Ramako
Moderator
Last edited:
- Thread starter Mike in TO
- Start date
Tewder
Senior Member
... fine, but maybe it's the other way around: sterile, robotic humans - in other words opportunistic and greedy developers interested in the bottom line only - create sterile, soullness streetscapes. For proof, see Southcore area!
Handing the city over to development interests alone is an enormous mistake. Even in NYC, which is arguably the capital of capitalism and free enterprise after all, they used valueable land to build and later preserve a freakin' park.
tapesonthefloor
New Member
Taxpayers.
And here's an article that seems in context at this point. You can call it a story about the ground floor in Redwood's aforementioned race to the bottom.
Dubai on Empty
We're not fearmongering. This is the most extreme example of what is really going on everywhere in the world. From the article:
As someone who lives at King and Portland, replacing "Dubai" with "Freedville" makes a frightening amount of sense.
adma
Superstar
Though "Freedville" is stretching it, relative to "Cityplace" or something.
Again...in principle, I don't mind the case on behalf of the Hermant Annex; it's more a matter of how one expresses it, i.e. don't hyperbolize its worth while advocating on its behalf, and please recognize that this fare wouldn't be any less endangered even in supposedly more "heritage-enlightened" places. And keep in mind that the most imbecilically insensitive posts in the past few pages of this thread have been by ahmad.m.atiya...as in
Hyperbolizing worth is one thing...until one considers its opposite number.
tapesonthefloor
New Member
Cityplace is a much better example. Thank you.
jje1000
Senior Member
To be honest, 'taxpayer' refers to an incredibly wide spectrum of the city's population. I would much prefer 'the ignorant' or 'the apathetic' instead.
The area around Bay south from Bloor to Dundas is also an area that already is mostly sterile. All glassy buildings with little remaining of what formerly was there before.
Last edited:
adma
Superstar
Though in this case, I think "taxpayer" has indeed come to denote the latter, as opposed to "citizen"--as usual, Blame Rob Ford...
Automation Gallery
Superstar
I sure hope they change this uninteresting design..its a good location for a signature tower.
Last edited:
Danielinthecity
Active Member
Careful, jje1000...Ramako might take your comment out of context (as he did with mine) and suggest - through a funny, yet disparate cartoon - that you're just a latte sipping bicycle riding pinko all because you believe - as I do - that preserving our history for it's own sake has value.
CanadianNational
Senior Member
I'm tending to think the older low building is not quite not worth protecting, in the scheme of things. I tend to fight for preservation, but in this case, I think the lower building is unremarkable enough to warrant the building of something with more architectural merit. If it weren't Diamond and Schmitt, I'd be dubious, but they have a pretty good track record of delivering good work. If it were another, lesser, firm, I'd be more up in arms.
I think the new building looks good, and could be a stylish break from the two lumpen atrocities along and across the square. Incoporating and preserving the HnR building and the annex is a wonderful move, and kudos to D&S for doing it.
I think the new building looks good, and could be a stylish break from the two lumpen atrocities along and across the square. Incoporating and preserving the HnR building and the annex is a wonderful move, and kudos to D&S for doing it.
Last edited:
TonyV
Senior Member
I think the scheme is very good in all aspects, with the balance of preservations and new. There is a "signature" on the tower already, Automation Gallery, the Diamond/Schmitt look, tailored. A dose of good urban manners is what we need at the Yonge/Dundas corner.
The best place for another signature tower would be northeast corner of Yonge/Dundas, i.e. replacing the entire 10 Dundas East mess, and mess is a polite word for it.
In general I have to say that I'm feeling quite positive about the breath of life that is being given to the entire area. The solution to Yonge/Dundas is more people, more intensification. Hopefully there is momentum to keep the regeneration going. Meantime, this development contributes really quite well, with a city building intent instead of an attention grabbing one.
The best place for another signature tower would be northeast corner of Yonge/Dundas, i.e. replacing the entire 10 Dundas East mess, and mess is a polite word for it.
In general I have to say that I'm feeling quite positive about the breath of life that is being given to the entire area. The solution to Yonge/Dundas is more people, more intensification. Hopefully there is momentum to keep the regeneration going. Meantime, this development contributes really quite well, with a city building intent instead of an attention grabbing one.
Ramako
Moderator
Oh, I'm all in favour of preserving that warehouse, or at the very least its facade. I just think it's funny how overly dramatic and overblown your reaction was to its potential demise. Even adma, who's far more pro-heritage than others on this board, isn't appalled by the loss of this building, wheras to you it means we live in a "single-minded/mindless" and less enlightened society. You don't want to see what a truly single-minded/mindless/unenlightened society is like or how it would treat its heritage (or anything else for that matter). Please, spare us the drama.
Last edited:
Tewder
Senior Member
The problem stems from an approach that views heritage as synonymous with history on the one hand, and from a somewhat desperate attempt to quantify an old building's worth in order to save it, on the other. This is important in certain cases, obviously, but is only part of the picture and it will do little to preserve the vast inventory of heritage assets that accrue together to articulate the city's past, its identity and character.
In other words, and to put it simply, would Paris still be Paris in the face of the gradual obliteration of its vast stock of heritage buildings (one 'unnecessary' Haussmann block after another) even if the historic monuments were preserved? Absolutley not. And not that Toronto is Paris, obviously, but the pricinciple remains the same. If we cavalierly lop down buildings from the past because on a building by building basis we are unable to identify something 'unique' about it to save it we are creating a transitory and disposable place where the profit motive rules and confers all meaning on the public realm.
Again, nobody here is advocating against development. There are many ways to develop thoughfully that will grow the city in layers to everybody's benefit and we have seen numerous examples throughout the city already. There are also many, many opportunities for 'carte blanche' development, and in the downtown core still, if negotiating heritage details is not in the corporate mandate. This will not deter quality developers, which after all is what we want downtown, and in the end there are no excuses for this except for our own apathy.
In other words, and to put it simply, would Paris still be Paris in the face of the gradual obliteration of its vast stock of heritage buildings (one 'unnecessary' Haussmann block after another) even if the historic monuments were preserved? Absolutley not. And not that Toronto is Paris, obviously, but the pricinciple remains the same. If we cavalierly lop down buildings from the past because on a building by building basis we are unable to identify something 'unique' about it to save it we are creating a transitory and disposable place where the profit motive rules and confers all meaning on the public realm.
Again, nobody here is advocating against development. There are many ways to develop thoughfully that will grow the city in layers to everybody's benefit and we have seen numerous examples throughout the city already. There are also many, many opportunities for 'carte blanche' development, and in the downtown core still, if negotiating heritage details is not in the corporate mandate. This will not deter quality developers, which after all is what we want downtown, and in the end there are no excuses for this except for our own apathy.
SP!RE
°°°°°°
Well put, Tewder!
Not to mention that to keep an extra facade (the brown brick building) and have the tower grow from behind it would not be much trouble, and could easily be incorporated into what would ultimately be a more interesting and contextual design.
Not to mention that to keep an extra facade (the brown brick building) and have the tower grow from behind it would not be much trouble, and could easily be incorporated into what would ultimately be a more interesting and contextual design.
Tewder
Senior Member
Yes, it's not like we haven't seen this approach in many other locations, and successfully!