[marcus_a_j]

Grey - now things get more interesting!

Your counter illustrates the point that I'm trying to make - that when normal folks hear the term "cultural value" in reference to a building made in the 1920s - the "stop the gravy train" part of the brain kicks in. For most people, it is just about the economic cost - the outside beauty of a given building is a fleeting lost memory the moment you go through the doors and enter into the building.

For most people, the economic cost of preserving this heritage building is $0. Other than a potential grant from the City to preserve the building (highly unlikely right now), all costs will be borne by Loblaw, a private company. Preservation of the outside beauty of a particular building is not just for those entering it, but everyone who passes it.

 

[grey]

"union station was built for british colonial imperialists. tear it down and build a new structure with better traffic flow for us ordinary citizens" - a stupid idiot

 

[grey]

For most people, the economic cost of preserving this heritage building is $0. Other than a potential grant from the City to preserve the building (highly unlikely right now), all costs will be borne by Loblaw, a private company. Preservation of the outside beauty of a particular building is not just for those entering it, but everyone who passes it.

Exactly, and it was Loblaws who made the private decision to tear down all but two walls at their own expense, rather than retrofit the existing structure for adaptive re-use. We, as public citizens, are no worse off. In fact, we will now have a grocery store AND a heritage building to increase the value of surrounding property in the area.

 

[Torontovibe]

I'm with you on the definition - I'm questioning why is "architectural value" important in the first place? I am suggesting that utility (in this case a grocery store in an underserved area of the city) should ALWAYS trump "architectural/historical value".

The reason is that "architectural/historical value" is based on a fuzzy (mostly white/european) idea of nostalgia/heritage. No one here was actually alive when the original building was being used (and it's not particularly relevant even if they were). The utility of being able to buy organic spinach quickly and at a store with parking is much more relevant than whether the building where that spinach is stored makes some people feel good inside when passing by on the streetcar.

Ultimately, that's my issue with this topic in general - the folks who fight for "heritage" buildings are the intellectual (albeit more inert) cousins of the same folks who move out of neighbourhoods because "it just doesn't look like how I remember" (code words for: there are more ethnics in the neighbourhood now).

What a load of shit!

 

[grey]

Now now grey, I hope we can have a discussion more nuanced than what your summary above portrays. It's intellectual laziness to confuse racism with cultural-elitism.. I view discussions equating culture and "old" buildings to be cultural elitism - not racist.

Oh really? What you have demonstrated is generalized "anti-cultural" leanings, and at worst, distaste for one specific culture.

 

[Maurice]

For most people, the economic cost of preserving this heritage building is $0. Other than a potential grant from the City to preserve the building (highly unlikely right now), all costs will be borne by Loblaw, a private company. Preservation of the outside beauty of a particular building is not just for those entering it, but everyone who passes it.

You're correct in that in this case the direct economic cost would be borne by Loblaws (putting aside the fact that it probably increases the time in which the store can be turned around and the indirect cost will be passed onto the consumer). However, the larger point I was making is that it would be the "City" (funded by tax money) that would be standing up and arguing for "cultural preservation" - to which a lot of people would say, "I'd rather the money that goes to fund that department that cares about this go to the TTC (or whatever) instead".

 

[Maurice]

Oh really? What you have demonstrated is generalized "anti-cultural" leanings, and at worst, distaste for one specific culture.

Yes, I do have a distaste for cultural elitism! And trust me, all "cultures" are guilty of cultural elitism - all of them give me indigestion.

 

[Maurice]

"union station was built for british colonial imperialists. tear it down and build a new structure with better traffic flow for us ordinary citizens" - a stupid idiot

Did someone actually make this argument?

 

[Rebecca - HT]

Lucky for all of us Maurice doesn't get to decide what is heritage!

There's this law called the Ontario Heritage Act that defines what a heritage structure is because of people like him and to despite people like him.

 

[Maurice]

Where does one begin to respond to such philistinism? If you genuinely believe that "history" and "heritage" are "iffy" and "worthless", there's no point in attempting to persuade you otherwise. It's because of people like you that much of Toronto is as ugly and banal as it is.



Who made you the authority on what "ordinary people" think? Heritage talk, as you put it, "feels" elitist to you and you only. I suppose you'll argue next that the Lalani Group struck a blow for the common man at 335 Yonge.

Ask new immigrants whether they think Toronto is banal and ugly - you'd be surprised at the answers. To a lot of new immigrants I've spoken to - Toronto is a beautiful city.

The Lalani Group story was very interesting - but I didn't really see a huge turnout demanding that the heritage building be rebuilt. But then again, I might be mistaken on that...

 

[Maurice]

Lucky for all of us Maurice doesn't get to decide what is heritage!

There's this law called the Ontario Heritage Act that defines what a heritage structure is because of people like him and to despite people like him.

You are correct, I just want a grocery store near where I live as quickly as possible!

But it's been an interesting Friday afternoon discussion.

Who knew that a grocery store discussion can connect to themes of cultural elitism, heritage, culture, the immigrant experience etc. Thank goodness this ain't China or the Middle East!

 

[JasonParis]

Architecture is complex.

 

[Torontovibe]

You are correct, I just want a grocery store near where I live as quickly as possible!

But it's been an interesting Friday afternoon discussion.

Who knew that a grocery store discussion can connect to themes of cultural elitism, heritage, culture, the immigrant experience etc. Thank goodness this ain't China or the Middle East!

Usually people who make these types of arguments are thinking about their own selfish needs. No surprise there.

 

[Maurice]

Usually people who make these types of arguments are thinking about their own selfish needs. No surprise there.

Well, I would say that anyone who makes any argument is thinking about their own selfish need. No one has a monopoly on non-selfishness. Claiming that the outside look of a building is to be preserved, even if it delays the renewal of the unused land, is as selfish as saying the construction of the grocery store trumps everything.

 

[FAC33]

Rebecca, that's exactly my point - heritage should be on the short end of the stick. At it's best, it's a romantic notion filled with very iffy words like "history", "past treasures", "culture". At it's worst, it's an elitist puff of smoke similar to people arguing over trends in women's fashion. It's the type of discussion that makes ordinary people mad and run to anti-elitists like Rob Ford.

The fact that you're saying that the public doesn't support heritage to me is a good sign - and our city will be better off for it. I'm questioning the entire premise of "Heritage" - if it was free, I'd be all for it. But it's not, and the cost is simply not worth it.

Not worth it to whom? Obviously not to you. I guess you've never been to the Distillery District or the Hockey Hall of Fame. The people who decided to reuse these properties thought they had potential and invested their money, and we are the better for it. And what costs are we talking about here? It's not as if the city has this huge heritage budget that would be better spent on improving transit. The city has next to no heritage budget. All they can generally offer are tax breaks and a few small grants. Heritage is not part of the gravy train. And many developers are no friend of the "ordinary person." They are there for profit. They are not tearing down these buildings because history and heritage is some sort of elitist plot.