[innsertnamehere]

Difference is that these are generic 19th century warehouse buildings (with the exception if the Anderson building), compared to mainstay toronto landmarks.

 

[renvel]

Heritage buildings

I think I've said before I'd really like this development if were replacing some bad urbanism or a brownfield on the waterfront, instead of some handsome heritage buildings that the owners agreed to designate.

At any rate, yesterday a link to the planning site was posted. I had a look at the architectural plans, the Rationale, and the Heritage Impact Assessment. Largely marketing documents, a whole lot of self-serving speciosity going on in there. Section 5.5 of the Rationale addresses the King-Spadina Secondary Plan, without so much as noting that it says:

2.5 Heritage buildings and other important buildings within the King-Spadina Area will be retained, restored and re-used.

and

4.1 Heritage buildings in the King-Spadina Area are essential elements of the physical character. In this regard, the City will seek the retention, conservation, rehabilitation, re-use and restoration of heritage buildigns by means of one or more appropriate legal agreements.

According the Heritage document, essentially, it's all right to tear down the old warehouses because their primary value is their association with the Mirvishes. So if the Mirvishes demolish them and put up shiny new buildings, the heritage value is retained.

I guess Pellatt's family could re-purchase Casa Loma and replace it with a parkade. What could some people named Gooderham or Eaton get up to?

Do you feel the ground sliding out from under you yet?

I'm basically agree with your opinion. Do not forget POW demolition.
I wold rather see the Casino entertainment/ convention centre complex construction. Too bad , opposit will happen...

 

[greenleaf]

I think I've said before I'd really like this development if were replacing some bad urbanism or a brownfield on the waterfront, instead of some handsome heritage buildings that the owners agreed to designate.

At any rate, yesterday a link to the planning site was posted. I had a look at the architectural plans, the Rationale, and the Heritage Impact Assessment. Largely marketing documents, a whole lot of self-serving speciosity going on in there. Section 5.5 of the Rationale addresses the King-Spadina Secondary Plan, without so much as noting that it says:

2.5 Heritage buildings and other important buildings within the King-Spadina Area will be retained, restored and re-used.

and

4.1 Heritage buildings in the King-Spadina Area are essential elements of the physical character. In this regard, the City will seek the retention, conservation, rehabilitation, re-use and restoration of heritage buildigns by means of one or more appropriate legal agreements.

According the Heritage document, essentially, it's all right to tear down the old warehouses because their primary value is their association with the Mirvishes. So if the Mirvishes demolish them and put up shiny new buildings, the heritage value is retained.

I guess Pellatt's family could re-purchase Casa Loma and replace it with a parkade. What could some people named Gooderham or Eaton get up to?

Do you feel the ground sliding out from under you yet?

Yep. I have a ton of respect for ERA, but this heritage impact statement they submitted for this was embarrassing.

 

[Mongo]

Difference is that these are generic 19th century warehouse buildings (with the exception if the Anderson building), compared to mainstay toronto landmarks.

Not even that, they were all built in the early 20th century. Not that the exact year they were built really matters.

 

[adma]

Difference is that these are generic 19th century warehouse buildings (with the exception if the Anderson building), compared to mainstay toronto landmarks.

And as I've stated before, the only reason Anderson "jumps out" is that it's terra cotta--but in fact, there's equally valid arguments for others on the affected blockfronts, Eclipse Whitewear especially.

In fact, I'd deduct overall Toronto-heritage-literacy points from *anyone* who offers anything resembling a "keep Anderson; ditch the rest" argument.

 

[Peepers]

If the Warehouses and Terracotta building are worth preserving (and I believe that they are) why not simply relocate them to another nearby project site thereby giving Mr. Gehry a clean sheet of paper to work with? I don't want to see a repeat of the AGO where constraints were put on Gehry's genius which resulted in a building that ranks as one of Gehry's least memorable (does it even register on architectural radar screens outside of Toronto?).

There are still nearby parking lots yet to be developed. Why not reconstitute these heritage buildings on these project sites and use them as podium for new towers?

 

[adma]

I don't want to see a repeat of the AGO where constraints were put on Gehry's genius which resulted in a building that ranks as one of Gehry's least memorable (does it even register on architectural radar screens outside of Toronto?).

If this is "least memorable", maybe less is more.

 

[Tewder]

And as I've stated before, the only reason Anderson "jumps out" is that it's terra cotta--but in fact, there's equally valid arguments for others on the affected blockfronts, Eclipse Whitewear especially.

In fact, I'd deduct overall Toronto-heritage-literacy points from *anyone* who offers anything resembling a "keep Anderson; ditch the rest" argument.

Come now, it's not just terra cotta...

From the City of Toronto:

Statement of Cultural Heritage Value
The architectural significance of the Anderson Building comes from its application of terra cotta in combination with an exuberant Edwardian Classical design. The Anderson Building is a rare surviving example of a commercial warehouse with terra cotta cladding in Toronto where, because of the fragility of the material, relatively few examples remain, as documented in the book Terra Cotta: artful deceivers (1990, 94).

The heritage value of the Anderson is arguably more legible and so if push comes to shove in a 'Sophie's Choice'-type way I could see why the Anderson would fare better. Preserving history and preserving architecture are not always exactly one and the same thing, and it's an important distinction to be made.

 

[junctionist]

If the Warehouses and Terracotta building are worth preserving (and I believe that they are) why not simply relocate them to another nearby project site thereby giving Mr. Gehry a clean sheet of paper to work with? I don't want to see a repeat of the AGO where constraints were put on Gehry's genius which resulted in a building that ranks as one of Gehry's least memorable (does it even register on architectural radar screens outside of Toronto?).

There are still nearby parking lots yet to be developed. Why not reconstitute these heritage buildings on these project sites and use them as podium for new towers?

Even if the buildings remain standing in their original location, Gehry will have room to be creative in designing the new buildings. The AGO was a renovation and expansion plan--not a commission to design an entirely new building. The towers are going to be 80 storeys high and feature pure Gehry design. It would only be more unique to have historical buildings standing next to them. The only thing that would compromise Gehry's design is if he were forced to have the facades tacked onto his work. That's the sort of "preservation" that is so common in Toronto development that perhaps many people can't even imagine the better outcome that is new and old in harmony next to each other. Facadectomies tack the old onto the new, and it typically compromises both the old and the new. That should be avoided. But preserving the heritage buildings entirely would add another dimension of interest to the streetscape. Their integrity would be kept intact, and Gehry would still be free to design what he wants.

 

[adma]

The heritage value of the Anderson is arguably more legible and so if push comes to shove in a 'Sophie's Choice'-type way I could see why the Anderson would fare better. Preserving history and preserving architecture are not always exactly one and the same thing, and it's an important distinction to be made.

Though "more legible" in a bit of a dumbed-down way all the same--and as I've said before, if we were to niggle over architectural quality beyond materials-being-used, I actually find Anderson a little gawky and ungainly in its proportions--"exuberance" isn't everything. So on balance, it's scarcely any kind of plain-and-clear architectural superior to its neighbours...

 

[Tewder]

Though "more legible" in a bit of a dumbed-down way all the same--and as I've said before, if we were to niggle over architectural quality beyond materials-being-used, I actually find Anderson a little gawky and ungainly in its proportions--"exuberance" isn't everything. So on balance, it's scarcely any kind of plain-and-clear architectural superior to its neighbours...

Many significant buildings could be viewed by some as 'ungainly' or 'exuberant' but this doesn't make them 'dumb' from a heritage POV no matter how populist they might be. I hear echoes of Urban Shocker who would have clear cut almost any Victorian building around because they offended him aesthetically...

Again, in a 'gun to your head' scenario it'd be an interesting choice though. From the point of view of the architecture you have to chose the rarity of the Anderson (in this case its materials) over the better design of the EW building because though perhaps better the design isn't exemplary (enough). From the point of view of the historical significance the EW building is more important, but you do not absolutely need the building in order to preserve the history...

 

[adma]

Many significant buildings could be viewed by some as 'ungainly' or 'exuberant' but this doesn't make them 'dumb' from a heritage POV no matter how populist they might be. I hear echoes of Urban Shocker who would have clear cut almost any Victorian building around because they offended him aesthetically...

Though US's "anti-Victorianism" tended to be more rhetorical-gestural than seriously proscriptive IMO. Likewise, even in critiquing Anderson, I'm not condemning it as heritage--but because everything on this block has a "statement of heritage value" because everything's designated, it's silly to single out Anderson. Even w/the terra cotta, it's more of a sum-of-parts situation in this frontage; which is why Mirvish/Gehry's decision to sacrifice it all is comprehensible.

The mentality that thinks Anderson's oh-wow and the rest is a bore is like the mentality that thinks the Rockies are oh-wow and the Prairies are a bore.

 

[Tewder]

The mentality that thinks Anderson's oh-wow and the rest is a bore is like the mentality that thinks the Rockies are oh-wow and the Prairies are a bore.

Well again, it's more about 'legibility'.

The unfortunate thing is having to argue for any of these buildings given that they are already listed and were presumed safe.

 

[adma]

Well again, it's more about 'legibility'.

To borrow a page from Mirvishian fare on this block, "legibility" = an Andrew Lloyd Webber-ing of the "heritage question". (Which is nothing to do with Mirvish's own aesthetic values--which is also why, in the name of "legibility", he's offering for Gehry over Anderson.)

 

[Tewder]

To borrow a page from Mirvishian fare on this block, "legibility" = an Andrew Lloyd Webber-ing of the "heritage question".

Yes, of course. I only offer up 'legibility' as an explanation as to why the mountain-loving masses perceive the heritage value of the Anderson more readily... the thing is though, they're not necessarily wrong. High brow/low brow - Andrew Lloyd Webber/Sondheim - doesn't always count where preservation is concerned and I'd deduct heritage literacy points from any poseur that insists it does.