I, too, think at the very least that facade of the brown brick building should be kept.

This proposal is so painfully boring.

Something jenga-style like the old Gansevoort design here would give the square some needed flair. Render in thread here.
 
Yes, why not? There is plenty of opportunity here to make a statement on the skyline, given that the surroundings are low rise.
 
Tewder said:
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?
Click to expand...

Keep in mind that Paris only became PARIS after the old medieval city was almost entirely obliterated and rebuilt on a new plan, on a scale that makes the most widespread Toronto clearances look timid. Nobody back then gave the slightest thought to preserving the historic (at the time) city, other than a few cathedrals and palaces.

Similarly, in Toronto, the expanses of Victorian buildings that are so treasured now (after being ignored for most of the last century) were themselves built on the land cleared by the wholesale demolition of the buildings of the earlier nineteenth century Toronto, with only a relatively few such buildings surviving. The clearances during the late nineteenth century were huge, not as extensive as happened in Paris but still massive in scale.

By comparison, modern (since 1980 or so) attitudes toward heritage preservation are lightyears better. Admittedly, mistakes are still being made, but nothing on the scale of earlier times.
 
We're losing a perfectly fine part of our heritage for this uninspired piece? Come on Toronto... smarten up or we'll lose this whole city to banal trash like this!

Watch, in 10 years once YD fills up the HNR building will be next and we'll have no single structure over 5 stories of historical significance north of dundas. Disgusting. Can't let this happen..
 
Last edited by a moderator:
I see your point Mongo but the differnce is that the rebuilding of Paris was planned at least. Avenues were established where medieval walls once stood. Paris was designed with vistas and view corridors leading up to heritage buildings. Guidelines were elaborated that embraced an ideology of the public realm. This is not the case in Toronto, today or in the past, where buildings were levelled to make way for parking lots and development, and where even today there is little enlightenment or ideology in evidence. Besides, if Haussmann is too sticky a point for you then look at more recent examples in Paris such as the Marais district for example or Montmartre or the Latin Quarter where the bigger heritage context does take clear precedance.
 
Ramako said:
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.
Click to expand...

If you cared to simply ask, you'd know that my comment refers to the references made to 'economic' reasons as the main consideration for determining whether something has value...my comment didn't refer only to this buildng, but instead refered to a way of thinking that will lead to a 'gradual' deterioration of our heritage...it's not just the fate of this 'one' building, but to me each building is important cause these things dont happen all at once!

The approach whereby value is narrowly defined by an economic imperative IS - to me - mindless and single-minded or - to add even more so-called drama - narrow-minded and shortsighted...
...that's my opinion...and I continue to hold it...drama notwithstanding!!

...to me trivializng the loss of any part of our history shows your lack of understanding of the importance of preserving our past...

P.S. The explanation marks are intentional...for 'dramatic' effect of course!
 
Mongo said:
Keep in mind that Paris only became PARIS after the old medieval city was almost entirely obliterated and rebuilt on a new plan, on a scale that makes the most widespread Toronto clearances look timid. Nobody back then gave the slightest thought to preserving the historic (at the time) city, other than a few cathedrals and palaces.

Similarly, in Toronto, the expanses of Victorian buildings that are so treasured now (after being ignored for most of the last century) were themselves built on the land cleared by the wholesale demolition of the buildings of the earlier nineteenth century Toronto, with only a relatively few such buildings surviving. The clearances during the late nineteenth century were huge, not as extensive as happened in Paris but still massive in scale.

By comparison, modern (since 1980 or so) attitudes toward heritage preservation are lightyears better. Admittedly, mistakes are still being made, but nothing on the scale of earlier times.
Click to expand...

That's not really true. While Paris lost a lot of its medieval architecture when bouelvards were rammed through, the surrounding side streets still have a lot of centuries-old building stock. If you walk around in the Marais, etc. you'll see what I mean.

Toronto, on the other hand, still kept its pre-war street plan, but a good chunk of downtown was obliterated. Bay street, for example, would be almost completely unrecognizable to a person from the 1930s all the way from Queen to Davenport, despite the fact that the road itself has not changed.
 
Wow. this is an old proposal!....
yonge-dundas is gonna look even better (imo), with a tower like this looming over the square. dare i say it be more "time square like"?
 
I know I'm going to get blasted for this, but I don’t like heritage buildings being destroyed; however, I think some people are over reacting. We’re not destroying a significant heritage building IMO. Just walk along Queen W/E or Dundas or any street in old Toronto and you’ll see a lot of buildings like this one. For an example of a significant set of heritage buildings that were recently destroyed, look at the old Kodak site on Weston road & Eglinton. These buildings had more significance than the building in question. Most of the Kodak site was built in the 1890’s and were used as a holding station for WWI soldiers. Nobody said anything about them being torn down.

Just look right outside the downtown core to appreciate heritage buildings of this type.
 
steveve said:
Wow. this is an old proposal!....
yonge-dundas is gonna look even better (imo), with a tower like this looming over the square. dare i say it be more "time square like"?
Click to expand...

E.B. said:
I know I'm going to get blasted for this, but I don’t like heritage buildings being destroyed; however, I think some people are over reacting. We’re not destroying a significant heritage building IMO. Just walk along Queen W/E or Dundas or any street in old Toronto and you’ll see a lot of buildings like this one. For an example of a significant set of heritage buildings that were recently destroyed, look at the old Kodak site on Weston road & Eglinton. These buildings had more significance than the building in question. Most of the Kodak site was built in the 1890’s and were used as a holding station for WWI soldiers. Nobody said anything about them being torn down.

Just look right outside the downtown core to appreciate heritage buildings of this type.
Click to expand...

Better be careful, you are not in 100% agreement with Adma. You wouldn't want him to call you insensitive imbeciles, do you?

On a more serious note, these are the types of posts that give me hope in this forum. People like Adma need to show some more respect and tolerance towards other people's opinions.
 
ahmad.m.atiya said:
On a more serious note, these are the types of posts that give me hope in this forum. People like Adma need to show some more respect and tolerance towards other people's opinions.
Click to expand...

Good luck waiting for that. Adma is one of the most self-satisfied, intolerant posters on UT. If you don't agree with him 100%, you obviously must be an idiot and a philistine.
 
ahmad.m.atiya said:
Better be careful, you are not in 100% agreement with Adma. You wouldn't want him to call you insensitive imbeciles, do you?

On a more serious note, these are the types of posts that give me hope in this forum. People like Adma need to show some more respect and tolerance towards other people's opinions.
Click to expand...

Actually, those whom you're quoting *don't* come across as insensitive as your own past utterances--indeed, their stance is probably closer to mine, in that I'm neither hyperactively anti-tower/TimesSquareification, nor hyperactively anti-demolition in this case.

And, honestly--the problem with these kinds of pleas for "respect and tolerance" is that those who make them usually don't grasp how they can work both ways. I mean, *I* might as well beg more respect and tolerance t/w *my* opinions--on *your* opinions. And that whole begging-for-tolerance exercise can go back and forth ad absurdum.

Which is why I'd rather not beg for respect and tolerance t/w my opinions. I'd rather reflexively beg it for sensitive urbanity--and notice I didn't say "heritage preservation". I said "sensitive urbanity". (Which in a case like this, may involve "preservation if necessary, but not necessarily preservation", to paraphrase Mackenzie King.)

What I previously quoted from you didn't indicate such sensitivity. And from the evidence of a thread elsewhere where I brought up a heritage case in NYC, you seem incapable of deductive reasoning as well...
 
Wow..5 floors of commercial and 10 floors of office space. Thats all good.:cool:

CONDO BUILDINGS, OFFICE SPACE, RETAIL
Proj: 1182101-23
Toronto, Metro Toronto Reg ON
PREPARING PLANS

Dundas Victoria Redevelopment, 21 Dundas Square Rd, SW corner of Victoria St and Dundas Sq, M5B
$40,000,000 est
Note:
Arch completed concept plans and preliminary designs in 2009. City council rezoning approvals are secured. Arch expects to seek city council site plan approvals late 2011. The project scope will be finalized based on approvals and pending the start of working drawings. Schedules for working drawings, tender for general contractor and construction are undetermined. Further update late 2011.
Page & Steele Inc and Diamond & Schmitt Arch Inc are working in joint-venture on this project.
Project:
proposed construction of a mixed use building. The project proposes construction of a 39-storey mixed-use building with commercial office space of floors one through five, furnished commercial rental office space on floors six to sixteen, and condominium apartments on floors seventeen to thirty-five, with 245 condominium residential units. The project will also include renovation to the façade of a 15 storey heritage building on the site, including improvements to exterior cladding and windows. A second heritage building will be demolished to make room for this project.
Scope:
340,000 square feet; 39 storeys; 5 storeys below grade; 247 units; parking for 196 cars
Development:.. New
Category:.. Apartment bldgs; Commercial offices; Retail, wholesale services
 
i actually want to see this building go up, somethings gotta tower over Yonge/Dundas.
I thought this one was dead lol
 
You must log in or register to post here.

Back
Top