AlvinofDiaspar said:
Except this would be a fake piece in a setting of actual (if not contemporaneous to the First Parliament) heritage structures. I'd rather them put the effort in the architectural expression/community uses (and displaying what original fabric and artifact that remains) than faking a utilitarian building which would not have served well as a view-terminus anyways.

AoD
Click to expand...

On one hand I agree but I also think there is merit in gibsonm's view as well. I think the concept of authenticity is a lot more nebulous than we would like to admit sometimes. For example, The Ise Grand Shrine in the historic city of Kyoto is rebuilt every twenty years; the first Parliament building in Ottawa had to be rebuilt after a fire; tourists visit Vancouver to see the 19th century charm of the Gastown steam clock, even though it was built in 1977 etc.
 
dad pad said:
On one hand I agree but I also think there is merit in gibsonm's view as well. I think the concept of authenticity is a lot more nebulous than we would like to admit sometimes. For example, The Ise Grand Shrine in the historic city of Kyoto is rebuilt every twenty years; the first Parliament building in Ottawa had to be rebuilt after a fire; tourists visit Vancouver to see the 19th century charm of the Gastown steam clock, even though it was built in 1977 etc.
Click to expand...

It is nebulous - but FP really isn't in the same league as Ise Shrine (and Parliament Hill was rebuilt to a different design after the 1916 fire - to serve as the seat of government) - there is really no public memory of First Parliament for any sort of continuity; very little documentation on the architectural details; the utilitarian nature of the original structure and the fact whatever we rebuilt isn't going to serve the function the original structure once served. I think rebuilding it is misguided and not a particularly good use of resources.

AoD
 
AlvinofDiaspar said:
It is nebulous - but FP really isn't in the same league as Ise Shrine (and Parliament Hill was rebuilt to a different design after the 1916 fire - to serve as the seat of government) - there is really no public memory of First Parliament for any sort of continuity; very little documentation on the architectural details; the utilitarian nature of the original structure and the fact whatever we rebuilt isn't going to serve the function the original structure once served. I think rebuilding it is misguided and not a particularly good use of resources.

AoD
Click to expand...

I disagree. We have drawings showing what they looked like. They had a modest but attractive design. The lack of public memory is the result of a failure to commemorate the history of the site. That shouldn't be used as a justification not to rebuild the buildings. They would make for a great cultural centre/museum, including a library.
 
junctionist said:
I disagree. We have drawings showing what they looked like. They had a modest but attractive design. The lack of public memory is the result of a failure to commemorate the history of the site. That shouldn't be used as a justification not to rebuild the buildings. They would make for a great cultural centre/museum, including a library.
Click to expand...

We have drawings, we don't have architectural plans and huge amounts of details on the ornamentation; we also don't have huge amounts of detailed documentation of the interior. I can think of a good number of other destroyed structures that should rightfully be rebuilt over this.

AoD
 
AlvinofDiaspar said:
We have drawings, we don't have architectural plans and huge amounts of details on the ornamentation; we also don't have huge amounts of detailed documentation of the interior. I can think of a good number of other destroyed structures that should rightfully be rebuilt over this.

AoD
Click to expand...

A historicist architect can work off drawings without architectural plans. Perhaps more research is needed for the interior, but text depictions can suffice. A modern interior could be designed in the worst case scenario. The question isn't whether this is the best opportunity to rebuild a heritage structure but rather whether it's reasonable from a heritage preservation and historical commemoration standpoint.

Given the general ignorance about the site and its involvement in the War of 1812, it makes sense to rebuild the buildings with the goal of preserving, commemorating, and promoting knowledge of our history and heritage. The modest nature of the building makes me doubt it would be particularly expensive.
 
junctionist said:
A historicist architect can work off drawings without architectural plans. Perhaps more research is needed for the interior, but text depictions can suffice or a modern interior in the worst case scenario. The question isn't whether this is the best opportunity to rebuild a heritage structure but rather whether it's reasonable from a heritage preservation and historical commemoration standpoint.

Given the general ignorance about the site and its involvement in the War of 1812, it would seem to make sense to do so with the goal of preserving, commemorating, and promoting knowledge of our history and heritage. The modest nature of the building makes me doubt it would be particularly expensive.
Click to expand...

There is also the cost of using this high value, highly accessible land for this particular purpose to consider - anyhoo, this discussion should be in the First Parliament project thread, not the OL thread.

AoD
 
syn said:
It's old news.
Click to expand...

It literally calls the station building as 'placemaking'
1618273748151.png


1618273895576.png


And clearly shows the buildings are around the station, not on top. The land around the station is owned by Cadillac Fairview. That part was always going to be towers. Now the province wants to add another building on top of the station.

That part is new.
 
NoahB said:
It literally calls the station building as 'placemaking'
View attachment 312259

View attachment 312260

And clearly shows the buildings are around the station, not on top. The land around the station is owned by Cadillac Fairview. That part was always going to be towers. Now the province wants to add another building on top of the station.

That part is new.
Click to expand...

I'm not sure they do.

When it comes to the exact details, uses and building configurations for both sites, those haven’t been announced. However, Surma said the sites will likely have residential and retail components.

Surma stressed it’s still early in the process and public consultations will occur beginning in the summer.

“We are presenting very preliminary plans and visions of what we see around the neighbourhood and what’s possible,” she said, adding walkability and accessibility to services will also be key."

And even assuming they do...it's a change to a plan/idea that's been around for years, before the OL existed.

Ultimately I think the point is that this 'announcement' is presenting this as a brand new when it was already planned...something they seem pretty good at.
 
will Toronto get it's own Barad-ur?

The Shard is built on top of London Bridge Station and people think it looks like Barad-ur, Saurons evil tower.

wrg3lr9xa8sz.jpg
 
t54zhao said:
will Toronto get it's own Barad-ur?

The Shard is built on top of London Bridge Station and people think it looks like Barad-ur, Saurons evil tower.

wrg3lr9xa8sz.jpg
Click to expand...

Not quite right on top - it's more like sitting at the end of the termini portion of the station. I can't imagine building atop the tracks would be worth the trouble.

AoD
 
Last edited:
You must log in or register to post here.

Back
Top