It's not the roundhouse - it is the setting which it sits in. No proper street wall, no sense of enclosure, large, improperly scaled uses that are not "activated" most of the time (particularly Rogers Centre, less so MTCC), etc., undesirable dead spaces around the edge (Gardiner, empty sites).

AoD
 
Tewder said:
I think it depends somewhat on your view of 'history', either as something that is static in the past or as something that continually unfolds. It's both of these things really. The moving of a building is not always negative, it's just part of its ongoing story, as is adaptive reuse... unless we're talking about a certain specific context of time and place being deemed significant for preservation, and surely the Roundhouse at this location absolutely is. I just don't see any credible reason for moving it.
Click to expand...

Agreed on all counts, Tewder. History itself - at least our notion of it - is indeed mutable, and moving buildings is not always a bad thing. Perhaps it's merely that, in the case of this city, I would like it to change at a slower rate than others would. And in the case of the roundhouse, I find the notion of moving it utterly repellent; after all, that one building has magnitudes more character than many of the soaring, bland glass boxes casting shadows over it.
 
AlvinofDiaspar said:
It's not the roundhouse - it is the setting which it sits in. No proper street wall, no sense of enclosure, large, improperly scaled uses that are not "activated" most of the time (particularly Rogers Centre, less so MTCC), etc., undesirable dead spaces around the edge (Gardiner, empty sites).

AoD
Click to expand...

Well, how can you possibly fix that without sacrificing green space?
 
Lenser:

Though using the facade on a nearby site might work very well in providing an interesting face to otherwise new and boring projects.

AoD
 
brockm:

I don't think you can ever fully fix the problem given that the various elements are going to be with us for a very, very long time (CN Tower, Rogers Centre, Gardiner). You probably have to wait for incremental improvement - Ripley probably won't do much design-wise, other than adding potential pedestrians (IMO, the orientation of the building and turning its' face back away from Bremner a huge lost opportunity), but an appropriately scaled new MTCC south building (where the existing entry pavilion sits) right up to the edge of Bremner might be able to improve things at the Simcoe St. end. That, filling in all the empty lots and redesigning all the park spaces in the area so that it is all tied in in a way that adds warmth all helps - right now the windswept plazas are way too sterile, and I think the Roundhouse Park (in fact, ALL the open space in the area) is pretty poor landscape architecture - cheap, unadventurous, unappealing generic park design on a budget.

AoD
 
Last edited:
Lenser said:
I find the notion of moving it utterly repellent; after all, that one building has magnitudes more character than many of the soaring, bland glass boxes casting shadows over it.
Click to expand...

I completely agree. This structure is part of the very narrative of this city... and Roundhouse Park is right for so many reasons. I just can't comprehend how anyone could fail to understand this. If anything i'd like to see more invested into this site.

... heck, even the view of it from above (from the CN Tower) is preservation-worthy, a sort of vertical view corridor.
 
AlvinofDiaspar said:
brockm:

I don't think you can ever fully fix the problem given that the various elements are going to be with us for a very, very long time (CN Tower, Rogers Centre, Gardiner). You probably have to wait for incremental improvement - Ripley probably won't do much design-wise, other than adding potential pedestrians (IMO, the orientation of the building and turning its' face back away from Bremner a huge lost opportunity), but an appropriately scaled new MTCC south building (where the existing entry pavilion sits) right up to the edge of Bremner might be able to improve things at the Simcoe St. end. That, filling in all the empty lots and redesigning all the park spaces in the area so that it is all tied in in a way that adds warmth all helps - right now the windswept plazas are way too sterile, and I think the Roundhouse Park (in fact, ALL the open space in the area) is pretty poor landscape architecture - cheap, unadventurous, unappealing generic park design on a budget.

AoD
Click to expand...

Or, we could just sacrifice some green space. =)
 
Lenser said:
I'd have to agree, AoD, but then again it's not clear to me if DtTo is at all serious about his suggestion.
Click to expand...

Or perhaps he's just "venting", knowing that "his side" is not presently in charge of the narrative. Sort of like the urban version of self-styled "art conoisseurs" who fail to see the value in Mark Rothko; y'know, blobs of paint, nothing more, nothing less, etc.

And re the matter of transplantation--well, as I've said before, the argument for Anderson "above all else" is that it's the facade that most lends itself to transplantation, the other buildings being too solidly "building-like" to merit such treatment, etc. But let's never forget that even preservationists aren't at all hot on that kind of "postage stamp" solution, rightly recognizing it as a trivializing gesture--and on that mark, they and Mirvish are practically on the same plane, in spite of themselves. To quote myself earlier...

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.
Click to expand...

Note: I said comprehensible. Not reprehensible (as a lot of Mirvish/Gehry opponents would rather frame it)
 
I think it would be interesting to see the entire project marketed at the same time rather than tower by tower. More people might purchase if they thought everything could be completed in one massive phase.
 
I think the eastmost tower needs a redesign. My problem is that the west and east towers aren't quite the same, nor are they different enough in design. Not to mention, it's odd that the middle tower will be clad in that tin-like material, kinda awkward with it right in the middle... I'd prefer all 3 towers to have very different designs.

I just hope this complex doesn't ruin out skyline view from the west, considering it'll be blocking out most of FCP and Scotia Plaza. [as seen in the PDF skyline elevations]
 
Steveve, we certainly have not seen the final designs of the towers by a long shot. Here's the deal though; deconstructivist architecture like Gehry's does not conform to the traditional understanding of what is classical beauty, so it's far harder to predict who is going to like or dislike which buildings or elements of buildings of his oeuvre. You might end up feeling that they do ruin the skyline view that you currently like, whereas others may feel they make it more beautiful than ever. Both sides will be right as it applies to themselves, but neither will be able to claim to have the only valid viewpoint.

42
 
interchange42 said:
Steveve, we certainly have not seen the final designs of the towers by a long shot. Here's the deal though; deconstructivist architecture like Gehry's does not conform to the traditional understanding of what is classical beauty, so it's far harder to predict who is going to like or dislike which buildings or elements of buildings of his oeuvre. You might end up feeling that they do ruin the skyline view that you currently like, whereas others may feel they make it more beautiful than ever. Both sides will be right as it applies to themselves, but neither will be able to claim to have the only valid viewpoint.

42
Click to expand...


great commentary, I couldn't agree more.
 
You must log in or register to post here.

Back
Top