MBS said:
I see the two sides of the argument, but I have a thought. People seem to be complaining that they aren't preserving a historic building that bring character to the area, etc, etc, but the character the building brings to the area is entirely because of its facade, right? I mean, the interior does absolutely nothing for those walking by. I've never seen the interior in my life. So if they're preserving the facade, how will this development take away from the character the facade brings? I know interiors are important too, yadda yadda, but this wont take away any character it brings to the street, imo. Actually this development will be great. The historic building can get some nice new windows to replace the junky old ones, and the towers actually have a very interesting design. Personally, I can't wait for this to start.
Click to expand...

You got a point, but a lot of old factories of that era have great interiors, high ceilings with many large wooden colums and ceiling beams..unlike for example much of the 3-4 storey Yonge street frontage with decent facades but with interiors that have been butchered, mutilated and lost throughout the years. I say no love lost on those by just keeping the facade.
 
MBS said:
I see the two sides of the argument, but I have a thought. People seem to be complaining that they aren't preserving a historic building that bring character to the area, etc, etc, but the character the building brings to the area is entirely because of its facade, right? I mean, the interior does absolutely nothing for those walking by. I've never seen the interior in my life. So if they're preserving the facade, how will this development take away from the character the facade brings? I know interiors are important too, yadda yadda, but this wont take away any character it brings to the street, imo. Actually this development will be great. The historic building can get some nice new windows to replace the junky old ones, and the towers actually have a very interesting design. Personally, I can't wait for this to start.
Click to expand...

I think the last page of argument has less to do with the proposal than with ahmad.m.atiya's opinion-mongering...
 
MBS said:
I see the two sides of the argument, but I have a thought. People seem to be complaining that they aren't preserving a historic building that bring character to the area, etc, etc, but the character the building brings to the area is entirely because of its facade, right? I mean, the interior does absolutely nothing for those walking by. I've never seen the interior in my life. So if they're preserving the facade, how will this development take away from the character the facade brings? I know interiors are important too, yadda yadda, but this wont take away any character it brings to the street, imo. Actually this development will be great. The historic building can get some nice new windows to replace the junky old ones, and the towers actually have a very interesting design. Personally, I can't wait for this to start.
Click to expand...

This is an interesting question and a good one. I think I used to think the same way. But:

1) Just because you've never been in that building doesn't mean you never would be in that building. What if that space was renovated into gorgeous offices that housed a company that one day hired you? What if the space was one day occupied by a non-profit you worked for? What if it became the kind of appealing space that attracted a startup that developed a game you couldn't stop playing on your phone? (This isn't as far-fetched as it might seem.) What if the ground floor was one day turned into a store or coffee shop you enjoyed?

Any of these uses would involve a space far richer than what will replace it. All we know for sure now is that you never will be in that space, since it will cease to exist.

2) People aren't stupid, and they know a fake when they see one. If we end up with a downtown that's increasingly full of facades stuffed and mounted like trophy kills on the walls of a cottage, both residents and visitors alike will know what they're looking at: a museum. More specifically, the taxidermy exhibit. (And isn't that always the saddest one?) Wouldn't it be better to keep the buildings alive and vital? Even passerby who never go in can tell the difference.
 
ahmad.m.atiya said:
This is a great project. I can't wait to see it go through. I love how modern Toronto is. I just hope this anti-developement (ie "heritage preservation;" junk preservation) movement doesn't continue.
Click to expand...

And as for you, my friend, you're not discussing this; you're trolling. Please stop.
 
Sir Novelty Fashion said:
This is an interesting question and a good one. I think I used to think the same way. But:

1) Just because you've never been in that building doesn't mean you never would be in that building. What if that space was renovated into gorgeous offices that housed a company that one day hired you? What if the space was one day occupied by a non-profit you worked for? What if it became the kind of appealing space that attracted a startup that developed a game you couldn't stop playing on your phone? (This isn't as far-fetched as it might seem.) What if the ground floor was one day turned into a store or coffee shop you enjoyed?

Any of these uses would involve a space far richer than what will replace it. All we know for sure now is that you never will be in that space, since it will cease to exist.

2) People aren't stupid, and they know a fake when they see one. If we end up with a downtown that's increasingly full of facades stuffed and mounted like trophy kills on the walls of a cottage, both residents and visitors alike will know what they're looking at: a museum. More specifically, the taxidermy exhibit. (And isn't that always the saddest one?) Wouldn't it be better to keep the buildings alive and vital? Even passerby who never go in can tell the difference.
Click to expand...

I agree with all of this but I think it should be a matter of finding a balance. There's a public benefit to heritage preservation just as there's also a public benefit to allowing the site to redevelopment. Effectively prohibiting any redevelopment of the site by saying the building can not be altered in any way, shape or form is just as unbalanced an approach as ignoring heritage preservation all together.
 
Atlantis said:
Sound like we're still living in the 70s and believing the same modernist mantra that brought us some of our most regretful block-busting mega projects. Toronto has plenty of space to construct new in between the old without needlessly having to destroy every last bit of heritage we still have left. One look at the Distillery for example and you'll see what I mean. We can save and build around existing built forms if we really want too! In fact it takes a far more creative mind to do that then it does to simply trash and rebuild. We really need to reassess our 'throw away' culture with respect to older architecture and heritage!
Click to expand...

So long as we're talking about history, it should be noted that the 1970s saw the rise of the reform movement and an end to block-busting projects. A lot of our city's heritage was still lost through individual developments, particularly in the first half of the decade. But some radical steps were taken to improve the quality of development.

On preservation, to keep it brief: You can't have a great city if the good stuff is constantly being destroyed, year after year. The best cities build on their strengths over the decades and centuries. Development should be about addressing deficiencies and building on strengths, not simply developing anything wherever it's physically possible.
 
The Year: 2088

The Building: 355 King St W/119 Blue Jays Way

The Issue: Developer proposes to build a 150s tower on site, preserving the facade of c.2015 buildings while bulldozing the W facade.

The Result: Only N and W facades are kept.
 
Architecturefan said:
I agree with all of this but I think it should be a matter of finding a balance. There's a public benefit to heritage preservation just as there's also a public benefit to allowing the site to redevelopment. Effectively prohibiting any redevelopment of the site by saying the building can not be altered in any way, shape or form is just as unbalanced an approach as ignoring heritage preservation all together.
Click to expand...

I think I would more readily agree with this if there were fewer remaining heritage sites left, and all the empty space/parking lots had already been developed. As it stands, this heritage building only occupies one quarter of the entire site proposed for the construction of the tall buildings. I see far less need to encroach into the space of the heritage building in this particular case, then I do with a proposal that aims to build right on top of one because there are no neighbouring sites to build on.
 
This is a perfect example of bullish developers who are completely oblivious to the context of their developments... which makes absolutely no sense to me! Developer's thought process: 'Hey the King West area is on fire right now because of the cool warehousy lofts and old buildings... I know, lets build build there and destroy it!' Ya!
 
Wow, so the owner took this proposal through the development process, and is now gonna sell the site approved for the 47 & 42 Stories. Will likely make a massive profit, and the old building will still not be preserved.
 
syn said:
Disappointing. This is really a building that should be preserved.
Click to expand...

Yeah, it is a nice building..why doesnt the city just admit they are nuts with their height limitations for the area and agree with developers to build a bit taller as a trade off... whats wrong with a couple of 175-185 meter buildings here and there when you already have dozens of 135-150 meter structures proposed, approved, and built.:confused:
 
Last edited:
You must log in or register to post here.

Back
Top