Can we keep the overreactions to a minimum please?

Seriously, suggesting that adma's advocacy for heritage preservation has made "Toronto look ridiculous" is just plain silly. The three-tower version of M&G is gone. Get over it already. To suggest that the two-tower version is a failure before the final design is even available drives this thread into being drivel.
 
argus said:
Can we keep the overreactions to a minimum please?

Seriously, suggesting that adma's advocacy for heritage preservation has made "Toronto look ridiculous" is just plain silly. The three-tower version of M&G is gone. Get over it already. To suggest that the two-tower version is a failure before the final design is even available drives this thread into being drivel.
Click to expand...

Why are you talking about 3 towers still?

I'm talking about Toronto's unwillingness to take on the podium challenge. If Toronto had come up a successful NEW podium it would've garnered attention since many defeatists believe modern developers can't suceed at street level. And I'm repeating the point that old stuff isn't always good just because it has a history. Do you think all "old people" are adorable?

I repeat advocating for heritage indiscrimantely is as silly as advocating height indiscrimantely. Do you disagree?
 
Last edited:
The heritage buildings are fine. The Anderson Building has an ornate and rare terracotta facade. When they clean off the generic white paint and replace the windows with heritage-friendly styles, the other warehouses will look good as well.

It would set a bad precedent to allow heritage buildings to be demolished merely for interesting new architecture. Let's say Frank Gehry is one of the greatest architects of all time. You could justify demolishing any building in this city for one of his best projects--even Old City Hall. It's a destructive argument to make. We don't have to give that much up for great architecture. Heritage should be an our unfinished story that spans every generation, not a book that's shred and rewritten every 75 years.
 
junctionist said:
It would set a bad precedent to allow heritage buildings to be demolished merely for interesting new architecture. Let's say Frank Gehry is one of the greatest architects of all time. You could justify demolishing any building in this city for one of his best projects--even Old City Hall. It's a destructive argument to make. We don't have to give that much up for great architecture. Heritage should be an our unfinished story that spans every generation, not a book that's shred and rewritten every 75 years.
Click to expand...

The problem with your argument is its emphasis:

I would characterize M+G is more than "interesting new architecture".
I would not compare the Anderson building to Old City Hall.
We know the vast majority of heritage buildings are safe from the wrecking ball. You cant apply the slippery slope argument.
 
buildup said:
Adma, you keep missing the point. I acknowledge Hazelton Courtyard is worth keeping.
Click to expand...

I don't want to go too far into the off-topic, but your reference to "Hazelton Courtyard" (are you referring to Hazelton Lanes, rather than York Square?) still suggests an ill-informedness re my admittedly off-topic subject matter.

Killing the opportunity to see what a world-class Toronto (you hate greatness, it's crude) architect could do on this site at ground level is civic cowardness. A bold experiment not undertaken. Its also meanspirited. I am sure deep down you & your ilk are secretly regretting your pyrrhic victory. You've made Toronto look ridiculous.
Click to expand...

Accusations of "civic cowardness" are what'd make Toronto look ridiculous.
 
buildup said:
The problem with your argument is its emphasis:

I would characterize M+G is more than "interesting new architecture".
I would not compare the Anderson building to Old City Hall.
We know the vast majority of heritage buildings are safe from the wrecking ball. You cant apply the slippery slope argument.
Click to expand...

Without slight, M+G is interesting architecture. Besides that, it's a pile of concrete put up to make $. Heritage won't be safe if we allow it to be demolished based on what we perceive to be good architecture at the moment--especially considering how many buildings aren't even designated and have no protection from demolition. The "but it's Gehry..." argument could be used against any building in town no matter its relation to the Anderson Building--we have just one other building of comparable sigificance, Mies' TD Centre. Even then some educated people would say that Gehry's work is better than a bunch of black boxes, which would be a bad situation. I don't want to see that arise because we don't have to give that much up to make great architecture happen.
 
adma said:
I don't want to go too far into the off-topic, but your reference to "Hazelton Courtyard" (are you referring to Hazelton Lanes, rather than York Square?) still suggests an ill-informedness re my admittedly off-topic subject matter.



Accusations of "civic cowardness" are what'd make Toronto look ridiculous.
Click to expand...

'Timidity' would be more accurate. Old is good, new is bad.

w/r Hazelton I'm not sure the name. Is it the enclosed Courtyard with two entrances from Avenue and Yorkville, the latter locked on Sundays because of some muggings? There are some under-used low rent offices occupied by Blythe Academy and a defunct eyewear place? Il Posto is there and has changed hands, great food, typically empty? I walk through almost every night to Yorkville Fitness & Whole Foods. So while I haven't committed the name to memory, I know the place as neglected.
 
junctionist said:
Let's say Frank Gehry is one of the greatest architects of all time. You could justify demolishing any building in this city for one of his best projects--even Old City Hall. It's a destructive argument to make.
Click to expand...

Straw man.

Nobody is using the argument that a Gehry building justifies the demolition of "any" building at all.



junctionist said:
It would set a bad precedent to allow heritage buildings to be demolished merely for interesting new architecture
Click to expand...

What do you mean "merely" ? Architecture plays a major role in this matter, and yea...we would have been trading up to put it mildly. And it's generally the reason one is interested in saving "heritage" buildings. As for function, I think the proposed Cloud Podium won that case hands down as well.

The implication of your argument is that no building can ever be demolished. For any reason. Period. Which is of course...an even more bad precedent.
 
freshcutgrass said:
Straw man.

Nobody is using the argument that a Gehry building justifies the demolition of "any" building at all.
Click to expand...

The argument is that Gehry's architecture justifies demolishing these buildings based on the quality of his architecture. Put differently, by attaining high enough a level of architecture, you can justify demolishing any building. It's simply a different way of looking at the basic argument in this thread. I take this a step further for rhetorical reasons to make my point more vivid (without claiming that it's my opponent's argument as in a strawman) that if this argument were valid, it could apply to any building in Toronto. It is not valid. (See below.)

What do you mean "merely" ? Architecture plays a major role in this matter, and yea...we would have been trading up to put it mildly. And it's generally the reason one is interested in saving "heritage" buildings. As for function, I think the proposed Cloud Podium won that case hands down as well.
Click to expand...

Heritage is about architecture as a link to history, not because it looks impressive. It's how we understand important details about what our society was like in previous eras--that we manufactured goods downtown with successful businesses that put up terracotta facades, for instance. The aesthetic quality of new architecture--that it looks good--isn't something that should ever justify demolishing heritage. Aesthetics alone are almost never determinative in any context. If we look beyond the architecture at Mirvish's plan, there's absolutely no reason he can't build everything of practical value without preserving the heritage buildings.
 
The argument is that Gehry's architecture justifies demolishing these buildings based on the quality of his architecture. Put differently, by attaining high enough a level of architecture, you can justify demolishing any building.
Click to expand...

Well no, it isn't that simple...it is primarily based on the merits of the building to be demolished...not the building to replace it, lending untouchable status to some buildings. So your equation is flawed and will not apply to every situation at all.


Heritage is about architecture as a link to history, not because it looks impressive.
Click to expand...

But like I said...this implies that every building ever built must never be demolished. Which is silly of course.

So...we need to draw the line somewhere. Historical, architectural or contextual considerations must be made, along with considering what we lose against what we gain.

In every case, the warehouses should have lost. As I said, Mirvish should have been given bonuses for replacing them, rather than been forced abandon the original concept.

The only other valid consideration would be height and density, but doesn't apply to this site either.

It's the inconsistency of how the city carries out its duties in the planning that concerns me...not so much that we yet again, lost out on something really great. After all...we need material for the 3rd Unbuilt Toronto....right?
 
buildup said:
Why are you talking about 3 towers still?

I'm talking about Toronto's unwillingness to take on the podium challenge. If Toronto had come up a successful NEW podium it would've garnered attention since many defeatists believe modern developers can't suceed at street level. And I'm repeating the point that old stuff isn't always good just because it has a history. Do you think all "old people" are adorable?

I repeat advocating for heritage indiscrimantely is as silly as advocating height indiscrimantely. Do you disagree?
Click to expand...

I mention the three towers as that version relates to the proposed podium you are lamenting. That should have been obvious to you.

Aside from that, you're blaming of adma for making "Toronto look ridiculous," your suggestion that any change is "defeatist" and killing some assumed "world-class" aspiration is completely over the top. There is always room for reasonable discussions on heritage matters, the thing is that your posts aren't contributing to that reasonable discussion. Just because you are infatuated with the early version of this proposal doesn't make for a conclusion that all heritage must be swept away to make room for it.
 
Well, in any case the 2 tower programme is now the new reality, so I am not sure what all the spilt milk in the past 10 pages is about at this point. More interested in seeing the design evolve instead.

AoD
 
You must log in or register to post here.

Back
Top