And as I've said many times in the past: one's attitude may depend on where one has "come from" relative to Urban Toronto. Like, if you arrived from the realm of new construction and development (whether as geek or as practitioner), you're more likely to be a warehouse skeptic than if you arrived from the realm of "existing conditions" (which encompass the heritage/history crowd and a fair spectrum of everything from Jane Jacobites to urban explorers to neo-Situationists and on beyond). And there's a bit of a "slick vs scraggly" thing here--slicks being as disdainful of the scragglies as scragglies are distrustful of the slicks. Needless to say, the existing frontages embody "scraggly", w/heritage status setting "scraggly" in stone--and inconveniently for the slicks who mean to replace it all w/Gehry's form of meta-scraggly.

Even going back to my 9/11 "aesthetic" invocation: I'd argue that the so-called accreted "aesthetic impact" is best understood if you approached the existing Lower Manhattan environment from a "scraggly" working-knowledge POV; whereas the more blind/disconnected/disengaged you were relative to the existing urban conditions on-site, the more likely you are to let the raw act of terror and horror consume you. The "scraggly" approach is a little like woodland creatures busily re-seeding a burnt forest, or like (something I know) taking a disinterested-third-party approach to a breakup in the family...
 
RC8 said:
'Their feelings' are irrelevant. It's the feelings they evoke in those of us who grew up with them that are kept alive with their retention - as well as the memory of those who built them and made a city we could later make our own.
Click to expand...

That's pretty elitist. Screw all the people who want to live in the area, and the opinions of anyone else who lives nearby, we'll just please the few who have some sort of connection to a random warehouse that has contributes nothing of significance to the area.
 
DtTO said:
That's pretty elitist. Screw all the people who want to live in the area, and the opinions of anyone else who lives nearby, we'll just please the few who have some sort of connection to a random warehouse that has contributes nothing of significance to the area.
Click to expand...

I don't mean this to sound offensive, but you should really take a step back, examine your motives, educate yourself regarding the issues at hand, and come back with a renewed perspective if you want your comments to be taken seriously by people like myself.
 
RC8 said:
I don't mean this to sound offensive, but you should really take a step back, examine your motives, educate yourself regarding the issues at hand, and come back with a renewed perspective if you want your comments to be taken seriously by people like myself.
Click to expand...

Funny, I was thinking literally the exact same thing about you. I don't necessarily agree with dtTO, but his point is valid. There's more at stake here than your personal feelings of nostalgia and continuity. These buildings hold personal value with me as well for those exact same reasons, but I appreciate that there has to be a balance between strictly preserving the character of a neighbourhood (or indeed a city) for the benefit of those who already live there and enjoy it, and creating opportunities for new residents to access those same neighbourhoods.

Of course, (as we're also seeing with Restaurant Row) there's a risk that the rush to access this neighbourhood might very well consume the very features that make it so attractive in the first place). I like to think of it as Heisenberg's uncertainty principle being applied in an urban planning context. The question to my mind isn't simply, how much value do the existing conditions have and to whom, but also how much more or less value can the future conditions have based on this redevelopment? Many would argue that Mirvish+Gehry would create a greater cultural and aesthetic (albeit different) value for this neighbourhood than these warehouses provide.

You speak as though you inherently have some greater ownership over these buildings or some exclusive right to determine their future because they form a part of your personal memories and history. That's what dtTO means by describing your position as "elitist". On the flip side, if these warehouses were demolished in favour of Mirvish+Gehry, suddenly this development forms a part of the history and memories of everyone in the city who was there to witness it, whether they spent their entire lives in Toronto or were newcomers. Nobody has a personal monopoly on nostalgia.
 
^ Thanks, Ramako.

RC8 said:
I don't mean this to sound offensive
Click to expand...

I think that's exactly what you were going for, actually. Childish insults are the norm when people can't come up with proper arguments.

educate yourself regarding the issues at hand, and come back with a renewed perspective
Click to expand...

I should sound exactly like you to be taken seriously?

if you want your comments to be taken seriously by people like myself.
Click to expand...

I don't mind my comments not appealing to elitists, like yourself :)
 
No, I don't. Someone implied that 'buildings don't have feelings' and therefore it's fine to demolish them under that logic. I merely pointed out that the 'feelings' at stake wouldn't be the buildings', but ours. Gehry's towers incorporating the warehouses as a base would become a striking symbol all the same. If you don't want to accommodate heritage buildings, don't propose to build towers where they currently stand.

DtTO, who just likes tall buildings regardless of any other consideration, has no business making outrageous claims about my motives.

I don't like suburban subdivisions because I think they exclude poor and young people, and I don't like 80-story residential buildings because they tend to exclude families and older people. (though I define tall as 40+ stories, which is quite generous of me)

Most people living in condos today are choosing to move out to the suburbs to raise their families, and I find that regrettable - since most would like to stay put if it were friendly and affordable to do so. I would like to see us guide Toronto's development to accommodate more of those who'd like to live here, rather than just one very specific transient demographic who can afford it. I am looking forward to higher densities in this area, and to the many new buildings that will undoubtedly make it a better place than it is today - one way or another.
 
Just look to City Place and Liberty Village to see that more and more families are being raised in condo developments...and staying put, but buying larger units. I don't see a mass exodus nowadays of newly formed families leaving to the suburbs, as was the case in the past.
 
RC8 said:
DtTO, who just likes tall buildings regardless of any other consideration, has no business making outrageous claims about my motives.
Click to expand...

Please back up your claim. Find an example where I specifically stated that I like a building because "it is tall regardless of any other consideration." Otherwise, stop assuming. As for outrageous claims, I was merely reflecting on your comment that certain people's feelings are "irrelevant," which is an unmistakably elitist argument. I don't care what kind of personal involvement you have with the building, discrediting other people's opinions in favour of your own is immature. Speaking of "outrageous claims," accusing someone of being "uneducated" easily qualifies as one.
 
RC8 said:
No, I don't. Someone implied that 'buildings don't have feelings' and therefore it's fine to demolish them under that logic. I merely pointed out that the 'feelings' at stake wouldn't be the buildings', but ours. Gehry's towers incorporating the warehouses as a base would become a striking symbol all the same. If you don't want to accommodate heritage buildings, don't propose to build towers where they currently stand.
Click to expand...

You're intentionally misunderstanding the point of heritage preservation. Heritage status isn't some kind of unqualified program to protect buildings indefinitely from now until the end of time. It's to prevent what happened in earlier decades where developers would buy up architecturally significant buildings and demolish them before anything could be said.

Saying there is some kind of obligation on anyone's part to 'accommodate' the heritage buildings is nonsense. M-G can make the case to City Council or the OMB that their proposal is worthwhile and that's that.

The ultimate judgement should include heritage concerns, including preservation, but it's not an absolute concern. Let's say M-G did accommodate the 4 heritage properties and we got the typical Toronto frankenstein facadectomy, the original structures would be 90% destroyed anyways, so it's a bit childish to suggest there is some kind of strict ban on altering heritage properties is childish.

RC8 said:
DtTO, who just likes tall buildings regardless of any other consideration, has no business making outrageous claims about my motives.
Click to expand...

This is the most outrageous claim. To begin with, there's nothing even wrong with liking tall buildings. It's a perfectly reasonable thing to be impressed by, no less 'outrageous' than a liking a 100 year old building. More importantly though, you're intentionally avoiding all the other reasons why so many people think M-G is an improvement on the status quo and are reluctant to have some humdrum warehouses, of which there are thousands in North America, grafted onto it like some kind of barnacle.

You're ignoring that people find the architecture drastically more impressive. You're ignoring that people find the street presence better (e.g. handicap friendly...). You're ignoring that people find the proposed uses (e.g. OCAD space, Mirvish Gallery) to be better than a dinky Tim Horton's and some low quality office space. You're neglecting that people like the idea of mixed use projects. You're neglecting that most agree with the idea of creating more homes downtown.

Nobody, NOBODY, is approaching this with the height fanboyism you seem to think.

RC8 said:
I don't like suburban subdivisions because I think they exclude poor and young people, and I don't like 80-story residential buildings because they tend to exclude families and older people. (though I define tall as 40+ stories, which is quite generous of me)
Click to expand...

Well, great. Thank god we don't build cities around the unsupported personal biases of random internet people.

Haven't people given up on this kind of quest for the Fukuyaman end-of-urban-planning? A city thrives with many different built forms.
 
and how many are not in the favor of preserving the heritage building?
 
I counted 11,485 members in favour of the new and improved buildings which will win world-wide acclaim and awards for architecture. Again, a Poll would be more accurate. It's a long weekend and my math may be a bit off but it's a good approximation :p
 
Poll

RiverCity1 said:
I counted 11,485 members in favour of the new and improved buildings which will win world-wide acclaim and awards for architecture. Again, a Poll would be more accurate. It's a long weekend and my math may be a bit off but it's a good approximation :p
Click to expand...

I'm one , that in favour of preserving , and POW for sure...
 
You must log in or register to post here.

Back
Top