neubilder
Banned
You call it goodwill I call it blind faith.
I too see no evidence of "bait and switch" and certainly no evidence of "blind faith". The arguments against this project seem to grasp at straws and straw men.
As I have said before, I am not quite sure where all these complainers were when better warehouses were knocked down for lesser developments. And I am not quite sure why this particular development is getting some so worked up. To paraphrase, if you refuse to see that what we are receiving is better than what is there now, then I give up.
And don't be fooled - Mirvish needs the heritage buildings gone so he can build 5 acres of parking for the monstrous towers, that is the ONLY reason this gallery is even on the table.
Uh, actually, not. Of all the downtown 60s70scrapers, FCP was the most loathed, not loved. 70 storeys of marble-clad Edward Durell Stone kitsch, etc.
And furthermore, the Star and everything else on the block were demolished right when Toronto's preservation movement started getting into high gear (the Inventory of Heritage Properties having started in 1973)--together with the net effect of the Crombie mayoralty and the incipient postmodern reaction, FCP couldn't have come out of it all looking more clashingly retrograde and needlessly destructive in context.
Trust me.
I too see no evidence of "bait and switch" and certainly no evidence of "blind faith".
So perhaps if people want to preserve deteriorating, non-fire rated buildings,
So perhaps if people want to preserve deteriorating, non-fire rated buildings, they should get together and buy them from Mirvish. But then they would need a lot of cash to do that and then they have to be restored and constantly maintained.....so they'd need a pretty good income stream.......I guess you could force the city to take them over, they have an endless income stream from taxpayers - Besides, does the city really need all those proposed transit and infrastructure improvements? I mean, seriously, we're talking about some nice old buildings here. And if you think about it, why build something new here when there's already buildings on the property?
This describes the majority of the building stock of every major European city as well as many US cities. Would you also say that European cities ought to be razed in order to update it's building stock?
Absolutely not - but if someone comes forward with a project that offers to improve the usability and function of an area complete with public museum, space for higher education and parkland, why would we counter with preserving buildings that have a limited useable lifespan as a viable alternative?
I think we should learn from Europe and emulate those things that were successful, but I don't think that means preserving buildings at all cost. The Sprawl of London and Paris are a direct result of their refusal to rebuild. If sprawl is acceptable, then by all means we should preserve all buildings. If we want to limit sprawl and increase the city's useability and density and vibrancy, some older buildings must go.
why would we counter with preserving buildings that have a limited useable lifespan as a viable alternative?
If anything Mirvish should be shamed -not rewarded - for neglecting his downtown real-estate holdings.
These historic buildings arguably have greater adaptability, longer lifespan, and are of greater quality in the urban sense than most new buildings going up today.