[generalcanada]

I think that in a loaded case like Ontario Place, your comment about "tiny concrete buildings" and historical designations being used way too widely helps explain the "personal" undertone.

And you speak of "a 100-year-old church" as if it were a generic case--heck, if one *were* to use the argument against historical-designations-run-amok, there's plenty of century-old churches out there of arguably *less* merit than said "tiny concrete buildings".

Though I'll grant you this: "before I made this post" might have been pushing things. But you're almost certainly the sort who *only* knew of the church because the fire "forced the issue"...

I honestly didn't mean it as a "just another 100 year old church". definitely not. Its definitely a beautiful building, but Toronto is a big city.
It's not like I've been inside every building, hell, I haven't even been to Casa Loma, but that doesnt make my opinion of the overuse of the historical designations incorrect.

Here's why a bland suburban Best Buy is listed among Toronto's heritage buildings

Nearly 4,000 buildings in Toronto are at risk of losing heritage status by the end of 2024, and while many of these structures are integral stitches …

www.blogto.com

 

[adma]

I honestly didn't mean it as a "just another 100 year old church". definitely not. Its definitely a beautiful building, but Toronto is a big city.
It's not like I've been inside every building, hell, I haven't even been to Casa Loma, but that doesnt make my opinion of the overuse of the historical designations incorrect.

Here's why a bland suburban Best Buy is listed among Toronto's heritage buildings

Nearly 4,000 buildings in Toronto are at risk of losing heritage status by the end of 2024, and while many of these structures are integral stitches …

www.blogto.com

If you read the link carefully, it isn't about the Best Buy, but about a particular building upon the 50 Ashtonbee site--***the one on the left in the tweet***.

https://twitter.com/x/status/1760333151711138284

It's a consequence of listings being "address-based" rather than "building-based". That the Best Buy is part of the address is pure happenstance; and the building itself would likely be granted an exemption from any "heritage preservation requirements".

But if you notice, the person offering the tweet is dwelling upon the Best Buy, while "conveniently" not paying attention to the ex-Volkswagen HQ. Because he's more eager to "make a point". And moreover, he likely doesn't care. Probably because he's more into "future fantasy" (like fantasy transit maps) than into the so-called boring, dated, tired, and preexisting, much less the "history" thereof (dates, architects, historical contexts, etc).

And that "boring, dated, tired, and preexisting" factor might be why he pays the ex-Volkswagen HQ a blind eye; because that's all it is to him. That is, he'd probably be the sort who'd paradoxically *prefer* the Best Buy, simply because it is, at the moment, "newer and fresher" (and nothing to do with the ludicrous notion of it as "heritage")

 

[generalcanada]

If you read the link carefully, it isn't about the Best Buy, but about a particular building upon the 50 Ashtonbee site--***the one on the left in the tweet***.

https://twitter.com/x/status/1760333151711138284

It's a consequence of listings being "address-based" rather than "building-based". That the Best Buy is part of the address is pure happenstance; and the building itself would likely be granted an exemption from any "heritage preservation requirements".

But if you notice, the person offering the tweet is dwelling upon the Best Buy, while "conveniently" not paying attention to the ex-Volkswagen HQ. Because he's more eager to "make a point". And moreover, he likely doesn't care. Probably because he's more into "future fantasy" (like fantasy transit maps) than into the so-called boring, dated, tired, and preexisting, much less the "history" thereof (dates, architects, historical contexts, etc).

And that "boring, dated, tired, and preexisting" factor might be why he pays the ex-Volkswagen HQ a blind eye; because that's all it is to him. That is, he'd probably be the sort who'd paradoxically *prefer* the Best Buy, simply because it is, at the moment, "newer and fresher" (and nothing to do with the ludicrous notion of it as "heritage")

And that volkswagen building also doesnt deserve to be on the registry.
It looks so bland like every office park ive ever seen.
That is to say you can't make an office park pretty.

Im not trying to start a new thread, you brought up the Church. but calling the Childrens village at Ontario Place "historical heritage" is laughable.

 

[UtakataNoAnnex]

All of it should be made historical heritage, lol?

 

[adma]

And that volkswagen building also doesnt deserve to be on the registry.
It looks so bland like every office park ive ever seen.
That is to say you can't make an office park pretty.

Im not trying to start a new thread, you brought up the Church. but calling the Childrens village at Ontario Place "historical heritage" is laughable.

Actually, I agree that the present aspect of Volkswagen is deceptively blander and more generic than it was originally--it was originally clad in red brick, which gave it a richer retro-Moderne cast. (Unfortunately, there's no images on-line of how it might have looked originally--at least, none which I can immediately trace. But I'll *presume*--*hope*--that whatever heritage-registry research takes that element into account. Because that is *absolutely* critical to the building's merits.)

But what really stands out is how profoundly historically *incurious* you are--I don't mean in the sense of "historical heritage", but in having any positive sense of the past in historical space and time.

And I'm saying this because I grew up developing that sense of historical curiosity and awareness--that is, I was fascinated by what made stuff from 1950 distinct from stuff from 1960 from stuff from 1970. Regardless of "merits", it gave a richness to what I was beholding--it was a long-term gateway to knowledge, and sensitivity. I might have been precocious; but as far as I'm concerned, those kinds of skill sets are inherently universal. "Knowledge is key", sort of like.

But the way you write is...crude. Like you don't have any such sense, you never had any such sense. It's like all you see is...generic blandness. No sense of 1978, no sense of 1971, no sense of overall "evolution", whether of how Ontario Place came to be, or how the Golden Mile came to be. You only respond according to the immediacy of your own experience. And that's...bleak. Not the buildings in question--but your perspective. Like to you, the only "knowledge" worth considering is that it, er, sucks.

Essentially, you sound like a bored, underdeveloped juvenile--the sort who'd exclaim "this sucks!!!" on an Ontario Place For All on-site tour. Well...that's your problem.

 

[generalcanada]

Actually, I agree that the present aspect of Volkswagen is deceptively blander and more generic than it was originally--it was originally clad in red brick, which gave it a richer retro-Moderne cast. (Unfortunately, there's no images on-line of how it might have looked originally--at least, none which I can immediately trace. But I'll *presume*--*hope*--that whatever heritage-registry research takes that element into account. Because that is *absolutely* critical to the building's merits.)

But what really stands out is how profoundly historically *incurious* you are--I don't mean in the sense of "historical heritage", but in having any positive sense of the past in historical space and time.

And I'm saying this because I grew up developing that sense of historical curiosity and awareness--that is, I was fascinated by what made stuff from 1950 distinct from stuff from 1960 from stuff from 1970. Regardless of "merits", it gave a richness to what I was beholding--it was a long-term gateway to knowledge, and sensitivity. I might have been precocious; but as far as I'm concerned, those kinds of skill sets are inherently universal. "Knowledge is key", sort of like.

But the way you write is...crude. Like you don't have any such sense, you never had any such sense. It's like all you see is...generic blandness. No sense of 1978, no sense of 1971, no sense of overall "evolution", whether of how Ontario Place came to be, or how the Golden Mile came to be. You only respond according to the immediacy of your own experience. And that's...bleak. Not the buildings in question--but your perspective. Like to you, the only "knowledge" worth considering is that it, er, sucks.

Essentially, you sound like a bored, underdeveloped juvenile--the sort who'd exclaim "this sucks!!!" on an Ontario Place For All on-site tour. Well...that's your problem.

Thats close to what I think, but I do take exception that the thought is inherently bad.

You could summarize my take in that most buildings designed in the last century have no "historical" merit.
*most* buildings are not inherently worth keeping. Think of Queen or Bloor with the brick low-rise buildings.
You can rebuild brick, it's not like materials are gone forever, they can be rebuilt.
Neighborhoods, cities, they grow and change over time and buildings should be no different. There should be no limitation on which buildings get rebuilt.

As for you, it seems like you use live buildings as a textbook to study. Requiring them to stay alive for more examination. Which I find interesting simply because that's not what buildings are designed for.
They're a place to live, work, and play. Thats why brutalist buildings exist. Not because they're beautiful, On the contrary, they exist because of minimalism, designing buildings for what they're used for.
In that same thought about the "brutalist OSC". I think, ok? it's just a building, there's nothing special other than it was built in a ravine, Like the concrete architecture itself has no relevance to the use of the building.


Honestly id question your profession and age. You ask anyone in the general population about architecture and you get glazed over eyes. Because it doesn't matter as long as it gets used in the right way.
You seem to have been engaged from a young age noting the difference between buildings. That is not common among children across generations. Did you end up going into architecture as a profession?

Your what I think is a "nostalgic" view of history when you were growing up also makes it seem like you're saying. "I grew up with this therefore it should stay".

History is an ever-changing timeline. There is no need to pear clutch places we love.

 

[adma]

Thats close to what I think, but I do take exception that the thought is inherently bad.

You could summarize my take in that most buildings designed in the last century have no "historical" merit.
*most* buildings are not inherently worth keeping. Think of Queen or Bloor with the brick low-rise buildings.
You can rebuild brick, it's not like materials are gone forever, they can be rebuilt.
Neighborhoods, cities, they grow and change over time and buildings should be no different. There should be no limitation on which buildings get rebuilt.

As for you, it seems like you use live buildings as a textbook to study. Requiring them to stay alive for more examination. Which I find interesting simply because that's not what buildings are designed for.
They're a place to live, work, and play. Thats why brutalist buildings exist. Not because they're beautiful, On the contrary, they exist because of minimalism, designing buildings for what they're used for.
In that same thought about the "brutalist OSC". I think, ok? it's just a building, there's nothing special other than it was built in a ravine, Like the concrete architecture itself has no relevance to the use of the building.


Honestly id question your profession and age. You ask anyone in the general population about architecture and you get glazed over eyes. Because it doesn't matter as long as it gets used in the right way.
You seem to have been engaged from a young age noting the difference between buildings. That is not common among children across generations. Did you end up going into architecture as a profession?

Your what I think is a "nostalgic" view of history when you were growing up also makes it seem like you're saying. "I grew up with this therefore it should stay".

History is an ever-changing timeline. There is no need to pear clutch places we love.

And this, folks, is what happens when the children of McMansion teardowns who grew up quite content, thank you, start posting on the Internet.

 

[adma]

You ask anyone in the general population about architecture and you get glazed over eyes.

Well, that basically parallels my past framing of Doug Ford's likely perspective that the general population doesn't give two hoots as to who either Eberhard Zeidler or Raymond Moriyama were. It doesn't make that perspective any less boneheaded.

You seem to have been engaged from a young age noting the difference between buildings. That is not common among children across generations.

Except that it's not just about the "difference between buildings". It's about visualizing *all* of the past in "historical" terms--that is, by internalizing The Wizard Of Oz as a product of 1939, or those Looney Tunes I saw on TV as being of whatever dates *they* were, or hand-me-down comic books, or what made 1964 Beatles different from 1967 or 1969 Beatles. Maybe it's pushing it to expect one to fully internalize that data when one's still in single digit years--but by the time one enters and advances through one's teens, it can *really* start to unveil itself as a lode of fascination.

Or never mind historical terms--spatial terms. Sort of like the fascinated car-window perspective on the world--so by saying "that is not common among children across generations", essentially you're excusing the bored kid in the back seat saying "are we there yet?" Let me tell you something--that may be "common", but that's not good. Kids like that are mediocre and depressing. The junior version of those who don't give two hoots about Zeidler or Moriyama.

Your what I think is a "nostalgic" view of history when you were growing up also makes it seem like you're saying. "I grew up with this therefore it should stay".

You know what I regret didn't "stay"? It's not a matter of old buildings, but a more "dimensional" perspective on the world that prevailed before everything got flattened out into memes. Like, whether at first or second hand, I grew up with a diverse spectrum of books, newspapers, and other forms of legacy media. And I grew up appreciative of the real world, rather than finding it so depressing or distressingly prosaic that I sought virtual fantasy worlds instead. And I grew up in an age when there was positive "bleed" btw/the kid and adult realms, before we had kids marinating in a kitschily ergonomic "kidspace".

I grew up in an age before the vapidity of "let people enjoy things". (Particularly when among those "things" is blissful ignorance.)

Don’t Let People Enjoy Things | Kate Wagner

People are just as allowed to dislike things as they are permitted to enjoy them—you can’t trick them into changing their minds with your authoritarian meme posting.

thebaffler.com

(And incidentally, the message of the piece is just as well directed at the "let people not enjoy things" reflex of the anti-West-Island crowd)

 

[3Dementia]

But the way you write is...crude. Like you don't have any such sense, you never had any such sense. It's like all you see is...generic blandness. No sense of 1978, no sense of 1971, no sense of overall "evolution", whether of how Ontario Place came to be, or how the Golden Mile came to be. You only respond according to the immediacy of your own experience. And that's...bleak. Not the buildings in question--but your perspective. Like to you, the only "knowledge" worth considering is that it, er, sucks.

Essentially, you sound like a bored, underdeveloped juvenile--the sort who'd exclaim "this sucks!!!" on an Ontario Place For All on-site tour. Well...that's your problem.

@generalcanada is clearly on the wrong side of the (oh so politically correct) Ontario Place & OSC discussions on this board ... and they certainly don't need me stepping up to the plate to intervene in this self-important, bullying from @adma 's crumpling soapbox.... but I will say that the cheap shots and insults only dilute any informed arguments and opinions.

"The way you write is crude"? "bored, under-developed juvenile"? That's laughable.

Many here may not be on team @generalcanada ...but the posts I've read are fairly eloquent/erudite. Even chosen villains on this board deserve more respect here than petty insults.

 

[generalcanada]

Well, that basically parallels my past framing of Doug Ford's likely perspective that the general population doesn't give two hoots as to who either Eberhard Zeidler or Raymond Moriyama were. It doesn't make that perspective any less boneheaded.



Except that it's not just about the "difference between buildings". It's about visualizing *all* of the past in "historical" terms--that is, by internalizing The Wizard Of Oz as a product of 1939, or those Looney Tunes I saw on TV as being of whatever dates *they* were, or hand-me-down comic books, or what made 1964 Beatles different from 1967 or 1969 Beatles. Maybe it's pushing it to expect one to fully internalize that data when one's still in single digit years--but by the time one enters and advances through one's teens, it can *really* start to unveil itself as a lode of fascination.

Or never mind historical terms--spatial terms. Sort of like the fascinated car-window perspective on the world--so by saying "that is not common among children across generations", essentially you're excusing the bored kid in the back seat saying "are we there yet?" Let me tell you something--that may be "common", but that's not good. Kids like that are mediocre and depressing. The junior version of those who don't give two hoots about Zeidler or Moriyama.



You know what I regret didn't "stay"? It's not a matter of old buildings, but a more "dimensional" perspective on the world that prevailed before everything got flattened out into memes. Like, whether at first or second hand, I grew up with a diverse spectrum of books, newspapers, and other forms of legacy media. And I grew up appreciative of the real world, rather than finding it so depressing or distressingly prosaic that I sought virtual fantasy worlds instead. And I grew up in an age when there was positive "bleed" btw/the kid and adult realms, before we had kids marinating in a kitschily ergonomic "kidspace".

I grew up in an age before the vapidity of "let people enjoy things". (Particularly when among those "things" is blissful ignorance.)

Don’t Let People Enjoy Things | Kate Wagner

People are just as allowed to dislike things as they are permitted to enjoy them—you can’t trick them into changing their minds with your authoritarian meme posting.

thebaffler.com

(And incidentally, the message of the piece is just as well directed at the "let people not enjoy things" reflex of the anti-West-Island crowd)

If a technology incompetent person calls me up for help with their computer, I don't call them boneheaded for not knowing how to fix their computer. Just because people have different interests doesn't mean they're "boneheaded".

I completely disagree that a building is a piece of culture. I also disagree that there is a comparison between media culture and building design. Looney tunes was a good show for the time, so were the Beatles, arguably still good, but it's not like we need to keep the venues where they played open permanently because of history. Some venues are still open sure, but not for the intention of keeping their history, they're open because they're still useful. People still play there.

Look I'm not arguing that all buildings should be destroyed on a whim, beautiful places like Roy Thomson Hall have their use, Exhibition Stadium had its use, but there's a reason why the latter doesn't exist anymore.

I don't think the comparison to the "let people enjoy things" works either. It's simply a saying for this meme. When games, music, movies, and other media are built for entertainment, to laugh, to have fun. Buildings are built for use, not primarily to look at. Whether it be baseball, concerts, retail, residential. And just like exhibition stadium, uses change over time. 60's era rentals had different use cases from brand-new rental buildings.

To me, it seems like you would really enjoy a big museum to architectural history. Thats a good thing, people need their own interests, but that is to say it is unique interest that not many people have.

 

[UtakataNoAnnex]

Eloquent/erudite are not words I would have used...

 

[interchange42]

Posts related to the closure of the Ontario Science Centre have been moved to its thread.

42

 

[adma]

I completely disagree that a building is a piece of culture.

Which reflects the fact that you don't understand the notion of "culture"--unless the notion I'm inferring is too academic or think-piece mumbo-jumbo for you.

Put it this way: from the author of the "don't let people enjoy things" piece, here's a reflection upon a banal, dated motel room as "culture".

the motel room, or: on datedness

I. Often I find myself nostalgic for things that haven't disappeared yet. This feeling is enhanced by the strange conviction that once I stop looking at these things, I will never see them again, that...

mcmansionhell.com

I also disagree that there is a comparison between media culture and building design. Looney tunes was a good show for the time, so were the Beatles, arguably still good, but it's not like we need to keep the venues where they played open permanently because of history. Some venues are still open sure, but not for the intention of keeping their history, they're open because they're still useful. People still play there.

Except that I'm not talking about them as "good"; because under the circumstance, that's redundant--and I'm not talking about the venues they played at, either. I'm talking about the notion of appreciating *them*--the Beatles, the Looney Tunes--in historical space and time. And if for you, it doesn't matter if it's of the 40s or 50s or early 60s or late 60s or 80s, all that matters that it's "good"--then I'm sorry, but that's just about the most Sunday-painter-amateurish manner of cultural consumption imaginable

I don't think the comparison to the "let people enjoy things" works either. It's simply a saying for this meme. When games, music, movies, and other media are built for.entertainment, to laugh, to have fun. Buildings are built for use, not primarily to look at. Whether it be baseball, concerts, retail, residential. And just like exhibition stadium, uses change over time. 60's era rentals had different use cases from brand-new rental buildings.

View attachment 575042

Actually, when you put it in terms of "for entertainment, to laugh, to have fun"--it sounds like an utterly *empty* manner of consumption. Like--Ontario Place without the Zeidler, without the Hough, as nothing more than an aggrandized analogue to Playdium or a suburban paintball venue. And devoid of *culture*--that is, not even allowing for any oxygen for something like that above essay on motel rooms and "datedness". It's the purest form of Neil Postman-esque "amusing oneself to death".

Maybe if you *read* the piece I linked to, you'll get an idea of what it's about--and to quote this part in particular...

Our final LPET replier sees criticism as an attempt to ruin their experience with superhero movies merely because it asks them to think critically about our malignant societal forces. “Oh, great,” they think, “now I can’t enjoy these movies because this person said something negative about what they mean, and it will be in the back of my mind forever. My life is ruined.” First, this infantile obsession with having an “experience” with a piece of entertainment—centered, as it is, around keeping the brain a blank slate free of spoilers, expectations, and criticism—is unrealistic in that these media franchises are constantly being discussed in every medium imaginable. It’s also strange to believe that such information could ruin a specific piece of media. Or, rather, it suggests that the film or TV show is simple enough to be ruined by a piece of information, or, otherwise, that this over-advertised piece of crap entertainment actually, in fact, sucks. Simple escapism and entertainment value is not the aim of art, though it might well be the goal of enormous media conglomerates.
.An issue common to all of our LPET posters is that they think criticism means forbidding people from enjoying media in general. First of all, people are just as allowed to dislike things as they are permitted to enjoy them—you can’t trick them into changing their minds with your authoritarian meme posting. Second, I introduce this radical idea: you can still enjoy things while being critical of them—it can even lead to a greater appreciation of societal and historical context, and it can make you usefully wary of the role the shit forces of the world play in the media we consume. It can also help us maintain our political and social integrity while watching or reading or listening to whatever is offered to us. For example, my peacenik, anticapitalist proclivities may make me critical of many mainstream blockbusters, but they also afford me a greater appreciation of movies like Office Space and Dolly Parton’s classic 9 to 5. Finally, though our LPET posters think otherwise, it is indeed possible to like some things about a piece of media and dislike things about that same piece of media all at once.

And that's Good. Cultural. Writing. (And indeed, the inverse version of it is how "greater appreciation of societal and historical context" can turn "Let People *Not* Enjoy Things" upside the head--things like, well, all those little concrete buildings on the Ontario Place West Island.)

But again--my old "grew up in a McMansion teardown" point. So one can say that you're like the kind of person who grew up in *that* kind of environment and was...quite content; while I'm like the kind of person trying to convince you that you *shouldn't* be content. Yeah, I guess that's the case, a la the meme above.

But put it this way: when it comes to "architectural importance", I wouldn't rush out to declare all those 1950s Scarborough neighbourhoods full of CMHC strawberry boxes Heritage Conservation Districts. I *would* encourage (in the name of "greater appreciation of societal and historical context") a thoughtful, preemptive appreciation of those strawberry boxes--which is why even if I regret whenever they're replaced or altered beyond recognition on behalf of some contemporary EIFS-schlock or bro'dude-contemporary-design/build aesthetic (and probably with an undertone of "eff societal and historical context, it's old and dated and it sucks, period" re what's being altered or replaced), I'm not all "the sky is falling" about it. *However*, when it comes to letting the designers and clients for such schlock call the shots on the worth of, well, those little concrete West Island buildings, I'd gladly slam the figurative window down on their fingers--even if they more authentically represent a kind of unwashed "mass taste", if one wants to let mob rule inform architectural judgment...

To me, it seems like you would really enjoy a big museum to architectural history. Thats a good thing, people need their own interests, but that is to say it is unique interest that not many people have.

A big museum is redundant; besides, remember the old Joni Mitchell "tree museum" negative metaphor. I'm more of a Sir Christopher Wren POV: if you seek a "museum", look around you. (But of course, you have to grasp that all that's around us is "culture" in the first place)

Oh, and BTW Kate Wagner's lately shared tweets on the fate of both the OSC and the West Island. So you can tell what side *she's* on.

 

[generalcanada]

Eloquent/erudite are not words I would of used...

Which reflects the fact that you don't understand the notion of "culture"--unless the notion I'm inferring is too academic or think-piece mumbo-jumbo for you.

Put it this way: from the author of the "don't let people enjoy things" piece, here's a reflection upon a banal, dated motel room as "culture".

the motel room, or: on datedness

I. Often I find myself nostalgic for things that haven't disappeared yet. This feeling is enhanced by the strange conviction that once I stop looking at these things, I will never see them again, that...

mcmansionhell.com

Except that I'm not talking about them as "good"; because under the circumstance, that's redundant--and I'm not talking about the venues they played at, either. I'm talking about the notion of appreciating *them*--the Beatles, the Looney Tunes--in historical space and time. And if for you, it doesn't matter if it's of the 40s or 50s or early 60s or late 60s or 80s, all that matters that it's "good"--then I'm sorry, but that's just about the most Sunday-painter-amateurish manner of cultural consumption imaginable


Actually, when you put it in terms of "for entertainment, to laugh, to have fun"--it sounds like an utterly *empty* manner of consumption. Like--Ontario Place without the Zeidler, without the Hough, as nothing more than an aggrandized analogue to Playdium or a suburban paintball venue. And devoid of *culture*--that is, not even allowing for any oxygen for something like that above essay on motel rooms and "datedness". It's the purest form of Neil Postman-esque "amusing oneself to death".

Maybe if you *read* the piece I linked to, you'll get an idea of what it's about--and to quote this part in particular...

And that's Good. Cultural. Writing. (And indeed, the inverse version of it is how "greater appreciation of societal and historical context" can turn "Let People *Not* Enjoy Things" upside the head--things like, well, all those little concrete buildings on the Ontario Place West Island.)

But again--my old "grew up in a McMansion teardown" point. So one can say that you're like the kind of person who grew up in *that* kind of environment and was...quite content; while I'm like the kind of person trying to convince you that you *shouldn't* be content. Yeah, I guess that's the case, a la the meme above.

But put it this way: when it comes to "architectural importance", I wouldn't rush out to declare all those 1950s Scarborough neighbourhoods full of CMHC strawberry boxes Heritage Conservation Districts. I *would* encourage (in the name of "greater appreciation of societal and historical context") a thoughtful, preemptive appreciation of those strawberry boxes--which is why even if I regret whenever they're replaced or altered beyond recognition on behalf of some contemporary EIFS-schlock or bro'dude-contemporary-design/build aesthetic (and probably with an undertone of "eff societal and historical context, it's old and dated and it sucks, period" re what's being altered or replaced), I'm not all "the sky is falling" about it. *However*, when it comes to letting the designers and clients for such schlock call the shots on the worth of, well, those little concrete West Island buildings, I'd gladly slam the figurative window down on their fingers--even if they more authentically represent a kind of unwashed "mass taste", if one wants to let mob rule inform architectural judgment...

A big museum is redundant; besides, remember the old Joni Mitchell "tree museum" negative metaphor. I'm more of a Sir Christopher Wren POV: if you seek a "museum", look around you. (But of course, you have to grasp that all that's around us is "culture" in the first place)

Oh, and BTW Kate Wagner's lately shared tweets on the fate of both the OSC and the West Island. So you can tell what side *she's* on.

 

[kotsy]

Demolition status of The Villages - June 24th