The Miesian vision has been greatly compromised with the addition of new towers hy his predecessors. On top of that, I can imagine 220 Bay and the old stock exchange weren't part of his vision either. He just to work with it.

By some miracle, the Gehry design actually gets built, it will face far more pressure to change down the road being a residential building.
 
To the supporters: heritage buildings aside, how do we get around the fact that the OMB loves precedent and putting these buildings here will invite them to approve more buildings in an area that lacks the public amenities necessary to make livable and workable conditions (meaning, maintaining a satisfactory level of quality of life) for that level of density?
 
What kind of public amenities are you referring to? There's certainly plenty of restaurants, retail and entertainment venues in the area. Transit and the pedestrian realm? These are things that tend not to get fixed in Toronto until there's a desperate need to do so. If anything, I think these towers would be a catalyst to improve the area for transit users and pedestrians, both because of the additional density and because of the tourism factor that these buildings would provide. Park space? Not really good anywhere in the core except for a few select spaces. The parklets that are scattered around tend to be places for dogs to crap and homeless people to sleep, and generally don't provide a lot of value to most of the people that live around them.
 
ttk77 said:
What kind of public amenities are you referring to? There's certainly plenty of restaurants, retail and entertainment venues in the area. Transit and the pedestrian realm? These are things that tend not to get fixed in Toronto until there's a desperate need to do so. If anything, I think these towers would be a catalyst to improve the area for transit users and pedestrians, both because of the additional density and because of the tourism factor that these buildings would provide. Park space? Not really good anywhere in the core except for a few select spaces. The parklets that are scattered around tend to be places for dogs to crap and homeless people to sleep, and generally don't provide a lot of value to most of the people that live around them.
Click to expand...

I agree with this point of view. Approving this development would definitely set a precedent, but I don't see that as a bad thing. The City has been dragging its feet on proper infrastructure for a rapidly growing downtown. Putting pressure on existing infrastructure will only push the city to improve this infrastructure sooner than later.

Years ago there were doomsday scenarios about downtown's power grid failing due to the increased demand placed on existing infrastructure caused by the condo boom. This forced the city to begin construction on Copeland Station. The city knew the existing Windsor Transformer Station was well beyond its lifespan, yet ignored it for years, and likely would have continued ignoring it until something failed or it was forced to be shut down. The condo boom created more pressure and forced the city to act.

If this project, and the precedent that it will set will help sell the need for a DRL, or streetcar only lanes on King or Queen, then let it be. The city won't be able to ignore the problem anymore.
 
Tuscani01 said:
I agree with this point of view. Approving this development would definitely set a precedent, but I don't see that as a bad thing. The City has been dragging its feet on proper infrastructure for a rapidly growing downtown. Putting pressure on existing infrastructure will only push the city to improve this infrastructure sooner than later.

Years ago there were doomsday scenarios about downtown's power grid failing due to the increased demand placed on existing infrastructure caused by the condo boom. This forced the city to begin construction on Copeland Station. The city knew the existing Windsor Transformer Station was well beyond its lifespan, yet ignored it for years, and likely would have continued ignoring it until something failed or it was forced to be shut down. The condo boom created more pressure and forced the city to act.

If this project, and the precedent that it will set will help sell the need for a DRL, or streetcar only lanes on King or Queen, then let it be. The city won't be able to ignore the problem anymore.
Click to expand...

Well said! The planners need to recognize that more and more people and businesses want to be located downtown and the capital improvement dollars should follow. Planners are underestimating demand at the detriment for the long term planning of downtown. The politicals are far worse, authorizing billions to be spent on subways to Vaughan and a mall in Scarborough while the downtown area faces critical capacity issues. It's outright stupidity for the sake of a few suburban votes.

I'm pleased that the Downtown Relief Line is now seriously discussed by transportation and capital improvement planners, and I believe it's thanks to the rapid residential and office development we've seen downtown. The 'crisis' in capacity caused by all this development has forced the city's hand to look at downtown and the dollars for infrastructure will soon follow.

The politicians and planners should be ahead of the curve, but unfortunately, it takes a crisis for them to act.
 
maestro said:
The Miesian vision has been greatly compromised with the addition of new towers hy his predecessors. On top of that, I can imagine 220 Bay and the old stock exchange weren't part of his vision either. He just to work with it.

By some miracle, the Gehry design actually gets built, it will face far more pressure to change down the road being a residential building.
Click to expand...

The new towers were not added by Mies, they were outside the periphery of the original site – as they were not part of Mies's master plan for the T-D Centre

Working around the Toronto Stock Exchange is a whole lot different than the m/g heritage buildings. The TSE has enormous historical value for the whole country, not just Toronto
 
Hipster Duck said:
Disagree. Heritage isn't a magic bullet. The TD centre tradeoff was getting the best Miesian ensemble (towers plus pavilion) in the world and sacrificing a very fine, but very commonplace Beaux Arts banking hall. What makes the TD centre so consummately beautiful is the fact that it includes the pavilion form, which necessitated tearing down the old bank of Toronto building. The old bank of Toronto building, nice as it was, does not represent the apex of Beaux Arts design in the way that the TD centre represents the very best of modernism/internationalism.
Click to expand...

Okay. On the one hand, I'd contend w/junctionist's assertion that Anderson's actually better than Gehry (which shouldn't be seen as quite an "ergo, Gehry must replace Anderson" statement)--I'd rather take a "jury still out" stance; but it does seem to me that some of the knocks specifically against Gehry's design (as opposed to Gehry's "OCH + Osgoode Hall" remarks) from the pro-heritage crowd seem to be treading on anti-monstrous-carbuncle territory at this point. Which, of course, is just the thing to fuel Mirvish's initiative, rather than draining it.

On the other hand, Hipster...I can understand if you're channeling what was on the mind of the TD Centre creators in the 1960s. Even I'm one to advise "remember the era, remember the cultural context..." whenever your usual suspects lament past demolitions.

But if you're making that statement from an I'd-do-it-all-over-again-in-2013 perspective...well, that's the scary opposite number of the anti-monstrous-carbuncle Gehry-bashers.

Unless, as I've suggested before, it reflects a certain electronic-era paradigm shift in "urban appreciation"--that is, a generation conditioned more through architectural/development/new-design sites and forums than through the more preexisting-environment-based hierarchy of guidebooks and such that came to define "architectural tourism" over the last third of the c20. Thus the tone of Hipster Duck's statement is so utterly, gallingly *disconnected* from what has come to define the heritage realm in recent times...unless it's meant as some kind of "post-heritage" critique. (And maybe it also reflects the way Urban Toronto--or at least the P&C section--has "evolved" over the years; a decade or so, there might have been more of an active Jane Jacobs/Spacing fuzzy-wuzzy element, but now it all too often seems like the "post-heritage" pro-development crowd's taken over the narrative, like this is their "go-to" place. Some a little more Glaeser-fanatical than others.)
 
^^ Agreed.

I think that to completely demolish this block, in order to contruct something entirely new, is to disregard the advances we have made since the mid-20th century in preserving heritage and being able to synthesize the old with the new. We have come so far in attemtpting to ensure things don't just get razed anymore and replaced with whatever's in vogue (community consultation, heritage designation, etc). Yes we have had marvels built like the T-D Centre, but there have been catastrophies like what happened with Penn Station. I'm not saying that these few buildings are our Penn Station, I just find that the terms in which they face demoliton are far too similar for my liking.
 
Though when I think of it, such arguments were even present in UT a decade ago--which brings me to a hypothetical question I first offered then and continue to offer today: what if Penn Station's replacement was by Mies? Would our "received narrative" of and attitudes t/w heritage, et al, be different?

And it could just as well be that if anything's subsequently shifted in the heritage-obtuse direction, it may have a bit to do w/UT's overall evolution from something more fan-forumish into something more corporate/professional--thus the discussion in P&C tends to be more dominated by "vested interests" in architecture, real estate, development, planning et al...
 
I have a feeling that a non-descript 19th century warehouse building can't exactly be compared to Penn Station. Thats like compaing a ferrari to a kia. If these were proposed to replace Union station, peoples support of the project would be much lower. Theres more to historic preservation than the date the building was built, you know.
 
Why does this debate have to be so Black and White? From a preservationist's perspective, sure I get it. A Heritage Building is a Heritage Building. Case closed. Thankfully however, they're not the only people making decisions in this city.

Keeping your eyes shut and yelling HERITAGE over and over again without appreciating the alternative is akin to someone cheering on the demolition of any turn of the century office building just for the sake of having something new. There's two sides to every compromise.

To deny this unprecedented and utterly unique project based on principle alone is pig-headed. If one were to take that stance, then they would have no business arguing the fool who would champion for the demolition of Old City Hall to make room for another copy and paste project.

For those afraid of added density in the area, you should be voicing your concerns at City Hall due to the lack of local transit infrastructure rather than trying to simply limit growth. Btw, are you posting your concerns over density at the Southcore threads? How about at the Yorkville projects? People want to live in the core, the market has proven that. The bigger question is, are you okay with that?
 
Just as there is more to urban development than construction. I see my point was evidently not understood (willfully misinterpreted perhaps?).
 
Well, first off I will acquiesce that this proposed development will fuel the rapidly changing neighbourhood fabric to the point where it may define the "new neighbourhood". Personally, I am okay with the prospect however I can appreciate how many would not be. If that is the preservation you are seeking, the preservation of a rapidly changing node, then you have a very valid point.

Though as I understand, and forgive me if I'm still misinterpreting your original post but it seems to me that you're argument is based on principle. Citing Penn Station in relation to this debate...how is this a practical comparison? Bad things happened when it was torn down so we should not tear down any more Heritage buildings?
 
seventies said:
For those afraid of added density in the area, you should be voicing your concerns at City Hall due to the lack of local transit infrastructure rather than trying to simply limit growth. Btw, are you posting your concerns over density at the Southcore threads? How about at the Yorkville projects? People want to live in the core, the market has proven that. The bigger question is, are you okay with that?
Click to expand...

The city never acts on transit infrastructure until they're up against the wall. This will force them to act.
 
You must log in or register to post here.

Back
Top