there are buildings hundreds of years older across the pond.

Ironically, though, the Champs Elysees has itself been architecturally (and, of course, commercially) torn apart and vulgarized over the generations--it only seems otherwise because of the urbanism, and the mythology...
 
You must log in or register to post here.

Back
Top