[Xray_Crystal_Junkie]

What is all this talk of restoration? Am I the only one that remembers the full scale demolition of this thing? What it looks like we'll be getting is some faux recreation. Brace yourselves.

.

October 6

 

[AlbertC]

http://www.flickr.com/photos/roxxstarr/8498716366/

 

[isaidso]

What is all this talk of restoration?

Agree. Let's call a spade a spade. This was a demolition. What ever ends up being built is simply a fake shell to remind us of what once stood there.

 

[DtTO]

The building's facade is already being preserved and that's been the plan all along. Nothing new here. In fact, most of the "bleeding hearts" among us were really happy that the facade was going to have something done to it, since it was covered in an awful grey plaster.

I don't think you understood whom he was referring to. Here are some examples:

What is all this talk of restoration? Am I the only one that remembers the full scale demolition of this thing? What it looks like we'll be getting is some faux recreation. Brace yourselves.

Agree. Let's call a spade a spade. This was a demolition. What ever ends up being built is simply a fake shell to remind us of what once stood there.

Yeah, having a crappy old house that was literally falling apart on the city's grandest road is much better than one that is brand new, looks the exact same, and actually adds residents/activity to the area.

Anyways. Great vantage point, AlbertC. Where was that taken from? OCAD?

 

[DarkSideDenizen]

Thanks for the update AlbertC, nice angle. ...Gettin' up there!

 

[CanadianNational]

By DT:

crappy old house that was literally falling apart

This is trolling.

If you want to be ignorant of Toronto's history and the basic complexities of architecture and urbanism, fine. But don't come on here and keep dumping your crap all over the threads.
Did you see any of the videos or photographs of the interior of the building that was lost? Do you know Toronto's urban history: i.e the uniqueness of it's built form and the thinkers who have shaped it? Do you know what the perspective historical means? Do some remedial reading before you hit the keyboard next time.

_____________________


Well, the partial re-creation might match that early '90's Vancouver-rific stucco high-rise behind it. Every time I see that building I feel like I'm at Haro and Denman. lol

Aside from what I'm afraid the base will bring, I'm impressed by the care brought to this building. Those side panels look really good. Almost sci-fi in their sharpness.

 

[adma]

By DT:

This is trolling.

If you want to be ignorant of Toronto's history and the basic complexities of architecture and urbanism, fine. But don't come on here and keep dumping your crap all over the threads.
Did you see any of the videos or photographs of the interior of the building that was lost? Do you know Toronto's urban history: i.e the uniqueness of it's built form and the thinkers who have shaped it? Do you know what the perspective historical means? Do some remedial reading before you hit the keyboard next time.

Well, he did rather unapologetically declare Trump to be architecturally superior to Osgoode Hall and University College, and when pressed for an alibi, offered that historical and cultural importance is one thing, architectural distinction is another (or something like it).

That said, I don't dispute the fact that the RCMI might have been basically held together by spit t/w the end--maybe not w/DtTO's tone of contempt; but hey, the world of heritage has had to deal with working miracles out of many a held-together-by-spit case over the years. So, I wouldn't super-panic here--though, that said, I don't disagree there's an element of "preservation"-at-its-most-ridiculous here, too...

 

[CanadianNational]

Well, he did rather unapologetically declare Trump to be architecturally superior to Osgoode Hall and University College, and when pressed for an alibi, offered that historical and cultural importance is one thing, architectural distinction is another (or something like it).

That said, I don't dispute the fact that the RCMI might have been basically held together by spit t/w the end--maybe not w/DtTO's tone of contempt; but hey, the world of heritage has had to deal with working miracles out of many a held-together-by-spit case over the years. So, I wouldn't super-panic here--though, that said, I don't disagree there's an element of "preservation"-at-its-most-ridiculous here, too...

I try to refrain from these little flareups. They're not very dignified. But it's frustating enough to see things going on in the city that continue our worst habits, and on coming here for some civilized dialogue about it, have people jumping in and kicking the issue when it's down.
Gettin' grouchy is probably a sign I'm taking the forum too seriously. Argh. Time for a walk.

 

[DtTO]

Interesting. I didn't realize that stating my opinion on a public forum is considered trolling if it that opinion isn't shared by the likes of CanadianNational. Nor did I realize that my opinion of one building (Trump) somehow invalidates any opinion I may have on anything else, even if they're completely unrelated. Thanks for the clarification, CanadianNational and adma.

 

[CanadianNational]

DtTO: I apologize for saying you were trolling. It was impolite.
All the best.

 

[adma]

Nor did I realize that my opinion of one building (Trump) somehow invalidates any opinion I may have on anything else, even if they're completely unrelated. Thanks for the clarification, CanadianNational and adma.

Oh, it does reflexively highlight the point about peevish historical (and otherwise) philistinism. So it isn't altogether unrelated; not at all...

 

[DtTO]

DtTO: I apologize for saying you were trolling. It was impolite.
All the best.

No harm done. Everyone has their opinion. using those terms to describe the house was a bad choice on my part.

Oh, it does reflexively highlight the point about peevish historical (and otherwise) philistinism. So it isn't altogether unrelated; not at all...

I wasn't making a historical statement so much as I was stating a fact. The house was in dire need of repairs, and it was literally falling apart before this development. Ironically enough, you echoed the same sentiment in your post. Arguing for the sake of arguing, and shoving your opinion down people's throats don't earn you any respect. Yes, I think Trump is a handsome addition to our skyline, and you don't. What's your problem?

Well, he did rather unapologetically declare Trump to be architecturally superior to Osgoode Hall and University College

Your attempt to defame me is quite amusing. The word I used was "aesthetically" and not "architecturally." Now I understand why your comment in the Trump thread was followed by someone calling you a "joke," because that's exactly what you are.

and when pressed for an alibi, offered that historical and cultural importance is one thing, architectural distinction is another (or something like it).

Actually, I said that cultural importance and aesthetics are different, and often unrelated. Do you doubt that there are historically/culturally important buildings in this city, and around the world, that are butt ugly?

That said, I don't dispute the fact that the RCMI might have been basically held together by spit t/w the end

I don't disagree there's an element of "preservation"-at-its-most-ridiculous here, too...

So after you've run through your list of why my opinion should not be considered, your comment on the topic at hand is one that is strangely similar to mine. Why argue at all? Do you like the sound of your own voice?

 

[isaidso]

Yeah, having a crappy old house that was literally falling apart on the city's grandest road is much better than one that is brand new, looks the exact same, and actually adds residents/activity to the area.

You missed the point entirely. Either tear the thing down and be done with it or restore it. Don't erect this shell and pass it off as preservation. It only serves to sooth any guilt feelings people may have about disrespecting the city's history. Some eagerly buy into the lie to wash their hands of it, while the rest recognize it for what it is: smoke and mirrors.

 

[adma]

So after you've run through your list of why my opinion should not be considered, your comment on the topic at hand is one that is strangely similar to mine. Why argue at all? Do you like the sound of your own voice?

So? It ain't the conclusion; it's the way that one comes about it. Look: even compared to some on UT, I can be one to defend Trump against its haters--but not to the point of declaring its aesthetic superiority to Osgoode Hall et al.

Likewise, I'm defending a certain case against the preexisting physical fact of RCMI here--but not to the point of using the kind of "crappy old house" bile which, well, earns you the kind of reaction you got from CanadianNational/isaidso. At least I allow for some inherent wiggle room btw/the pro and con arguments here--I don't dispute and can even comprehend why there's a reason why they did what they did; yet I don't dispute that "something's been lost", either. (Which is why my approach to that issue, as opposed to my approach to you, tends to be treated w/kid gloves. It pays to be measured.)

And frankly, you're not doing your case any favour with the "aesthetics, not architecture" Trump-over-Osgoode argument--under the circumstance, you might as well be some goof who tore down a perfectly good Eden Smith for a Richard Wengle offering the same sort of argument. And yeah, maybe it's your freedom-of-opinion right to defend Wengle on "aesthetic superiority" grounds; but it's our freedom-of-opinion right to eviscerate you for your philistinism. "Architectural"; "aesthetic"; whatever...

 

[interchange42]

It's all great Saturday night reading, but let's get back on track please.

42