isaidso
Senior Member
Agree. These older 'middling' calibre buildings seem to get scarcer all the time. The Mirvish-Gehry proposal will rid the city of a few more if it comes to pass. It's a shame.
- Thread starter Mike in TO
- Start date
Agree. These older 'middling' calibre buildings seem to get scarcer all the time. The Mirvish-Gehry proposal will rid the city of a few more if it comes to pass. It's a shame.
Tewder
Senior Member
I don't see any reason why Diamond couldn't have worked with these facades. Hubris? Unfortunately he will replace this with something extraordinarily bland and pragmatic which will only further erode the character and texture of the area. Iit's the same old song over and over again, as with the Mirvish project on King. Zero respect for context. Zero concern for creative and thoughtful development in our downtown core.
AlvinofDiaspar
Moderator
Let's not oversentimentalize that stretch of Victoria - it's for all intents and purposes a back laneway. There is no reason why a well-designed replacement can't surpass what's here right now (save the HNR building itself). Besides, "bland and pragmatic" is exactly what this extant building represents - and that's what D+S is particularly good at (I don't meant it in a pejorative way)
AoD
AoD
Last edited:
Tewder
Senior Member
The Mirvish block is too important to preserve and Victoria Street is too negligible to preserve? Sounds to me like pretty much anything is up for grabs when it comes to justifying not working with existing contexts.
Victoria Street in its entirety is actually one of the more interesting streets downtown, and in the very heart of the core at that. It is quite charming north of Dundas, rather elegant in parts (around Adelaide), and richly gritty in the heart of its stretch between Dundas and Queen. With the backends of theatres and older, heavy brick structures it recalls many of the side streets off of Times Square in NYC. I have no issue with in-fill and the Pantages and St. Michael's additions are perfectly fine, but I'm not sure that anything Diamond will offer up in exchange for what he is tearing down will have anything near the same degree of character. Shame.
Victoria Street in its entirety is actually one of the more interesting streets downtown, and in the very heart of the core at that. It is quite charming north of Dundas, rather elegant in parts (around Adelaide), and richly gritty in the heart of its stretch between Dundas and Queen. With the backends of theatres and older, heavy brick structures it recalls many of the side streets off of Times Square in NYC. I have no issue with in-fill and the Pantages and St. Michael's additions are perfectly fine, but I'm not sure that anything Diamond will offer up in exchange for what he is tearing down will have anything near the same degree of character. Shame.
AlvinofDiaspar
Moderator
Actually I am on the record for saying the former isn't too important to preserve either.
You do realize that the Li Ka Shing Knowledge Institute on Victoria is actually a D+S project right? Just saying.
AoD
syn
Senior Member
I agree.
Miscreant
Senior Member
Yep, I feel the same. It's one of Toronto's most urban, 'city' streets, very reminiscent of side streets in large, eastern seaboard American cities like NYC, Boston, etc. I often take it when heading north from Queen or further south (where you're right, it's quite elegant), as I like the grittier urban feel of it.
Tewder
Senior Member
I don't have an issue with D+S, or development. There is - and has been - so much potential in this city for architects and designers to make their statement and their mark on blank canvases (empty lots, former brown fields, parking lots etc). None of this has been in short supply when you consider the massive tracts of derelict lands that are now under development. When it comes to working within an established existing urban fabric, however, the rules of engagement should be different. In-fill and density should be added in creative ways that provide new layers to what is there, evolving the streetscapes forward rather than constantly destroying and rebuilding as if our built environments are disposable... and it's not like we aren't already seeing this happen successfully all over the city. This is an enlightened and unique approach to urban design in Toronto that will create a unique cityscape for the future. Raising everything that is specific to Toronto (because of its specific history and heritage) and replacing it with generic modern design, no matter how cool or beautiful, will only help to make this city indistinguishable from any other.
AlvinofDiaspar
Moderator
Tewder:
Sorry - that is just not patently true - this is what you've said just a few posts ago:
If we are talking about tearing down the HNR building proper, I'd agree with you - but just how would saving the brick mid-rise in this development change that? At best you'd get a facadectomy of a building that is arguably quite Modern in design vocabulary already (embellishments are minimal), scrubbed free of grime and grit. It would have added absolutely nothing in terms of complexity and interest. Cities are by default creatures of constant destruction and rebuilding. There is nothing "enlightened" about slapping a heritage label to each and every old building that comes along pretending that somehow it will make us unique among the cities of the world - it won't. Raise the level of planning vision and the design quality for new buildings and you'd get a far better outcome than nuanced rhetoric.
AoD
Sorry - that is just not patently true - this is what you've said just a few posts ago:
If we are talking about tearing down the HNR building proper, I'd agree with you - but just how would saving the brick mid-rise in this development change that? At best you'd get a facadectomy of a building that is arguably quite Modern in design vocabulary already (embellishments are minimal), scrubbed free of grime and grit. It would have added absolutely nothing in terms of complexity and interest. Cities are by default creatures of constant destruction and rebuilding. There is nothing "enlightened" about slapping a heritage label to each and every old building that comes along pretending that somehow it will make us unique among the cities of the world - it won't. Raise the level of planning vision and the design quality for new buildings and you'd get a far better outcome than nuanced rhetoric.
AoD
Last edited:
Conrad Black
Senior Member
HNR needs to be saved. This one not so much.
LowPolygon
Senior Member
[h=1]Dundas Square building demolition stopped to avoid radioactive contamination[/h]
http://www.thestar.com/news/gta/art...on-stopped-to-avoid-radioactive-contamination
http://www.thestar.com/news/gta/art...on-stopped-to-avoid-radioactive-contamination
TrickyRicky
Senior Member
"There is nothing "enlightened" about slapping a heritage label to each and every old building that comes along pretending that somehow it will make us unique among the cities of the world - it won't. Raise the level of planning vision and the design quality for new buildings and you'd get a far better outcome than nuanced rhetoric."
AoD, I'm personally in favour of a mixed approach. But I don' think heritage designation is important for anything to do with being unique in the world, or even the merits of an individual building. Heritage designation is basically good as a defence mechanism against contemporary arrogance and hubris. This is entirely to do with the stock of buildings locally, not how they compare to other cities, and is a defining characteristic of all time periods. Designers can't accept this because they always think they are at the cutting edge. They have thought so since we were building mud huts on the savannah.
If we take an honest look at the results of our contemporary planning vision and design quality I think we must admit that the results are spotty and much of our constructions will be as dated as orange 70's shag carpet in 2050.
AoD, I'm personally in favour of a mixed approach. But I don' think heritage designation is important for anything to do with being unique in the world, or even the merits of an individual building. Heritage designation is basically good as a defence mechanism against contemporary arrogance and hubris. This is entirely to do with the stock of buildings locally, not how they compare to other cities, and is a defining characteristic of all time periods. Designers can't accept this because they always think they are at the cutting edge. They have thought so since we were building mud huts on the savannah.
If we take an honest look at the results of our contemporary planning vision and design quality I think we must admit that the results are spotty and much of our constructions will be as dated as orange 70's shag carpet in 2050.
AlvinofDiaspar
Moderator
TR:
The funny thing though is that in the context of this particular development there is nothing particularly "cutting edge" about its' replacement. To me, it's replacing one utilitarian structure with another - and not about asserting superiority in design.
No doubt, but we are honest with ourselves, we'd say that's true for how we judge buildings (or just design styles, more generally) that immediately preceeded us.
AoD
The funny thing though is that in the context of this particular development there is nothing particularly "cutting edge" about its' replacement. To me, it's replacing one utilitarian structure with another - and not about asserting superiority in design.
No doubt, but we are honest with ourselves, we'd say that's true for how we judge buildings (or just design styles, more generally) that immediately preceeded us.
AoD
adma
Superstar
Though arguably the existing Mirvish block is more on a level w/HNR's Dundas Square frontage than w/the endangered Victoria annex. (Then again, the proposed replacement here isn't Gehry.)
marsh
Active Member
Re The Star's article regarding demolition stopped due to concern of radioactive contamination - I find it really disturbing that this issue is only coming to the forefront now given that this project has been in the works for 5 years. Why does the Canadian Nuclear Safety Commission have to get involved? Doesn't give me a lot of confidence in the developer.