[adma]

Adma I understand your passion for preserving this block and your points are valid. Ideally there will be a way of doing this while maintaining the overall vision of this project. However I, like so many others in this thread, deem this project worthy enough to make the sacrifice here if necessary.

A city is the sum of all of its parts and thriving city’s are progressive and at times make sacrifices for the greater good. I am indifferent to most of what is being built in this city, but this project excites me because it elevates the level of architecture in the city and I believe it will have a profoundly positive effect (more so than what is currently there).

Actually, it isn't really about *my* passion for preserving the block at this point--and as you can tell, my position on Gehry is more anti-Traynor than anything. But the bigger nub of the problem, and I *don't* want this dragged into the matter of the future of the existing structures here, might be...your indifference. Not only to "most of what is being built in this city"; but preemptively, t/w most or all too much of what *already* exists in the city. And, perhaps, *any* city. And not just about yourself, but about a certain subtle or not-so-subtle "mass sentiment" that *isn't* dependent upon crutches of dazzling-new-construction.

So, in a way, this argument isn't just about the Mirvish/Gehry block, but about virtually everything else that exists along King, or Queen, or Yonge, etc. Regardless of whether it's threatened or not. And despite all appearances, what I'm trying to convey is the *inverse* of elitism--y'know, about how real people perceive the city in real time, as opposed to projects-and-development geeks in projects-and-development-related forums...

 

[Northern Magus]

Ah, but consider what the CN Tower was to be part of--Metro Centre. And even if that came to be and might well be regarded today as a "great project" had it been built to John Andrews' specifications...in the end, we're likely better off that it didn't come to be. We still have old Union Station, after all.

To repeat: the rich totality of urbanism is about more than just these so-called "great achievements"; and to lionize them as the be-all and end-all is, well, once again, a "Victoria's Secret" approach to urban beholding...

And note: this isn't a knock on Mirvish/Gehry.

Sorry, you lost me at Victoria's Secret. Somehow I got distracted.

 

[RiverCity1]

Rather bizarre turn of events. From TMI stories for justification, excessive analysis, and insistent need to attack other's taste and intelligence. It's architect for casual discussion, that's all. Take it easy. No point in constantly having the need to belittle those who may have opposing views.

The ironic part of the "13 yr old" term is that Traynor's exit reminded me of the brat who shouts "I'm going to take my ball and go home"!

So true. That's what I found ironic, too. Plus, all that talk of Star Wars and Transformers movies left me puzzled

I'm surprised by how dogmatic some people can get in a private forum and don't realize how much of a bully they are to others. Most of my friends who are members of UT don't contribute anything to the forums because of these condescending members and how they attack anyone who doesn't "get" what they are talking about. They say it's not worth contributing their knowledge (and some of it is vast)!

 

[freshcutgrass]

So, in a way, this argument isn't just about the Mirvish/Gehry block, but about virtually everything else that exists along King, or Queen, or Yonge, etc. Regardless of whether it's threatened or not.

Of course it is. But the sacrifice to the alter of progress cannot be avoided all together can it? More importantly, it shouldn't.

Dare I say....the purge is actually good for us. The problem is, we don't really get to choose in advance. We just have to take them as they come....and sometimes we don't see them coming (like this proposal). All we can do is react and cheer for those preserved and mourn the losses. Plenty of people lamented the loss of the collection of old warehouses to build the Eaton Centre, but we saved Old City Hall and Holy Trinity. There's a lesson to be learned from every incident. Ironically enough, it is the unsympathetic "renovations" to the HIGH-TECH aesthetic of TEC that is of concern.

One anecdote we came up with to fool ourselves into thinking we can have our cake and eat it to, is to incorporate all or part (facadism) of the existing structure(s) into the new development. This isn't a bad idea...but you can't employ it in every scenario, so the trick is to decide when it's better to use it....and when it isn't. Could the Beaux-Arts Bank of Toronto building have been incorporated into the TD Centre? Sure...it could have (and that was a substantial building of pedigree). But they decided that it was best to give the architect carte-blanche and facadism was not part of Mies's vision for this project (I'm quite sure Mies didn't lose a second's sleep over ordering it demolished).

Those who lament the loss of every brick in the city are simply the equivalent of municipal hoarders, and hoarding is not a healthy habit. And this project is on the level of a TEC or a TD Centre. So to let a couple of completely forgettable little brick warehouses stand in the way is giving into the hoarders. This would represent the unhealthy part of the progress process.

 

[Tewder]

freshcutgrass,


What a great post. I agree with a lot of what you have to say. Two points that do come to mind:

1. If i'm reading Adma correctly he's arguing for thoughtfulness with respect to the existing built form, and though your 'hail the triumphs/lament the losses' approach nods to this it still strikes me as somewhat defeatist, suggesting as it does that ultimately we are helpless victims when it comes to heritage... and maybe we are when faced with such powerful conflicting interests (aka 'progress')? Yet...

2. Perhaps 'progress' is in the retention of existing forms, adapting them creatively, looking at them as opportunities rather than obstacles. In other words, perhaps it is the blockbusting TDC/TEC/Mirvish-Gehry approach to development that is the outmoded approach?

 

[interchange42]

The points are one in the same.

Sheesh.... my "Not too bright" statement stands.

I will break it down into one syllable words if necessary.

And here I ended up arguing with a 13 year old after all. Silly me.

I am done.

You are done. That level of condescension is pretty sickening, totally against the rules, and you know it. Goodbye.

42

 

[adma]

freshcutgrass,


What a great post. I agree with a lot of what you have to say. Two points that do come to mind:

1. If i'm reading Adma correctly he's arguing for thoughtfulness with respect to the existing built form, and though your 'hail the triumphs/lament the losses' approach nods to this it still strikes me as somewhat defeatist, suggesting as it does that ultimately we are helpless victims when it comes to heritage... and maybe we are when faced with such powerful conflicting interests (aka 'progress')? Yet...

2. Perhaps 'progress' is in the retention of existing forms, adapting them creatively, looking at them as opportunities rather than obstacles. In other words, perhaps it is the blockbusting TDC/TEC/Mirvish-Gehry approach to development that is the outmoded approach?

Also, definitions of "retention-worthy" change w/time; and even w/things like Mies and the Eaton Centre, we always have to remember--just because we did it such-and-such a way then, doesn't mean we would or ought to today. F'rinstance, my "imagine if John Andrews' Metro Centre was built" argument: a paraphrase of freshcutgrass might be making this argument today...

Could John Lyle's Union Station have been incorporated into Metro Centre? Sure...it could have (and that was a substantial building of pedigree). But they decided that it was best to give the architect carte-blanche and facadism was not part of John Andrews' vision for this project (I'm quite sure Andrews didn't lose a second's sleep over ordering it demolished).

Something to consider.

And also remember that my earlier point of attack vs. skyrise regarded not so much TD or Eaton Centre (or Gehry), but FCP--a complex which, for all its height and scale, has been subject to a historically much more mixed response. And the "sacrificing the Bank of Toronto for Mies" alibi doesn't quite wash so easily when it comes to the old Star and Globe and BMO etc that were sacrificed for FCP--of course, that may not register for those who weren't alive then; but it's issues like that that sparked the preservation movement in the first place. To hail FCP today as an exemplar of "once upon a time, Toronto thought big, built big, etc" simply doesn't "ring true" in the same way that it does for TD. And it's not just or even primarily about what it replaced; it's about how it was deemed: blockbusting Edward Durell Stone schlock on the wrong side of urban history, w/the demolition a salt-on-the-wound accessory to the act. Stuff like FCP, or even more so NYC's WTC (or for that matter, MSG replacing Grand Central as the grandaddy of them all), were the archi-urban negative-epiphany equivalent of the "plastics" quote in The Graduate. (The Eaton Centre, though, was let off the negative-judgment hook, largely because Zeidler's high-tech was regarded as less retrograde-banal than Stone's Carrara-obsession--then again, by Traynor's standard, Zeidler's 70s-style high-tech obsession might as well be deemed one-trick-pony banal a la Gehry. Which you can take as a warning against the heavy-handedness of Traynor-esque judgments.)

And finally, for the umpteenth time: when I talk about "thoughtfulness" and "appreciation for the old", I mean it in a way that, even if it's a common accessory to building-hugging, is as strategically divorced from building-hugging as possible--even when it comes to the Mirvish/Gehry block. Yeah, I know a lot of you are antsy and suspicious because you regard it as a threatening fly in the ointment re the present project--but it's not about "saving", or "building": it's about "perceiving". And skyrise and Traynor are guilty of the same defect: of putting too many eggs into the coffee-table-scaled "grand projects" basket. When in fact, most people aren't like that--and it's no accident that the rise of architectural tourism over the past few decades has hinged at least as much upon the "old stuff" as the new and snazzy, all the more so when one considers that it was losses like Penn Station which sparked that rampant preemptive interest in and fascination with the pre-existing.

Like the authors of volumes like these were in-deep w/the architectural preservation movement--and it shows.

Though I suspect that some of that equilibrium's been upset or fraught by schism over the past generation--blame in part starchitecture and the backlash to postmodernism, blame in part the Prince Charles types terminally tarring the embrace of the old as reactionary fuddy-duddy, blame in part a generation conditioned more through glossy websites and skyscraper/development forums than through volumes like those illustrated above...

 

[bmiller]

I hope there is a direction from the city soon regarding their feelings on this project so this thread can get back on topic. I may be alone on this, but we are way off topic.

 

[freshcutgrass]

your 'hail the triumphs/lament the losses' approach nods to this it still strikes me as somewhat defeatist, suggesting as it does that ultimately we are helpless victims when it comes to heritage.

Technically, everything qualifies, or will qualify....as "heritage". It can't all be retained....and nor should it. City building involves a certain amount of purging and rebuilding anew. This isn't a defeatist attitude...it's a realistic one. Realizing that mortality is inevitable is not defeatist....looking at it as being "helpless victims" is defeatist IMO.

Perhaps 'progress' is in the retention of existing forms, adapting them creatively, looking at them as opportunities rather than obstacles. In other words, perhaps it is the blockbusting TDC/TEC/Mirvish-Gehry approach to development that is the outmoded approach?

I don't think it's as simple as one or the other. I think it's both...and a lot more. But preservation for the sake of preservation is what I find to be a weak argument, as it implies everything can and should be preserved, which simply isn't true (or possible really).

I really don't think large scale cultural/institutional projects are outmoded ideas at all. A growing city like Toronto needs to incorporate them as they come along. I always thought Toronto could use a Lincoln Center type complex (and we nearly had one if that vision for the blocks around Okeefe & St Lawrence Centre had been realized). This stretch of King represents an opportunity to create a complex of cultural significance, and the Gehry project is really the missing link and the cherry on the sundae. The existing Tim Hortons really doesn't cut it.

And Toronto is no danger of losing its small victorian town scale look at all.

 

[flonicky]

I may be alone on this, but we are way off topic.

I hope you're alone ... I'm enjoying their thoughtful debate.

 

[fedplanner]

I hope you're alone ... I'm enjoying their thoughtful debate.

I'll be the first to admit that I don't know much about design, but I too am enjoying this discussion on the atchtectural merits of the existing warehouses and the proposed towers.

 

[skyrise]

And also remember that my earlier point of attack vs. skyrise regarded not so much TD or Eaton Centre (or Gehry), but FCP--a complex which, for all its height and scale, has been subject to a historically much more mixed response. And the "sacrificing the Bank of Toronto for Mies" alibi doesn't quite wash so easily when it comes to the old Star and Globe and BMO etc that were sacrificed for FCP--of course, that may not register for those who weren't alive then; but it's issues like that that sparked the preservation movement in the first place. To hail FCP today as an exemplar of "once upon a time, Toronto thought big, built big, etc" simply doesn't "ring true" in the same way that it does for TD. And it's not just or even primarily about what it replaced; it's about how it was deemed: blockbusting Edward Durell Stone schlock on the wrong side of urban history, w/the demolition a salt-on-the-wound accessory to the act. Stuff like FCP, or even more so NYC's WTC (or for that matter, MSG replacing Grand Central as the grandaddy of them all), were the archi-urban negative-epiphany equivalent of the "plastics" quote in The Graduate. (The Eaton Centre, though, was let off the negative-judgment hook, largely because Zeidler's high-tech was regarded as less retrograde-banal than Stone's Carrara-obsession--then again, by Traynor's standard, Zeidler's 70s-style high-tech obsession might as well be deemed one-trick-pony banal a la Gehry. Which you can take as a warning against the heavy-handedness of Traynor-esque judgments.)

Why I included FCP as example of Toronto’s ambition at that time (aspiring to greatness) has more to do with what it symbolizes versus what it is (although I have appreciation for its physical form). I get it that from a modernist perspective that Stone did not honour all of the principles and adorning this building with Carrera marble was considered a sin by purist of the movement. His work was both loved and loathed and those who loathed him dismissed him because of his accessibility and popularity as much as his unique (misguided to the purists) take on modernism.

However what FCP symbolized was the definitive shift in power from Montreal to Toronto, marking Toronto as the center of commerce for Canada and along with TDC and Bank of Commerce letting the world know that Toronto had arrived. Having the 6th largest building in the world standing tall in the center of the CBD, with the Bank of Montreal shining like beacon was as much a political statement as it was a call out for the country, and the world to take notice. I know you will disagree, but great cities build monuments and skyscrapers are modern day monuments. FCP was akin to WTC (another building you loath). FCP most definitely was an example this city entering into a new era regardless of how misguided you may think it was.

Throw in the fact this was accomplished during the height of Crombieism where there was a ban on skyscrapers, makes the history of this building and how it was built even more remarkable. I understand that you deem this project unworthy of the sacrifices made to heritage in the name of progress. However in the same breath you support the same sacrifices made for TDC and TEC. So are you a preservationist or are you not? Where does NPS and the Registry Building fall into the equation in your mind? Worthy or not?

 

[freshcutgrass]

Where does NPS and the Registry Building fall into the equation in your mind? Worthy or not?

The Registry Building wasn't just physically in the way...it was psychologically in the way. It was your basic classical civic structure....imposing, boring and unwelcoming.....the very antithesis of the New City Hall & NPS. This represents Toronto's most important civic moment. The following dozen or so years saw Toronto hit its stride in terms of ambitious city building.

However what FCP symbolized was the definitive shift in power from Montreal to Toronto

That shift had already happened, but if any building would represent that shift the best, it would be the Sun Life Centre a block west. FCP didn't just represent the pinnacle (literally as well as figuratively) of Toronto's alpha position in the Canadian financial world, it also represented the new golden boys of real estate developers...the Reichmans. Along with the other giant Canadian developers (a lot of which were Toronto based) that were building or buying all the office space in NA.

 

[innsertnamehere]

while I don't think the eatons centre is exactly an architectural masterpiece, (though what mall is?) it still adds much more than to the city than what the old eatons buildings ever could have, and because of that I don't lament the loss of the old eatons factories.

 

[adma]

Throw in the fact this was accomplished during the height of Crombieism where there was a ban on skyscrapers, makes the history of this building and how it was built even more remarkable.

You speak of "Crombieism" like it's bad or something. Methinks your perspective is too unnecessarily coloured by those hardcore forum-trolling skyscraper/development geeks who like to frame David Crombie as some kind of 70s Rob Ford figure who set things back in Toronto for decades after...