[diminutive]

Warehouse buildings are interesting not for their specific architectural purity or specifics but for their possibility to be re-purposed into all kinds of mixed-uses which is directly in keeping with the spirit of the neighbourhood. The singular poetics of an architectural master and condo buildings themselves are together perhapes the exact opposite of a mixed-use sustainable built form.

I think you're overstating their adaptability. In many ways they're not adaptable at all to meet our current demands. These buildings will never, ever, be compliant with modern accessibility requirements, for instance. More importantly, they're not especially easy to repurpose. Unlike more recent buildings, their original (industrial) purposes simply vanished, leaving them open to be repurposed. It wouldn't make much sense to, say, convert a downtown office tower into condos since why fix something that ain't broke.

It does happen sometimes, the Imperial Oil building could be an example. More often than not though there's simply not point in repurposing. If an apocalypse hit the Toronto office market, you may start to see conversions, but how likely is that?

Mirvish-Gehry is apparently designed from the ground up to be mixed-use. It would undoubtedly provide much better institutional, residential and commercial space than some warehouses which aren't even accessible.

 

[TrickyRicky]

Diminutive, perhaps my point is irrelevent if I take a deterministic view because if the block doesn't disappear and turn into this project it will probably just disappear and turn into some uninspired condo box anyway.

But I don't agree with your argument regarding the lack of adaptability of these kinds of warehouse buildings. They prove themselves adaptable and you can look to any number of examples around the city for example.

 

[adma]

It's not 'blockbusting.' You may like to use that word since it makes the project look more hubris-y, but it's not. You may as well call Mirvish-Gehry a 'hate crime' or accuse it of being a nuclear plant or some other such negatively connoted term.

Just because a building occupies an entire urban block does not make it blockbusting.

And why does this term keep getting abused? It's meaning is readily available to anyone and everyone.

Well, I'd counter-offer: why does the term "blockbuster" have to be so constrained by the stigma of past negative connotations? It's almost like some of you want to consign it to the same purgatory enjoyed by place names with "Negro" or "Squaw" in them...

 

[adma]

I suspect *adma* metaphors are so subtle, that are only really understood by adma.

Not necessarily; the way I see it, even if it seems a little out-there, the "heritage = Ford, starchitecture = Smitherman" metaphor is something that can awaken a little constructive discussion re *both* architecture *and* politics, in their separate (albeit sometimes intersecting) spheres. Even re the "scale" at which their respective campaigns worked, their successes, their failings, etc (and through my invocation of Ford, don't say there isn't some inherent critique of, uh, "heritage sentiment" as a be-all and end-all, either).

And it's through grasping such subtleties that you'll have a chance of meeting and matching Ford Nation (or at least, a critical mass thereof) on its own turf--and as a demonstration that it isn't simply left vs right, David Miller's team knew in 2003; Jack Layton's team knew in 2011; Peter Kormos knew in Welland; I wouldn't be surprised if Kristyn Wong-Tam's team knew in some future mayoral campaign.

"Heritage", in this reading, is a (fatally?) warm'n'fuzzy, magnanimous thing, much like Ford's brand of "want a button? want a magnet? see ya at the Ford Fest" retail politics seemed to be in 2010. "Starchitecture" in lieu of all that seems kind of pompously, elite-ishly remote...much like what turned voters off Smitherman in '10. And all the more so when it proposes to replace such "heritage".

And in cases like this, it isn't enough to merely invoke David Mirvish's truly stellar history as arts patron, etc. Because if you do it in a tone of pompous-prick "how can you reject such greatness!" hubris...you just might drive people into the hands of the comfortably "inferior". Again, much like what led voters to opt for Ford in '10.

These are the people that bug me the most, because of the absurdity of the question and the arrogance of their position.

And again: look in the mirror when it comes to "arrogance of their position", kiddo. Like...

Obviously the heritage crowd hasn't had much to do since their last great triumph...the out of place theme-park rebuild of Bishop's Block.

Like, I don't know why Bishop's Block looms so large with you--look: whatever the end result, you'll find very, very few if any in the heritage realm who'd have opted to euthanize Bishop's Block instead. And btw/this and your "Tim Hortons" dismissal of Eclipse Whitewear, it just seems like you have a real bilious bee in your bonnet that makes me wonder whether you've had past-or-present vested interests in projects that were scuttled or compromised by "the heritage crowd".

Put it this way: even if it's on behalf of Architectural Greatness and World Class Facilities For The Arts, you're not going to get anywhere advocating the principled destruction of de jure heritage when you come across as the sort who'd be the skunk in the ointment in any reputable heritage body.

(Then again, maybe the "Tim Hortons under threat" brings us full circle back to the Ford vs Smitherman analogy...)

 

[freshcutgrass]

Like, I don't know why Bishop's Block looms so large with you

Merely mentioning doesn't mean it looms large. It's simply an example of appeasement on the part of the developer, rather than any genuine concern for heritage preservation. Building a replica of it on the site did ZERO for heritage. It didn't do much for the tower either. It was a rather dumb idea contextually. The developer would have built a brass igloo there if that's what it took to get the job done.

Heritage preservation is a wonderful thing....when that is what you are setting out to do. The Gehry project is not a historic preservation project....it's a clear the site and build something new project. I would hope that Mirvish/Gehry have enough integrity to not go down that appeasement road.

And in cases like this, it isn't enough to merely invoke David Mirvish's truly stellar history as arts patron, etc. Because if you do it in a tone of pompous-prick "how can you reject such greatness!" hubris...you just might drive people into the hands of the comfortably "inferior".

Except I really don't care what "they" do. Thankfully, this isn't a democratic issue decided by Joe Lunchbox. Mirvish could just as easily sell his real estate and go build his art museum elsewhere with the considerable profits, leaving said property in the same predicament, sans Mirvish/Gehry. Perhaps you'd prefer more Pinnacle buildings here instead?

 

[Tewder]

Mirvish could just as easily sell his real estate and go build his art museum elsewhere with the considerable profits, leaving said property in the same predicament, sans Mirvish/Gehry. Perhaps you'd prefer more Pinnacle buildings here instead?

These properties are listed though, no?

Regardless, I don't want Mirvish to build elsewhere. The Mirvish presence is part of the heritage of this neck of the woods, if we care to acknowledge heritage in this way... and this is indeed an amazing project in so many ways. It's just that the 'cut-and-start-from-scratch' approach feels wrong in this context, for me (because of my sensibilities). I can't help but feel that Gehry could still give us awesome towers and cloudy wispy bits all over the place, all the while incorporating much of the existing urban/architectural layers. Then again, I believe that this is the right approach in 'old' Toronto. That the days of 'blockbusting' (yes i'll use the term) in our old city core should be behind us, from an 'it was understandable and useful at the time but we should know better now' point of view.

I don't get the "natural" vs "un-natural" dichotomy here. Or that a well planned approach is worse than the haphazard approach. I'm not saying your argument doesn't have merit, just that it is dependent of context. And the Gehry project is actually much more in context with this stretch of King than what is there now....even if someone deemed it worth preserving.

I hesitated when i used the word 'natural' which is why i put it in quotes. What I'm alluding to is 'natural' in the sense of not 'master planned', i.e. something that evolves organically and incrementally over time, according to the normal forces and tensions that come into play... and this is not a judgement of things master planned. I like a city that has healthy doses of both. I just get worried that under the pressures of massive development we are at risk of destroying/losing so much of the character of the old city - that has developed gradually over time - for modern planned developments.

edited to add:
It's sort of why in Paris they didn't build La Defense in the centre of the city?

 

[adma]

Well, in case one wants to maintain "Mirvish presence"--who knows, if this stretch is a no-go, there might be a new development parcel across the street, courtesy Blob Ford...

 

[freshcutgrass]

It's just that the 'cut-and-start-from-scratch' approach feels wrong in this context, for me (because of my sensibilities).

For me, it's the context that tips the scales in favour of the Gehry design. This section of King screams for the Gehry, and while there's nothing wrong per say with the white-washed warehouses, they don't stack up when faced with the proposed project. While these buildings don't have the character of the King-Spadina warehouses, I'm sure Allied would do a nice job with them as restored post & beam offices. Except this property is too valuable and the warehouses too dull to make it economically.

I can't help but feel that Gehry could still give us awesome towers and cloudy wispy bits all over the place, all the while incorporating much of the existing urban/architectural layers.

Well, that's very easy for you to say, but you aren't the owner, and you aren't the artist. I probably would have had an opinion on how Davinci could have painted the Mona Lisa differently too.

Ok....the warehouses couldn't be retained in their entirety, as they take up the entire site, leaving nothing for new construction (or not enough) Facadism is laughable considering the rather dull/unattractive facades involved, and the unlikelihood that Mirvish/Gehry would compromise serious architecture simply to appease someone.

That the days of 'blockbusting' (yes i'll use the term) in our old city core should be behind us, from an 'it was understandable and useful at the time but we should know better now' point of view.

Well firstly, you can use the term, but you are either using it incorrectly out of ignorance, or using it on purpose to mislead and over dramatize. Neither of which is good. Is your position that weak that you need to resort to that?

Secondly, you are saying that there is no place for building new by replacing the old. This is false. This is not to say we endorse ripping down neighbourhoods to build St Jamestowns.

What I'm alluding to is 'natural' in the sense of not 'master planned'

I don't think the term "master planned" works here either. If that's the case, every tower built is "master planned". Master Planned conjures up projects of much larger scope.

and this is not a judgement of things master planned. I like a city that has healthy doses of both. I just get worried that under the pressures of massive development we are at risk of destroying/losing so much of the character of the old city

Toronto does have a healthy dose of both, and is no danger of losing its victorian/edwardian era character. There's simply waaaaay too much of it...pretty much every part of every high street in the old city....and almost every residential street.

It's sort of why in Paris they didn't build La Defense in the centre of the city?

A: Toronto is not Paris (or Venice or Rome)

B: You do realize the "Centre City" Paris is a "master-planned" project, that demolished all of medieval Paris to build?

 

[AlvinofDiaspar]

Tewder:

I can't help but feel that Gehry could still give us awesome towers and cloudy wispy bits all over the place, all the while incorporating much of the existing urban/architectural layers.

That's like someone saying that Mona Lisa looks better with a mustache.

It's sort of why in Paris they didn't build La Defense in the centre of the city?

Actually, Centre Pompidou might be a better characterization of the intended impact and contextual "fit". And besides, the historic centre of Paris isn't exactly similar in built form to I don't know, the King strip - bookended on three sides by structures of significantly more intense uses and height.

AoD

 

[Oliver Tweed]

Perhaps this is an overly idealistic position given that the entire district is essentially being razed and turned into a monotonous residential condo neighbourhood.

This strikes me as a gross exaggeration.

 

[supercilious]

Jesus, this thread is the worst.

Just because a building is a couple hundred years old, doesn't mean it needs to be preserved. There are thousand year old buildings in Europe that get razed all the time and nobody bats an eye. Its a bunch of warehouses ffs...

 

[Adjei]

Jesus, this thread is the worst.

Just because a building is a couple hundred years old, doesn't mean it needs to be preserved. There are thousand year old buildings in Europe that get razed all the time and nobody bats an eye. Its a bunch of warehouses ffs...

Yeah I don't see whats so special about those buildings, it's not like they are some worldwide architectural marvel. What will stand in place is more than worthy of replacing these buildings.

 

[diminutive]

Well, I'd counter-offer: why does the term "blockbuster" have to be so constrained by the stigma of past negative connotations? It's almost like some of you want to consign it to the same purgatory enjoyed by place names with "Negro" or "Squaw" in them...

Because you're using the term incorrectly to gin up emotion and cover up gaping holes in your argument. Blockbusting, actual blockbusting, was a hugely negative phenomenon which played an important part in the gutting of many inner city american neighborhoods. It's impossible to separate that term from the racial and socioeconomic prejudices which engendered it.

Blockbusting was never considered a negative because it, sometimes, happened to take up an entire block, either. Large scale developments which spanned entire city (or multiple) city blocks existed long before 'blockbusting' and doesn't have any particular negative connotation. One could just as easily accuse Union Station of being the product of 'blockbusting.'

What's more frustrating is that many perfectly accurate terms exist for what you are trying to describe. The simple term 'megaproject' is far more descriptive of Mirvish-Gehry's scale and intent.

What doesn't make sense is 'blockbusting.' If you insert Mirvish-Gehry into any standard definition of blockbusting, rather than your crass recycling of the term, it becomes clear just how misplaced it is.

(MIRVISH-GEHRY) was a business practice of U.S. real estate agents and building developers meant to encourage white property owners to sell their houses at a loss. (MIRVISH-GEHRY) by implying that racial minorities were moving into their previously racially segregated neighborhood, thus depressing real estate property values.[1] (MIRVISH-GEHRY0 became possible after the legislative and judicial dismantling of legally protected racially segregated real estate practices after World War II, but by the 1980s it largely disappeared as a business practice after changes in law and the real estate market.[2]

 

[ProjectEnd]

For me, it's the context that tips the scales in favour of the Gehry design. This section of King screams for the Gehry, and while there's nothing wrong per say with the white-washed warehouses, they don't stack up when faced with the proposed project. While these buildings don't have the character of the King-Spadina warehouses, I'm sure Allied would do a nice job with them as restored post & beam offices. Except this property is too valuable and the warehouses too dull to make it economically.




Well, that's very easy for you to say, but you aren't the owner, and you aren't the artist. I probably would have had an opinion on how Davinci could have painted the Mona Lisa differently too.

Ok....the warehouses couldn't be retained in their entirety, as they take up the entire site, leaving nothing for new construction (or not enough) Facadism is laughable considering the rather dull/unattractive facades involved, and the unlikelihood that Mirvish/Gehry would compromise serious architecture simply to appease someone.




Well firstly, you can use the term, but you are either using it incorrectly out of ignorance, or using it on purpose to mislead and over dramatize. Neither of which is good. Is your position that weak that you need to resort to that?

Secondly, you are saying that there is no place for building new by replacing the old. This is false. This is not to say we endorse ripping down neighbourhoods to build St Jamestowns.





I don't think the term "master planned" works here either. If that's the case, every tower built is "master planned". Master Planned conjures up projects of much larger scope.





Toronto does have a healthy dose of both, and is no danger of losing its victorian/edwardian era character. There's simply waaaaay too much of it...pretty much every part of every high street in the old city....and almost every residential street.





A: Toronto is not Paris (or Venice or Rome)

B: You do realize the "Centre City" Paris is a "master-planned" project, that demolished all of medieval Paris to build?

This simply isn't true.

Jesus, this thread is the worst.

Just because a building is a couple hundred years old, doesn't mean it needs to be preserved. There are thousand year old buildings in Europe that get razed all the time and nobody bats an eye. Its a bunch of warehouses ffs...

Again, simply not true. In general, European heritage laws are far stricter than our own.

 

[supercilious]

Again, simply not true. In general, European heritage laws are far stricter than our own.

I would hope so. Europe has some actual heritage to protect.

Toronto was practically just a train stop until 100 years ago. I honestly find it embarrassing that people would care so much about something so meaningless as what is standing on King street currently. Especially when you compare it to what is envisioned to be built in that space.

It reeks of inferiority and grasping at "heritage" straws that most other people would scoff at.

Toronto has barely any heritage... On the other hand, we have an opportunity to create something that can be looked on with pride for centuries if the thing actually gets built.