[junctionist]

This isn't the Acropolis or Great Wall we're talking about. Tear it down and let's build something new and useful. Whoever owns the building should be able to do whatever they want to it. This is Toronto, not Rome....."history"? Come on now.

It's strange that you'd say something so ignorant. 200 years is a a lot of history, one of invasion, rebellions, industrial, scientific, intellectual and cultural accomplishments, and numerous architectural achievements. It's the story of an ambitious rise, one of surpassing another city that had been the major metropolitan city of the country for a long time. By being ignorant of the history of this city and accepting the demolition of an interesting historical building without any concern, you're denigrating and cheapening Toronto. A lot of things happened in 200 years, and many architecturally interesting buildings went up in that time. The existence of Rome doesn't preclude interesting and meaningful history in Toronto.

 

[adma]

Though he may have a point about how the case for saving every structural bleep and fart of the Loblaw warehouse has been occasionally overstated, in a save-the-trees/save-the-yellow-bellied-sapsuckers way that *can* jaundice skeptics. However, his means of articulating such skepticism are so far off the blatantly ignorant-yahoo deep end, that, well...remember. The excesses of 70s feminism are no excuse for spousal and date abuse--let alone on a "she's my wife/GF and I can do anything I want to her" basis, which is the rough equivalent of FutureBuilder's. "whoever owns the building" logic.

Come to think of it, one could even use the "This isn't the Acropolis or Great Wall we're talking about" argument to sweep away Old Fort York across the street--after all, it's in a valuable spot that could be much better maximized through condo redevelopment. And if the pointy-headed historical/hysterical types have issue, well, they could always drum up the funds to have it reerected in the Portlands, where it could have a better chance to be an "attraction" than mired in a sea of highways and railways--sure, it may not be a ferris wheel or monorail, but...

Methinks it's worth drilling FutureBuilder on what, exactly, he feels constitutes preservation-worthy history/heritage in Toronto. Sounds to me like he's just the worst kind of stupid, ignorant jerk on that front...

 

[Red October]

This isn't the Acropolis or Great Wall we're talking about. Tear it down and let's build something new and useful. Whoever owns the building should be able to do whatever they want to it. This is Toronto, not Rome....."history"? Come on now.

This kind of ignorance for history is why only 1/5 of the Coliseum is still here, and 1/10 of the Forum.

If we tear down all our heritage buildings because they aren't 1000 years old, then they won't get to be 1000 years old will they?

 

[AlvinofDiaspar]

In this case, look at the brighter side - at least a) the building will be reused; b) a significant portion of the facade will be rebuilt and c) there won't be another ill-fitting condo plopped on top. Certainly beats death by neglect. This isn't Empress Hotel or Walnut Hall. If there is one area to be concerned about - it's the quality of the new portions of the building - Turner Fleischer does't inspire confidence in this regard.

AoD

 

[Automation Gallery]

In this case, look at the brighter side - at least a) the building will be reused; b) a significant portion of the facade will be rebuilt and c) there won't be another ill-fitting condo plopped on top. Certainly beats death by neglect. This isn't Empress Hotel or Walnut Hall.

I agree...and way too much politics on this thread of a building that is falling apart.

 

[neubilder]

This isn't the Acropolis or Great Wall we're talking about. Tear it down and let's build something new and useful. Whoever owns the building should be able to do whatever they want to it. This is Toronto, not Rome....."history"? Come on now.

I'm afraid of the future that you would have for us ....

 

[neubilder]

- it's the quality of the new portions of the building - Turner Fleischer does't inspire confidence in this regard.

AoD

Oh crap, Turner Fleischer is the architect for this? The integrity of their design befits suburban business parks and (dated) shopping malls, not the sensitive reworking of a heritage structure in the downtown core.

 

[adma]

I agree...and way too much politics on this thread of a building that is falling apart.

True, but according to a FutureBuilder, even the, uh, half-measures that are being done are a waste of time.

It's sort of like "This isn't Empress Hotel or Walnut Hall," versus "This isn't the Acropolis or Great Wall we're talking about".

 

[junctionist]

In this case, look at the brighter side - at least a) the building will be reused; b) a significant portion of the facade will be rebuilt and c) there won't be another ill-fitting condo plopped on top. Certainly beats death by neglect. This isn't Empress Hotel or Walnut Hall. If there is one area to be concerned about - it's the quality of the new portions of the building - Turner Fleischer does't inspire confidence in this regard.

AoD

Isn't the building going to be demolished with facades preserved (apparently by rebuilding)? The outcome is barely better than death by neglect, but definitely a bottom of the barrel outcome. In its local context, it represents a large old building in a neighbourhood of repetitive new Modernist architecture. Walnut Hall it isn't, but it is significant in the area and in Toronto for its Loblaws connection and industrial Art Deco architecture. When it comes to the local context, we should also remember that if Toronto is "a city of neighbourhoods", then one must not simply look out for the most significant buildings in the city, but for the interesting buildings from neighbourhood to neighbourhood in order to maintain a strong sense of the history and character of neighbourhoods and that aspect of our identity.

I agree...and way too much politics on this thread of a building that is falling apart.

I don't see anything wrong with the discussion unless you just want the building gone, might over right.

 

[neubilder]

Isn't the building going to be demolished with facades preserved (apparently by rebuilding)? The outcome is barely better than death by neglect, but definitely a bottom of the barrel outcome. In its local context, it represents a large old building in a neighbourhood of repetitive new Modernist architecture. Walnut Hall it isn't, but it is significant in the area and in Toronto for its Loblaws connection and industrial Art Deco architecture. When it comes to the local context, we should also remember that if Toronto is "a city of neighbourhoods", then one must not simply look out for the most significant buildings in the city, but for the interesting buildings from neighbourhood to neighbourhood in order to maintain a strong sense of the history and character of neighbourhoods and that aspect of our identity.



I don't see anything wrong with the discussion unless you just want the building gone, might over right.

Why worry about 'sense of place' when you have a smartphone with GPS?

 

[AlvinofDiaspar]

junctionist:

Isn't the building going to be demolished with facades preserved (apparently by rebuilding)? The outcome is barely better than death by neglect, but definitely a bottom of the barrel outcome. In its local context, it represents a large old building in a neighbourhood of repetitive new Modernist architecture. Walnut Hall it isn't, but it is significant in the area and in Toronto for its Loblaws connection and industrial Art Deco architecture. When it comes to the local context, we should also remember that if Toronto is "a city of neighbourhoods", then one must not simply look out for the most significant buildings in the city, but for the interesting buildings from neighbourhood to neighbourhood in order to maintain a strong sense of the history and character of neighbourhoods and that aspect of our identity.

In the perfect world, I would agree with you - however the site in question has been languishing for way too long, the condition of the exterior is poor and the risk of actually losing the structure is high enough that it is difficult to justify further wrangling. At least one can argue that Loblaws reusing the structure is at least more relevant than having another condo slapped on top.

AoD

 

[bengaijin]

I'm reservedly with AoD on this one. As a compromise, this will have to do.

Actually, the elevations in the planning report make this seem like a decent way to incorporate new and old, and I'm hoping the eventual result will look the same. I do have my doubts though... Dismantle + Rebuild = What exactly? Depending on how poorly or how well its done, it could be great or garbage.

I also find it odd how they call out the boundary between the old building and the new on the plan, and yet they intend to completely demo the old building. At first I just assumed that they were going to use the structure, then I read more closely. Too bad. They could have gutted the building to the timbers and kept some of that old character in the new space...

 

[adma]

Remember that these are the sorts of conundrums that have sparked Rem Koolhaas's so-called anti-heritage critique in "Cronocaos". Of course, I'm not expecting a FutureBuilder to know what the heck that's all about...

 

[bengaijin]

Remember that these are the sorts of conundrums that have sparked Rem Koolhaas's so-called anti-heritage critique in "Cronocaos". Of course, I'm not expecting a FutureBuilder to know what the heck that's all about...

This is a good article describing the Cronocaos exhibition/argument. And yes, adma, this piece of 'preservation' is exactly the sort of thing the critique zeroes in on...

 

[Bruvyman]

I challenge you to find a door with this much character or beauty in any building that has gone up in the past two decades in Toronto:

By me: