RC8 said:
In my opinion it fails to accomplish what it set out to do. Instead of achieving elegance through its simplicity it just comes across as oppressive and darkens the mood of the intersection it sits on.
Click to expand...

Uh...hyperbole much?

And as an indication of the limits of such subjective opinion, consider that there are those (Urban Shocker, for one) who'd claim likewise of such 3-4-score-decade-older lost Toronto landmarks as the Board of Trade and the Temple Building. Which, indeed, may have been common "discerning" opinion half a century ago; but try getting away with it today.

Indeed, if anything is "oppressive" and "mood-darkening", it's the kind of self-consciously overdiscerning taste mentality that whittles things down to the absolute cream of the crop a la Benvenuto...
 
As I said I respect the building and would like to see it stay and be kept in as pristine condition as possible. I'm not calling for demolition. I just think that heritage designation is an indication of historical and artistic value, and not necessarily of functional architecture.

Another example of a Dickinson tower that exemplifies good architecture is the Westbury Hotel:

201131-westbury.jpg


Objectively, according to many measurable variables, the Westbury and Benvenuto are far superior to Dickinson's Regent Park creations. 790 Bay lies somewhere in between. Architecture as an art is subjective - but architecture as the creation of suitable human habitat is less so.
 
RC8 said:
Objectively, according to many measurable variables, the Westbury and Benvenuto are far superior to Dickinson's Regent Park creations. 790 Bay lies somewhere in between. Architecture as an art is subjective - but architecture as the creation of suitable human habitat is less so.
Click to expand...

In practice, there's far, far less of a "suitable human habitat" gulf btw/790 Bay and the Westbury than there is btw/790 Bay and Regent Park. It's only an office building, you know--as "only" as the Westbury was a hotel.

Which, of course, is taking us off topic--though I fear (as per other remarks on this thread re that high-rise on Ashley, etc) that the save-Humbertown bunch is the sort who'd be heavily in thrall to the Prince Charles bunch re modernism, notwithstanding Humbertown's (and Humber Valley Village's) own roots in that period...
 
adma said:
In practice, there's far, far less of a "suitable human habitat" gulf btw/790 Bay and the Westbury than there is btw/790 Bay and Regent Park. It's only an office building, you know--as "only" as the Westbury was a hotel.
Click to expand...

This is true.

adma said:
Which, of course, is taking us off topic--though I fear (as per other remarks on this thread re that high-rise on Ashley, etc) that the save-Humbertown bunch is the sort who'd be heavily in thrall to the Prince Charles bunch re modernism, notwithstanding Humbertown's (and Humber Valley Village's) own roots in that period...
Click to expand...

Prince Charles' opinion of modernism is probably much more informed and coherent than anything the 'save humbertown' bunch would be capable of coming up with.

These are a group of people rallying to 'protect' a neighbourhood where many streets have no sidewalks. They are the product of a physical environment that promotes car-dependency, isolation, selfishness, and paranoia. This crowd will obstruct progress for the sake of preventing change. It's easy for them to say no to walkable spaces because they don't know what they are missing out on.

Do you think that if this project was built - using the same densities - with faux victorian or post-modern aesthetics it would be easier for these people to swallow?
 
RC8 said:
Prince Charles' opinion of modernism is probably much more informed and coherent than anything the 'save humbertown' bunch would be capable of coming up with.

These are a group of people rallying to 'protect' a neighbourhood where many streets have no sidewalks. They are the product of a physical environment that promotes car-dependency, isolation, selfishness, and paranoia. This crowd will obstruct progress for the sake of preventing change. It's easy for them to say no to walkable spaces because they don't know what they are missing out on.
Click to expand...

Though if we weren't dealing with the oft-despoiled and narcissistic reality of present-day Humber Valley Village (or at least its residents), but rather with a comparatively undespoiled Don Millsian suburb of the same vintage, would you say the same thing? I mean, it sounds to me like your suburb-bashing is as ahistorically philistine as the residents' suburb-defending--or at least, it comes from the same camp that would seek to tear this down...
 
We have a full repost on the public consultation up on the front page now. It's pretty interesting reading (if I do say so myself: I'm not the writer, but the editor should make a disclosure of some involvement, no?).

There's also a dataBase entry now too with more renderings as always. You can look it up, or just find it linked at the bottom of the front page article.

42
 
adma said:
Though if we weren't dealing with the oft-despoiled and narcissistic reality of present-day Humber Valley Village (or at least its residents), but rather with a comparatively undespoiled Don Millsian suburb of the same vintage, would you say the same thing? I mean, it sounds to me like your suburb-bashing is as ahistorically philistine as the residents' suburb-defending--or at least, it comes from the same camp that would seek to tear this down...
Click to expand...

No.

Most suburbs were and are built on a promise that they cannot fulfil. Instead of connecting people with nature and calm (as they advertise) they actually accustom its inhabitants to a complete lack of engagement with the physical environment beyond the boundaries of their home. They also lead to a scary degree of isolation which encourages extremist religious views, racism, or simply faulty reasoning to fly undercover and unquestioned. They require insane amounts of natural resources to function, and require infrastructure (such as highways) that is as hostile to people and nature as anything we've ever come up with.

There is no reason why we can't transform our suburbs while keeping a significant amount of what currently sits there, but the issue at hand goes well beyond heritage and beauty. Future generations deserve to live in environments that are more thoughtfully designed to channel happiness and well-being. Think Leaside with grade-separated bike lanes and streetcars on Bayview and that's roughly the degree of functionality we should expect from our suburbs.

I'm actually a big fan of the Orange County government office. Unfortunately it has an enormous surface parking lot preventing the most interesting bits of the building from meeting the public. Re-purposing that parking lot would be the equivalent course of action to what our suburbs here desperately need.
 
RC8 said:
They also lead to a scary degree of isolation which encourages extremist religious views, racism, or simply faulty reasoning to fly undercover and unquestioned.
Click to expand...
Sure, because there were/are no extreme right-wing anti-semitic types populating downtown neighbourhoods. Maybe Ernst Zundel really lived next door to Rob Ford instead of, as reported, on Carlton Street.
 
GenerationW said:
Sure, because there were/are no extreme right-wing anti-semitic types populating downtown neighbourhoods. Maybe Ernst Zundel really lived next door to Rob Ford instead of, as reported, on Carlton Street.
Click to expand...

But I know a fascist individual in the suburbs too and that proves MY theory right... /sarcasm

The fact is that it's a well studied fact worldwide that higher population densities strongly correlate with more progressive voting patterns and secularism. This can be observed anywhere from Ontario to Alberta to Florida to Chile to China to Pakistan.

The question is not whether there's nazis living downtown, but rather how easy it is for a nazi to indoctrinate his children downtown versus out in the suburbs. High degrees of isolation and homogeneity have historically led to irrational beliefs going unquestioned for long.

The isolationist car-dependent nature of suburbs is the single most important factor leading to this:

vote-map-584.jpg
 
RC8 said:
The isolationist car-dependent nature of suburbs is the single most important factor leading to this:

vote-map-584.jpg
Click to expand...

And all of that save Wards 25 and 26 voted for Miller in 2006. Okay?

Look: the trouble with your argument is that you're fighting so-called isolationism with a different form of isolationism, i.e. by cretinizing and inherently Godwinning "car-dependent suburbia". The whole deamalgamationist's spin of "let Etobicoke keep Rob Ford"--whereas, I'd rather see it this way: even Etobicoke doesn't deserve Rob Ford. However, you also can't just fix Etobicoke's so-called "Ford problem" by taking an arbitrary, heavy-handedly scoldy Kunstleresque approach to the existing car-dependent environment. That way, you're going to drive the suburban locals even *further* into Ford's arms.

And while all this bickering takes place, a genius-loci void re the Humbertown redevelopment scheme will *never* be filled...
 
To be fair, the 2006 Pitfield campaign should be considered the benchmark of conservative campaign ineptitude before #romneyshambles happened. Not really an indicator of local sentiment per se.
 
adma said:
And all of that save Wards 25 and 26 voted for Miller in 2006. Okay?

Look: the trouble with your argument is that you're fighting so-called isolationism with a different form of isolationism, i.e. by cretinizing and inherently Godwinning "car-dependent suburbia". The whole deamalgamationist's spin of "let Etobicoke keep Rob Ford"--whereas, I'd rather see it this way: even Etobicoke doesn't deserve Rob Ford. However, you also can't just fix Etobicoke's so-called "Ford problem" by taking an arbitrary, heavy-handedly scoldy Kunstleresque approach to the existing car-dependent environment. That way, you're going to drive the suburban locals even *further* into Ford's arms.

And while all this bickering takes place, a genius-loci void re the Humbertown redevelopment scheme will *never* be filled...
Click to expand...
Funny how the left-leaning people are always self righteous, deeming to represent the majority of population.
The map attached shows to me nothing more than the fact that more people depending on the so called social services occupy downtown wards.
Net tax contributors live mostly out of the core. Fact!
None of this voting areas is so homogenous however.
I am a Con (and proud of it!) and I do live in the 'sea of red' on this map.
My views on urbanity are reflecting probably some of those supported by the left, nonetheless I do respect suburbian point of view as well.
We are talking about most of "normal" families, raising children to be decent, good nature people.
Hiberbollic connection that this is an environment supporting extreme views is just plain stupid!
I bet if you check backgound of most evil doers in this world, you'd be surprised how many of them were raised in dense, urban, downtown areas.
NIMBYzm in my mind has absolutly nothing to do with dt vs burbs issue.
Also, to the probable surprise of many here, it has nothing to do with being left or right politically.
 
Last edited:
cogito ergo said:
Funny how the left-leaning people are always self righteous, deeming to represent the majority of population.
The map attached shows to me nothing more than the fact that more people depending on the so called social services occupy downtown wards.
Net tax contributors live mostly out of the core. Fact!
None of this voting areas is so homogenous however.
I am a Con (and proud of it!) and I do live in the 'sea of red' on this map.
My views on urbanity are reflecting probably some of those supported by the left, nonetheless I do respect suburbian point of view as well.
We are talking about most of "normal" families, raising children to be decent, good nature people.
Hiberbollic connection that this is an environment supporting extreme views is just plain stupid!
I bet if you check backgound of most evil doers in this world, you'd be surprised how many of them were raised in dense, urban, downtown areas.
NIMBYzm in my mind has absolutly nothing to do with dt vs burbs issue.
Also, to the probable surprise of many here, it has nothing to do with being left or right politically.
Click to expand...

An excellent troll post! Quoted for posterity.

People living downtown use the most services, probably because the downtown core is clearly of the same density as the burbs and everyone living there is on welfare.
Net tax contributors live in the burbs- excellent point! Even though everyone pays taxes, those living in the burbs clearly pay more! Moreso, the CBD doesn't contribute anything, nor do the creative and tourism sectors!
"Normal" families = all families living in the burbs. Downtowners raise their children to be depraved folks who question everything around them! Burbian families are the happy and prosperous ones.
Evil do-ers were raised in dense areas. 'Course, 'cause Romney and Ryan were raised in the burbs, that's right! And cities in poor countries (aka not White) have the same densities as the ones in North America, of course.
 
Last edited:
You must log in or register to post here.

Back
Top