[freshcutgrass]

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...

I somehow doubt Rob Ford will ever be known as the tiny perfect anything.

Besides...I don't think anybody thinks of Crombie in that way really. The reform council wasn't really against head offices in the financial district....they were interested in social justice and saving neighbourhoods from downtown expressways and turning everything into St Jamestown. We got FCP at the time, but we also got things like St Lawrence neighbourhood too. You know....back when the world came to study Toronto because it had become somewhat of a model for urban planning.

 

[adma]

I somehow doubt Rob Ford will ever be known as the tiny perfect anything.

Besides...I don't think anybody thinks of Crombie in that way really.

This is the Internet, remember. And among a certain skyscraper/project-loving contingent, there *are* those who'd like to frame Crombie as some kind of anti-world-class evil killjoy. Of course, they're not unlike those who still, to this day, raise the matter of Layton/Chow living in subsidized housing--or Obama birthers, etc.

The reform council wasn't really against head offices in the financial district....they were interested in social justice and saving neighbourhoods from downtown expressways and turning everything into St Jamestown. We got FCP at the time, but we also got things like St Lawrence neighbourhood too. You know....back when the world came to study Toronto because it had become somewhat of a model for urban planning.

Though to some extent, FCP (much like the WTC) was a grandfathered-in dinosaur condition, urbanistically speaking--nonetheless, there were other, external reasons (70s economic slump, oil crisis, etc) why the number of office towers built diminished (and *everywhere*, not just Toronto) after the early 70s, despite what some hardcore "Crombie the killjoy" types'll tell you.

But to return to the "mass appeal of heritage" issue: regardless of whether it was correct of City Hall's builders to do so or not (and I can accept how it might have been deemed "correct" at the time), the fact that the same general public that adores Viljo Revell's creation can snap into "oh dear, Toronto doesn't respect its heritage" mode when confronted w/pictures of the Registry--and with said reflexes at an odd disconnect from one another--is telling you something.

Though whether that means that the general notion of "heritage" has become easy-to-like "mass appeal" to a fault is something to consider--almost like *it's* the, uh, lovably rumpled, warts-and-all Ford to the slick Smitherman-esque longing for big starchitect schemes like Mirvish/Gehry. (And much as in the 2010 election, maybe the fundamental problem w/the latter camp is its odd condescending myopia t/w the former camp...)

 

[skyrise]

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...

Ha ha, no I respect Crombie and what he accomplished...a more balanced approach to city building. History will not be so kind to Ford. Just noting that FCP somehow was able to get built during his time (although it took 3 years of lobbying under Crombie's reign to make it happen) As you noted it was sort of grandfathered in and put the city in a precarious position to deny this project after TD and Commerce had already set a precedent. The economic conditions of the time was the main culprit for the slow down in large scale projects in the following decade.

 

[freshcutgrass]

almost like *it's* the, uh, lovably rumpled, warts-and-all Ford to the slick Smitherman-esque longing for big starchitect schemes like Mirvish/Gehry.

What I don't quite understand is how quickly Mirvish has been vilified here. I can't think of a less tarnished two-generation reputation than the Mirvishes. They've done nothing but good for the city. If there's anybody to trust here (if trust is to even be considered)...why would we not put our money on Mirvish? It's not his fault he's been best buddies with most of the art world's elite for the last 40 years. So to suggest he be painted with any kind of Smitherman-esque brush is very unfair if you ask me.

That has seemed to be one thing that has bugged me about this from day one....Mirvish has not been given the credit he deserves (ok...the "I'm building art to live in" speech did make me cringe a bit).

 

[adma]

So to suggest he be painted with any kind of Smitherman-esque brush is very unfair if you ask me.

Well, technically, no more "very unfair" than painting the heritage realm with any kind of Ford-esque brush. So you can say this much: my metaphor was "equivalently balanced"...

 

[freshcutgrass]

Well, technically, no more "very unfair" than painting the heritage realm with any kind of Ford-esque brush.

Except that isn't being done. Heritage preservation is not even part of the Fordian vocabulary, nor conjures up a Fordian mind set.

while I don't think the eatons centre is exactly an architectural masterpiece, (though what mall is?)

I'd be reluctant to use the term "masterpiece" (TEC was not quite on a level of Pompidou Centre), but it was quite revolutionary in its day and is generally referred to when speaking of this genre of architecture (along with his Ontario Place design). Since the TEC has died (architecturally) from a thousand cuts over the decades, it has been essentially ruined. But then again, Cadillac Fairview is no longer under the influence of savvy people like Phyllis Lambert.

 

[Mr. BT]

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.

Adma, you've been in fine form over these past few pages and I have enjoyed the debate.

My question is, to what extent do you think this increasingly common "fascination with the pre-existing" is as much about the human scale of these older buildings as it is about their cladding choices or other aesthetic properties? I do not mean to suggest that you can necessarily divorce these characteristics from each other, but I do wonder if the real problem with the Gehry building is the scale being proposed.

Also, while I like this building with an asterisk (the ambition "excites" me, the design is "cool" but still missing something that would make it legitimately great), I do really worry about some of the likely upshots from allowing the building to be built: namely that it will be a kiss of death to the rest of that stretch of King as a result of precedent re: height with the OMB and as a further accelerant to property tax rates in that area.

 

[adma]

Except that isn't being done. Heritage preservation is not even part of the Fordian vocabulary, nor conjures up a Fordian mind set.

Except that that's the metaphor *I* was offering...and a subtler metaphor than your overly literal grotesque/burlesque reading of the broad Ford-as-opposed-to-Smitherman-or-whomever-ain't-Ford constituency. IOW regardless of whether preservation *is* part of the Fordian vocabulary, there are parallels btw/the "common" draw to and taste for heritage and old/pre-existing stuff and the "common" draw to Ford (in 2010, at least). That's right: voters opting for Ford over Smitherman being a little like voters opting for "heritage" over "starchitecture"...and leaving the pro-starchitecture elite-types moaning "what a disaster for Toronto", etc. Yeah, I know there are inconsistencies; but the basic point should be clear enough. (And it isn't even so plainly unilaterally left-vs-right; after all, a similar dynamic from the OCAP-py *left* generated the campaigns against Worlds Fairs and Olympics in the past. Not to mention that a lot of those who found Ford refreshing in 2010 also found Miller refreshing in 2003 and Layton refreshing in 2011.)

 

[adma]

My question is, to what extent do you think this increasingly common "fascination with the pre-existing" is as much about the human scale of these older buildings as it is about their cladding choices or other aesthetic properties? I do not mean to suggest that you can necessarily divorce these characteristics from each other, but I do wonder if the real problem with the Gehry building is the scale being proposed.

Well, yeah, it's a blockbuster--though that needn't be a problem in and of itself; after all, you'll encounter a lot of sentiment along the lines of "great scheme, but why here?". The problem is that what's presently on-site compounds the impression (unfair or not) of a pompous, hubrissy "negative" kind of blockbuster--and the Catch-22 being, they had to be extra-ambitious to compensate for the losses involved; yet that extra ambition can come across as extra arrogant, instead.

In the end, quibbling over Gehry aesthetics is a distracting, red herring issue.

 

[Tewder]

My question is, to what extent do you think this increasingly common "fascination with the pre-existing" is as much about the human scale of these older buildings as it is about their cladding choices or other aesthetic properties?

Yes, and even more so... for some (most?) it isn't even necessarily about Architecture at all, per se, and to define the issue as one of bricks and mortar (or bricks and mortar vs swervy bits and wrinkled bits) is to confine the very notion of what Heritage is and how people relate to it. So in the end it's about far more than just human scale and pedestrian-friendliness, which are somewhat urban-geek preoccupations, or which buildings are worthy of preservation or not, which are somewhat heritage-geek preoccupations, or the relative architectural/theatrical merits of the POW... No, here we are talking about ripping out a strip of the urban fabric, one that has evolved 'naturally' and incrementally over time such that it remains essentially and semiotically familiar and meaningful to people on levels that run far deeper than store-front heights. In other words, blockbusting on this scale taps into more than just a trivial or popular 'fascination with the pre-existing' and starts to goad in ways that touch on things like identity, connectivity, stability etc, which is why people react so vehemently.

 

[ProjectEnd]

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.

Lots.

 

[AlvinofDiaspar]

Again, I question the use of the necessarily inflammatory word of "blockbusting", which is highly inaccurate. Beyond that, everything means something to someone - so really, are we talking about the love of the buildings or the love of an idea that the buildings are supposed to represent (particularly when the idea takes on a life of its' own beyond the extant buildings). There is nothing particularly "natural" about the evolution of the strip - in fact, the current state of affair can be considered a bit of an arrestment of that evolution (given what surrounds it). There is value in that strip, without a doubt - but I see greater value in the Mirvish/Gehry scheme if implemented.

AoD

 

[freshcutgrass]

Except that that's the metaphor *I* was offering

I suspect *adma* metaphors are so subtle, that are only really understood by adma.

you'll encounter a lot of sentiment along the lines of "great scheme, but why here?".

These are the people that bug me the most, because of the absurdity of the question and the arrogance of their position.

The problem is that what's presently on-site compounds the impression (unfair or not) of a pompous, hubrissy "negative" kind of blockbuster--and the Catch-22 being, they had to be extra-ambitious to compensate for the losses involved; yet that extra ambition can come across as extra arrogant, instead.

Except the idea that this huge Gehry (would Philip Johnson call this the "world's largest Gehry? ) is needed to compensate for the perceived heritage backlash as a result of the loss of a couple of forgettable brick warehouses is killing a fly with a bazooka. Obviously the heritage crowd hasn't had much to do since their last great triumph...the out of place theme-park rebuild of Bishop's Block.

No, here we are talking about ripping out a strip of the urban fabric, one that has evolved 'naturally' and incrementally over time such that it remains essentially and semiotically familiar and meaningful to people on levels that run far deeper than store-front heights.

I don't get the "natural" vs "un-natural" dichotomy here. Or that a well planned approach is worse than the haphazard approach. I'm not saying your argument doesn't have merit, just that it is dependent of context. And the Gehry project is actually much more in context with this stretch of King than what is there now....even if someone deemed it worth preserving.

Again, I question the use of the necessarily inflammatory word of "blockbusting", which is highly inaccurate.

All is fair when a Tim Hortons is under threat.

 

[TrickyRicky]

I kind of like what Gehry did with the AGO and I'm not against some of the expressions in this design but personally I'm not star-struck by famous people or their work. The prospect of great architects working on a space is somewhat exciting but I just think this proposal crosses the line into an uncomfortable dis-respect for the context.

Perhaps this is an overly idealistic position given that the entire district is essentially being razed and turned into a monotonous residential condo neighbourhood. When I say this I'm not saying this is necessarily worse than a monotonous clubbing district; however, I am saying that the direction of the area is in opposition to the spirit of the zone as a mixed use neighbourhood.

Warehouse buildings are interesting not for their specific architectural purity or specifics but for their possibility to be re-purposed into all kinds of mixed-uses which is directly in keeping with the spirit of the neighbourhood. The singular poetics of an architectural master and condo buildings themselves are together perhapes the exact opposite of a mixed-use sustainable built form.

 

[diminutive]

Well, yeah, it's a blockbuster--though that needn't be a problem in and of itself; after all, you'll encounter a lot of sentiment along the lines of "great scheme, but why here?".

It's not 'blockbusting.' You may like to use that word since it makes the project look more hubris-y, but it's not. You may as well call Mirvish-Gehry a 'hate crime' or accuse it of being a nuclear plant or some other such negatively connoted term.

Just because a building occupies an entire urban block does not make it blockbusting.

And why does this term keep getting abused? It's meaning is readily available to anyone and everyone.