DSC, your answer is correct, but to some extent glosses over the fact that there are 158 historic sites that are administered by Parks Canada and paid for entirely by the feds, while there are an additional 800 or so "designated" National Historic sites that receive a designation but no ongoing funding. My beef is that Fort York really needs to be adopted and paid for by the feds.

The Parks Canada website naturally focusses on the 158 sites that are administered by Parks Canada.
 
I think the design drawings are very good. I have no problem with the Gardiner context. There's a messy vitality in this city that you won't find anywhere else in Canada. I wonder if the Federal government will step up to the plate on this one. PET did say something about Toronto and it's waterfront thirty some odd years ago, I think.
 
Archivist said:
DSC, your answer is correct, but to some extent glosses over the fact that there are 158 historic sites that are administered by Parks Canada and paid for entirely by the feds, while there are an additional 800 or so "designated" National Historic sites that receive a designation but no ongoing funding. My beef is that Fort York really needs to be adopted and paid for by the feds.

The Parks Canada website naturally focusses on the 158 sites that are administered by Parks Canada.
Click to expand...

Thanks for the expansion Archivist - I was not suggesting that PC should not support Fort York and in fact agree with you that they should do so.
 
Frank Godfrey said:
There's a messy vitality in this city that you won't find anywhere else in Canada.
Click to expand...

...only if your Canada does not include Quebec. Montreal's wonderfully messy vitality aside, I agree with the rest of your post.

Hopefully the coming 200th anniversary of the War of 1812 will cause the government to think enough about it to add Fort York to Parks Canada's complement of administered sites: that logo on a sign outside adds more than funding.

42
 
Last edited:
interchange42 said:
...only if your Canada does not include Quebec. Montreal's wonderfully messy vitality aside, I agree with the rest of your post.

Hopefully the coming 200th anniversary of the War of 1812 will cause the government to think enough about it to add Fort York to Parks Canada's compliment of administered sites: that logo on a sign outside adds more than funding.

42
Click to expand...

Agreed. Both cities are vibrant , messy and unique. And not needing to be compared, thank God, whenever mention is made of one or the other.
 
Perhaps it's time to move Fort York to the lakefront and to build it again like it was back in 1812. IMO, Fort York should look like Fort Wellington, which is a similar sized fort of similar age http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fort_Wellington

And for those who worry that moving the fort detracts from or destroys it's historic significance I say that's not true. The entire ancient site of Abu Simbel in Egypt was moved to make way for the Aswan Dam, see http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Abu_Simbel and it's still historic and valued.

So, here's my plan. Move the entire fort to Coronation Park next to HMCS York, it's not very far, see http://tinyurl.com/yboo8qc. The space is there, see this http://tinyurl.com/yh4qxn3 Then move the sports fields and facilities from Coronation Park to the Fort York site. When the project was finished Fort York's guns and battlements would again be facing the Western Gap of the Harbour, as they were in 1812. I'd also consider moving this new fort to Federal, Parks Canada jurisdiction, though perhaps after the budget slicing Harper has moved on.
 
Last edited:
^ Not a good idea. I don't see how taxpayers of any level of government could support the idea of moving Fort York just to have it beside the current Lake Ontario shoreline. Moving Fort York could also disrupt any archaeological excavations on the site - digging at the site revealing artifacts would have to be carefully documented and cataloged, which will slow down the project. Also, moving Fort York and building new buildings on top of the current Fort York site would eliminate that site from future archaeological excavations.

re: Abu Simbel

Abu Simbel had to be moved because it was going to be flooded by the Aswan Dam. Is there anything endangering Fort York so much that it must be moved?
 
Re: Moving Fort York. I understand where Beez is coming from, in that the Fort's sandwiched location between railway tracks and an expressway does not serve it well, and I think his idea is to highlight the fort and make it more pleasant to visit.

However, the logic that moving the fort would not damage it's authenticity or historical significance is flawed - simply because some historic sites have been moved some of the time doesn't mean that their authenticy or heritage value has not been reduced - in fact, they have been. Sometimes moving is a better option than losing altogether, but it is always damaging to the original context and understanding of the site, not to mention the artifacts etc. that might be lost.

I think the best thing to do would be to make the site's location an asset. I would love to see things like a really cool pedestrian bridge to the north, or some kind of structure, perhaps a visiting centre, that breaches the blockade the Gardiner makes.

Wait a second? That's what they are doing. I guess we're OK then.
 
And of course, lest we forget, they already proposed moving it to the shoreline 50+ years ago for the Gardiner--until protests convinced the powers that be otherwise...
 
Yes, every inch of every street of every size everywhere should have retail. With Densityâ„¢. And eleven-storey podiums. This will cause world classness!
 
CapitalSeven said:
Yes, every inch of every street of every size everywhere should have retail. With Density™. And eleven-storey podiums. This will cause world classness!
Click to expand...

It might not cause "world classness" lol but it would certainly make the city more pedestrian friendly, safer and nicer to walk around. Yes, some people still walk!
 
You must log in or register to post here.

Back
Top