- Thread starter golodhendil
- Start date
Tewder
Senior Member
Come on Fresh, those buildings were saved at a time when clear-cut, 'city building/future is now' urban renewal plans were the destructive norm. They were saved in reaction to and not because of the prevailing approach to urbanism. In Crombie's own words:
“In the late ’60s and early ’70s, there was strong concern in the city about housing and neighbourhoods,†Crombie recalls. “The model at the time was to tear everything down for what was called ‘urban renewal.’ Much of the city was being sacrificed on the altar of growth, and it was being done in such a hurry people were worried about what would happen in their neighbourhood.â€
http://www.thestar.com/news/gta/2014/05/03/big_ideas_learning_the_lessons_of_st_lawrence_neighbourhood.html
Sound familiar?
The irony in you lauding Crombie and Jacobs is that they would see value in those 'bland insignificant warehouses', as you call them... and much value in the revised M/G plan.
freshcutgrass
Senior Member
Except we aren't talking about destroying viable residential neighbourhoods to build commie blocks. We are talking about city-building that involves greyfield/brownfield revitalization.
If you want to keep tap dancing on this point, I'm getting tired of it.
adma
Superstar
But the thing is, through your bluster, you're reminding me of what I posted in the 1 Bloor W thread...
And also
Which can also be spoken of re the warehouses here--whatever their fate (and remember that a lot of the heritage-camp mewling has subsided since the revised plans--that is, it's all gone into "absorbable loss" territory, much as Stollery's might have been had Mizrahi not acted as he did).
Now, even if I cannot speak the lingo, I can *comprehend* the pro-Porter argument--it's quick, it's efficient, it's the way to go when time is of the essence, and it's also got a touch of elegance that's important if you're of an exec/professional class, which a lot of the building/design/development/real estate crowd in UT belongs to. By comparison, combustion-engined self-propulsion might as well be a throwback to the AAA-Tourbook-guided polyester 70s. And to follow the old Route 66s and King's Highways? A Porter-o-phile might as well be telling me, to quote freshcutgrass: "Just wallow in your mediocrity while the world passes you by."
What's "limited" to some may be "essentialist" to others. Mars; Venus.
mrxbombastic
Active Member
Fresh. You seem to be speaking from Both sides of your mouth at the same time. You advocate that we carefully consider our heritage structures and that we only conserve those which are of utmost importance. Yet you then sing the praises of an era in Which heritage was thrown to the trash in the name of some modern high idealistic planning notion of the future, similar to your current stance and aspirations to be part of the passing future. Yet further still you then sing praises of crombie and Jacobs who reject such idealistic antihuman planning notions and who advocate for considerations of neighborhood function, historical city fabric and social implications of planning in addition which is antithetical to your admiration of 60s planning mantras (brownfield or not, the aim was demolition and reconstruction).
The areas in question are also NOT brown or grey field. They are old repurposed building being presently used by many. They are not under utilized. They are quite utilized in fact whether you like the uses or not. Should you already be thinking that these buildings don't satisfy a "highest and best use" land use, I ask you "highest and best for whom?" Such characterizations are fraught with bias and often simplistic profit/tax revenue oriented sentiments with little regard for other consideration. Why do we not consider the heritage or city fabric contributions they provide as equally highest and best use?
Yours appears to be an inherently hypocritical stance to take.
The areas in question are also NOT brown or grey field. They are old repurposed building being presently used by many. They are not under utilized. They are quite utilized in fact whether you like the uses or not. Should you already be thinking that these buildings don't satisfy a "highest and best use" land use, I ask you "highest and best for whom?" Such characterizations are fraught with bias and often simplistic profit/tax revenue oriented sentiments with little regard for other consideration. Why do we not consider the heritage or city fabric contributions they provide as equally highest and best use?
Yours appears to be an inherently hypocritical stance to take.
mrxbombastic
Active Member
Adma that was poetic in nature and quite beautiful to read.
I tip my hat to you
I tip my hat to you
freshcutgrass
Senior Member
What...that you wanna "crack some skulls"? ha ha
That only matters if you're actually interested in appeasing the mewling heritage camp.
P.S. I hate Porter
freshcutgrass
Senior Member
That's only because you have failed to grasp the notion that I am not speaking in black & white terms. No one, or no era is/was infallible.
Some of you want to hypothesize what David Crombie and Jane Jacobs thinks about this particular project. I don't think you have a clue what they would think, but if they actually gave an opinion in favour of old warehouses over the cultural benefits to the city the Mirvish project has, then I'd have to disagree with their opinion. It's quite possible to get it right with St Lawrence and wrong with Mirvish-Gehry.
But I'm giving your straw-man argument far too much airtime.
For whom? I would imagine the property owner might have some priority in the matter. Regardless of what "you" think, some respect has to be paid to this small detail.
With that said, it's Mirvish we are talking about. You know....the people who PIONEERED the greyfield redevelopment in the area, PIONEERED heritage protection in the area, and PIONEERED what the district is now (the Entertainment District). David Mirvish is unlikely to tear down a theatre if it were to hurt his theatre business...he's still very much in the theatre business, and probably knows a teeny bit more about it than you (or basically anyone).
With this in mind, is it too much to suggest that perhaps what this person thinks might have some relevance.
Every building can't be a sacred cow, and I can plainly see why this is a clear case of city-building that justifies demolition of an existing structure (s). What exactly would it take for some people to say goodbye to the whitewashed Tim Hortons warehouse....would you do it for the cure for cancer?
freshcutgrass
Senior Member
My favourite part is his tendency to quote...himself. he he
adma
Superstar
It serves a functional purpose when bridging the content of two threads.
You speak of them like they're alimony-grubbing ex-spouses or something.
Probably not so much as you'd hate a ten-times-longer combustion-engined "wallowing in mediocrity" a la adma, I suppose...
Tewder
Senior Member
Yes, Fresh likes to change the goal posts with every reply, a sure sign of a flailing argument. It's pure masochism on anybody's part to engage him much further really, so let's distill his argument and move on: Me like art gallery, everything else sucks + self-righteous insult or taunt.
mrxbombastic
Active Member
Easy there partner. I never said Jacobs or Crombie would think one way or another on this proposal. What I said is that they considered the social and historical and city fabric ramifications of development changes instead of simply approving new things because they were marketed as better and as some emancipatory cure to the city. You were the one who started to use them to make you argument appear to state that your MG1 support was a one off and that you also support Jacobs and Crombie's ideals however. I took issue with how those two sides of your position cannot possibly be reconciled and thus sought to lay out my argument against the logic of yours.
Sure he and his father pioneered the king west revitalization into an entertainment district. I don't disagree with that and I congratulate and respect that very much. To say that because the Mirvishes accomplished all this that they and their opinions and motives must supplant or nearly supplant other elements in a decision is just reckless and gets back to what i said before. This notion of some omniscient and emancipatory benevolence that MG is giving us is directly rooted in the same planning ideology of the 60s modern era. Yes Acknowledge Mirvish and seriously consider his voice but also consider everything else and dont let one side over come the process.
And if you yourself acknowledge that no one era was infallible and many regard this idealism of the 60s era as a main fault, then why do you continue to to exhibit this characteristic?
Nor should every building be a sacred cow. For the record I don't mind that we lost stollery's, save for the method of its loss.
But the merits of keeping some buildings are evident, the carefully constructed masonry of some which is a product of its time and a rare exhibit in this other wise changing city, The character and reference to past architectural tendencies and flavours which identified an entire neighbourhood which has seen much of its built fabric lost, or the ability of a building to express certain treasured sentiments about urban life onto the streetscape, or its relation to a strongly influential history or its richness in use. All these and more are reasons I consider useful when evaluating heritage structures of any type in any city in any neighborhood.
Automation Gallery
Superstar
Small video shows the project from every angle.............https://www.facebook.com/MirvishGehryTO?fref=nf
G.L.17
Senior Member
There's a video on the MG Facebook page showing this from every angle.
Oops, already mentioned
Oops, already mentioned
AlvinofDiaspar
Moderator
It's all very nice, but I am hungry for a bit more detail than simply milking some preliminary models for all that's worth. I want to see information on how the facades will be finessed, the materials that will be used, the organization of spaces in and out the building, etc.
AoD
AoD