This thread seems as good as any to ask this question: Why can't this historic building be replicated at another site incorporating modern building codes? Berlin rebuilt replicas of historic buildings destroyed during WW2, this surely can't be beyond the wit of man...
 
I'm sure it can be done, it's more a question of whether a sufficient public mood exists for such replication here.
 
Since the buildings haven't been destroyed by bombardment, there is no real need to rebuild them from scratch.

That said, one would assume that things like the cost of land and the cost of rebuilding are key issues. It would be like asking why the M&G proposal can't be built on anther site.

The issue isn't really replication, but preservation.
 
Although I'm sure some would like to see certain buildings blown up, if only to make way for brave new edifices!
 
buildup said:
'Timidity' would be more accurate. Old is good, new is bad.
Click to expand...

When it comes to "making Toronto look ridiculous", I wasn't referring to "cowardness" vs "timidity". I was referring to "cowardness" vs "cowardice".

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.
Click to expand...

Well, because it's been basically prepped for potential redevelopment, any feeling of "neglect" comes naturally. But what I notice is how you're "emphasizing the negative" (as per my bolded emphases)--almost by way of deliberately building an "anti-case". And I've noticed the same w/the more general tabula rasa arguments over time in this thread on behalf of the original Mirvish/Gehry proposal; like, dismissively playing up the Tim Horton's aspect of Eclipse Whitewear.

And I bring this up because there seems to be a certain UT P&C element these days that's akin to discussion being hijacked by real estate/development industry lobby groups--and indeed, it's that kind of sneaking suspicion that in part explains why you don't see an Urban Shocker around these parts anymore...
 
adma said:
When it comes to "making Toronto look ridiculous", I wasn't referring to "cowardness" vs "timidity". I was referring to "cowardness" vs "cowardice".

Well, because it's been basically prepped for potential redevelopment, any feeling of "neglect" comes naturally. But what I notice is how you're "emphasizing the negative" (as per my bolded emphases)--almost by way of deliberately building an "anti-case". And I've noticed the same w/the more general tabula rasa arguments over time in this thread on behalf of the original Mirvish/Gehry proposal; like, dismissively playing up the Tim Horton's aspect of Eclipse Whitewear.

And I bring this up because there seems to be a certain UT P&C element these days that's akin to discussion being hijacked by real estate/development industry lobby groups--and indeed, it's that kind of sneaking suspicion that in part explains why you don't see an Urban Shocker around these parts anymore...
Click to expand...

Not sure I get your first point are you pointing out a spelling error? Do I harp on your impenetrable sentence construction?

The Hazelton square has always struggled, long before the current prepping. With regards Eclipse Whitewear; not more than 1 in 10,000 people know what you are talking about. Who is Eclipse Whitewear why are we talking about them?

Regarding UrbanShocker, I miss his thoughtful contributions. He vanished because of a petty suspension. And with regards your 'sneaking suspicion' that I represent the development industry you are revealing your poor intuition. I can no longer take you seriously, although I am flattered that my comments seem so informed.

EDIT: are you suggesting anyone who favoured M+G is a development industry booster/lackey? Why can't you accept the fact some people prefer a Gehry podium effort over some ordinary warehouses? You seem unable to comprehend this possibility. I strongly disagree with your views, but I at least comprehend them.
 
Last edited:
buildup said:
The Hazelton square has always struggled, long before the current prepping. With regards Eclipse Whitewear; not more than 1 in 10,000 people know what you are talking about. Who is Eclipse Whitewear why are we talking about them?
Click to expand...

Have you not been following this thread all along? Eclipse Whitewear is the Tim's building at King & John--and one of the buildings the present two-tower scheme means to save. If you've been engaged to this thread all this time, You. Should. Know.

EDIT: are you suggesting anyone who favoured M+G is a development industry booster/lackey? Why can't you accept the fact some people prefer a Gehry podium effort over some ordinary warehouses? You seem unable to comprehend this possibility. I strongly disagree with your views, but I at least comprehend them.
Click to expand...

Well, "some people" would prefer a McMansion replacement to a "dated" 50s Don Mills bungalow, too. (And the proof's presently on the streets of Don Mills.)
 
buildup said:
'Timidity' would be more accurate. Old is good, new is bad.
Click to expand...

These sentiments seem odd coming from a city that built arguably some of the boldest and most modern structures in the world (in their time) with the CN Tower, TD Place, Skydome and New City Hall. Some of which required massive demolition of older structures to build. What exactly has changed in Toronto since those heady days?
 
Nothing - TD Centre and City Hall, as great as they are, aren't truly at the bleeding edge like Lever House. In any case, the excesses of wholesale urban redevelopment was well past best before by the 70s.

Taken by itself, the current proposal is no less audacious, with the exception of tighter control over carte blanche redevelopment.

AoD
 
P23 said:
These sentiments seem odd coming from a city that built arguably some of the boldest and most modern structures in the world (in their time) with the CN Tower, TD Place, Skydome and New City Hall. Some of which required massive demolition of older structures to build. What exactly has changed in Toronto since those heady days?
Click to expand...


well Skydome is of absolutely no consequence, other than to demonstrate the complete bankruptcy of Michael Snow's art in the 1980s, but Toronto has at least one recent building that demonstrates the kind of radicality that you're alluding to.


 
P23 said:
These sentiments seem odd coming from a city that built arguably some of the boldest and most modern structures in the world (in their time) with the CN Tower, TD Place, Skydome and New City Hall. Some of which required massive demolition of older structures to build. What exactly has changed in Toronto since those heady days?
Click to expand...

What's changed? In the case of TD and NCH: the modern-day, post-Penn-Station heritage preservation movement. Which was an *international* phenomenon, never mind a simply "Toronto" phenomenon. Really: that's a "duh" answer to a "duh" question, when you think of it.

And in the case of CN and Skydome: those involved mainly railyards rather than what could have been deemed "heritage landmarks" per se. That is, they were no more "destructive" than Cityplace...
 
Skydone required the demolition of the Spadina Roundhouse. That was probably done with the understanding that the John Street Roundhouse would be preserved.
 
Also, to answer the question of what changed in the city since the TD Centre and NPS were built--people started to regret the demolition of hundreds of interesting buildings around the downtown core. Often buildings were demolished needlessly, like the Registry Building for parking garage ramps. For every TD Centre there were 5 banal developments that didn't have Mies van der Rohe and demolished heritage buildings. If historians count an old building as a cultural resource of value, it should be respected with the force of the law.
 
adma said:
Have you not been following this thread all along? Eclipse Whitewear is the Tim's building at King & John--and one of the buildings the present two-tower scheme means to save. If you've been engaged to this thread all this time, You. Should. Know.

Well, "some people" would prefer a McMansion replacement to a "dated" 50s Don Mills bungalow, too. (And the proof's presently on the streets of Don Mills.)
Click to expand...

Ok I looked it up: Eclipse Whitewear manufactured women's and children underwear. Fascinating. Did they invent underwear, it this important in some way? Were Toronto panties distinctive or fashion forward at the time? Why has this legacy faded from our consciousness?

Your second point reveals the willful ignorance of your arguments. Referencing McMansions to conflate M+G with lesser work. Another red herring, typical of your arguments to date.
 
mdparker said:
Why can't this historic building be replicated at another site incorporating modern building codes? Berlin rebuilt replicas of historic buildings destroyed during WW2, this surely can't be beyond the wit of man...
Click to expand...

Pretty sure Berlin wasn't very interested in replicating small, non-descript 20th century warehouses.
 
You must log in or register to post here.

Back
Top