Toronto Sun Life Financial Tower & Harbour Plaza Residences | 236.51m | 67s | Menkes | Sweeny &Co

[adma]

That's just the point: In its current context the HC building will never be the catalyst for the type of improvements or changes that one would envisage in order to improve its fate. On the contrary, as the city grows around it the pressure to develop this low-density site will only increase... and who would raise much of a fuss on behalf of what is largely an overlooked, out of the way building that has little relevance to anybody but heritage geeks?

Except...as of now, we aren't dealing with a Yonge + Gould demolition-by-neglect situation, or even a 90 Harbour mothball situation. In fact, you're overstating the THC's overlooked/out-of-the-way/neglectedness; or even the likelihood that it'll vanish or be fatally compromised through development pressures if maintained in situ. (Heck, in situ, I'd argue it's more of a creative opportunity than an impediment.)

Look at it this way: if you question "who would raise much of a fuss", you're listening too much to glassy-eyed message-boarding skyscraper/development geeks who adore Hong Kong/Shanghai-type out-with-the-old/in-with-the-new superscraper determination; or to newspaper blog commenters who'd long for a clearcutting of eyesore Victorian Yonge St. But as situations like Yonge + Gould actually prove, there's a little innate "heritage geekness" in all of us--even if suppressed until the 11th or even 12th hour.

That said, I'm not arguing that I hate the building where it is so much as I don't hate the idea of moving it either. A relocation to a waterfront site becomes part of the building's history/evolution as it reclaims what truly is its original location in terms of context. At a more prominent site it stands a far better chance of being embraced and appreciated by a larger public who will go on to see it with far greater perspective than before.

Sorry, Tewder, but from a heritage-awareness/sensitivity standpoint, that's insipid dreck. And it's all the more reason to keep in situ, as a living organism within a larger whole, and instead work upon conditioning said "larger public" away from easy insipid-dreck heritage panaceas.

Remember that half a decade ago, people like Councillor Milczyn were arguing for the removal of the NPS walkways with a similar "it stands a far better chance of being embraced and appreciated by a larger public who will go on to see it with far greater perspective than before" alibi on behalf of New City Hall. Luckily, that insipid-dreck viewpoint of inevitability was quickly checked, euphemistic "larger public" be darned...

 

[adma]

However...

On the contrary, as the city grows around it the pressure to develop this low-density site will only increase... and who would raise much of a fuss on behalf of what is largely an overlooked, out of the way building that has little relevance to anybody but heritage geeks?

when it comes to 90 Harbour St, as opposed to the Harbour Commission, I actually agree with that statement. Look: it's useful to take it into account on a heritage basis, document it, etc, and maybe even allow for a "retention" solution. But by the standards of its mid-c20 period, it's public-works humdrum: its primary virtues being large scale, vestigial Art Moderneness and benign-neglect "integrity". (And the location certainly doesn't help--at least the THC still jumps out at you at Bay and Harbour, esp. when spotlit. Though if the 90 Harbour design were built around, say, Kingston/Danforth instead, I--and a certain "general public"--would find more reason to notice its virtues.)

Both buildings may be at the epicentre of long-term development pressure. But let's get some perspective here, rather than placing them on an equal plane--though it doesn't help that unlike certain other heritage bodies, the Toronto Preservation Board doesn't use letter/number/colour-coding to indicate real relative importance...

 

[Mongo]

Talking about development pressure...

In the entire "South Core" district (I consider it to encompass the land from Yonge to Lower Simcoe, and from the tracks to Queen's Quay West), there are only four significant tracts of land left that have not been recently developed, or are being developed. Those four plots of land are the middle third of the block bounded by Queen's Quay West and Harbour, between Bay and York; the east half of the block just to the north (containing the Harbour Commission building); the west half of that same block (containing 90 Harbour); and the triangular gore of land west of this block, which the City is shopping as suitable for a 50-floor "Flatiron" type residential building, or 30 floor office building (goodbye southern views from the ICE towers).

Of these plots, the Harbour Commission plot contains an important, non-demolishable, historic structure, which whatever its aesthetic value has to reduce the plot's perceived development potential. Although looking at the Google Maps image, it should be possible to build around it. The triangular plot is rather small, and bounded by the Gardiner / Lakeshore on the north, and on-ramps on the south. Not an ideal location. That leaves the QQW / Harbour plot (probably the most valuable plot of the four from a developer's viewpoint), and the 90 Harbour plot, which would be ideal for another MLS or ICE sized development, except for the rather ordinary mid-20th century building occupying half the land.

Given the lack of available land in the South Core, and the potential money to be made with another MLS / ICE sized project at that location, there would certainly be tremendous pressure on the City by any potential buyer of the 90 Harbour plot to include permission to demolish the existing building with the sale.

 

[Tewder]

Look at it this way: if you question "who would raise much of a fuss", you're listening too much to glassy-eyed message-boarding skyscraper/development geeks who adore Hong Kong/Shanghai-type out-with-the-old/in-with-the-new superscraper determination; or to newspaper blog commenters who'd long for a clearcutting of eyesore Victorian Yonge St. But as situations like Yonge + Gould actually prove, there's a little innate "heritage geekness" in all of us--even if suppressed until the 11th or even 12th hour.

Yet I understand the response to Gould, and I'm not so sure it was driven by 'Heritage' motivations in any ideological sense so much as something far more visceral and emotional. If the situation with Gould had happened almost anywhere else in the city - or off of any but a very few major streets at least - there would have been far less outcry. Look how Walnut Hall slipped away with hardly a whimper raised on its behalf, and that was a building recognized by both the city and the government of Canada as significant...

I agree with you that THC doesn't appear to be at risk, even as it becomes further engulfed by office towers and highway on/off ramps, but it does become further disconnected, and I don't see what benefit at all this serves or what satisfaction anybody who loves Heritage would derive from this beyond that which some superficial fetish for Historic quibbling might confer.

Sorry, Tewder, but from a heritage-awareness/sensitivity standpoint, that's insipid dreck. And it's all the more reason to keep in situ, as a living organism within a larger whole, and instead work upon conditioning said "larger public" away from easy insipid-dreck heritage panaceas.

Interesting that you view a heritage structure as a 'living organism' yet advocate for freezing it as some archaic fossil or relic. If it is truly the case that our buildings and streetscapes have an ongoing life, which ultimately makes them vital and relevant in an evolving city, what would be your fundamental opposition to one hypothetically moving if the move results in a potentially enormously renewed 'life'? Assuming we're not talking about a situation for museum-quality preservation.

Remember that half a decade ago, people like Councillor Milczyn were arguing for the removal of the NPS walkways with a similar "it stands a far better chance of being embraced and appreciated by a larger public who will go on to see it with far greater perspective than before" alibi on behalf of New City Hall. Luckily, that insipid-dreck viewpoint of inevitability was quickly checked, euphemistic "larger public" be darned...

... and former buildings that one might consider 'heritage' today were lost to build NPS itself or the TD Centre, or... The current living landscape of the city may not be what amateur heritage fetishists obsessed with a 'name & date' approach to history would have advocated for in the middle of the last century but the inescapable irony to all of 'you' is that yesterday's progress is today's heritage that will only get in the way of tomorrow's progress and so on. Bottom line is we have to pick the good fights and then we have to allow for creative solutions to adapt that which 'we' value in an evolving heritage landscape.

 

[Woodbridge_Heights]

However...

when it comes to 90 Harbour St, as opposed to the Harbour Commission, I actually agree with that statement. Look: it's useful to take it into account on a heritage basis, document it, etc, and maybe even allow for a "retention" solution. But by the standards of its mid-c20 period, it's public-works humdrum: its primary virtues being large scale, vestigial Art Moderneness and benign-neglect "integrity". (And the location certainly doesn't help--at least the THC still jumps out at you at Bay and Harbour, esp. when spotlit. Though if the 90 Harbour design were built around, say, Kingston/Danforth instead, I--and a certain "general public"--would find more reason to notice its virtues.)

Both buildings may be at the epicentre of long-term development pressure. But let's get some perspective here, rather than placing them on an equal plane--though it doesn't help that unlike certain other heritage bodies, the Toronto Preservation Board doesn't use letter/number/colour-coding to indicate real relative importance...

This very quote symbolizes your type of perservationizim is focused on "what I like". You prefer old victorian architecture (THC) over more modern Art-Modern, Art-Deco architecture (90 Harbour) and therefore show your preference obviously with which building you support for preservation and which you do not. Ironic for a self confessed "preservation geek".

Even your descriptors reveal your bias. THC has "virtures" and offers a "creative opportunity" whild 90 Harbour is "humdrum" and has "vestigial Art Moderness". Both buildings are part of this city's history and both deserve some attempt at preservation, and although THC might be more important than 90 Harbour, 90 Harbour is hardly a throw away building.

I'll await your flailing rant attacking me.

 

[AlvinofDiaspar]

WBH:

Of all people, I think adma's commitment to 20c architecture goes far above and beyond our pedigree. Just saying.

AoD

 

[Mongo]

^ What he said. adma is recognised as being one of this site's most even-handed people, in terms of architectural eras. If he says that 90 Harbour's days are numbered, due to its comparatively low architectural / historical significance and the prime development potential of its location, then I tend to give that opinion a fair bit of weight.

 

[adma]

And keep in mind, too, that the judgment I'm offering/reflecting wouldn't be much different in supposedly more "historically enlightened" jurisdictions, your usual NYCs and Londons and Parises and Chicagos. It's nothing to do with prewar-classical vs postwar-modern/Moderne at all: it's about relativism. Conversely, if THC were a warehouse-like hulk and 90 Harbour had more of a Postal Delivery Building-like Moderne flair (or Redpath-like International Style flair, for that matter), I'd place the latter ahead.

But at the same time, I'm hardly treating 90 Harbour as-is as a simple "throw away"--indeed, the fact that it is being taken seriously on grounds of heritage worth (and not just as an accidental "Union Station HCD" component) is a positive sign of how our parameters have broadened over the past few decades. That is, if any of you want to attack me for being blithely dismissive, I'm way ahead of you here--indeed, I absolutely agree that such "being taken seriously" can be viewed as an opportunity. However, I also agree that its loss wouldn't be a 999 Queen-scaled tragedy. And when it comes to relative judgment--hey, I'm pro-Riverdale-Half-Round, but I wouldn't claim it's an architectural masterwork on the scale of William Thomas's Don Jail. Indeed, those who *would* make that overwrought claim would do more harm than benefit to the pro-Half-Round cause.

Something tells me that when it comes to the likes of Woodbridge Heights and Tewder, we're dealing with message-board urbanists who came into this whole realm as development/new-construction geeks rather than heritage/existing-condition geeks; and their tin-eared/two-left-feet awkwardness in getting their heads around "heritage reality" shows, whether they're trying to needle me as too dismissive or too proscriptive. Look, Tewder: you've already labelled Old Sick Kids on College Street a "great ungraceful red brick building" (in the Lumiere thread). If you're going to get into heritage discussions from that dunderheaded POV, you're best off not bothering...

 

[Solaris]

I think the big problem is that it is really not very convenient for people wanting to connect to other modes of transit. VIA, GO or the subway. Would you really want to arrive at 90 Harbour and lug a suitcase to Union Station? It is probably POSSIBLE to use the site/building for buses but just because something can be done does not make it a good idea. A much better location is over the present GO bus station with an underground connection to Union and the PATH system - though that idea may not actually be technically possible.

When the Maple Leaf Square was approved to the north of the 90 Harbour site, knock-out panels were required to be provided on the P1 level to enable the future PATH connection from MLS to this property ... its all part of the plan

 

[Tewder]

Something tells me that when it comes to the likes of Woodbridge Heights and Tewder, we're dealing with message-board urbanists who came into this whole realm as development/new-construction geeks rather than heritage/existing-condition geeks; and their tin-eared/two-left-feet awkwardness in getting their heads around "heritage reality" shows, whether they're trying to needle me as too dismissive or too proscriptive. Look, Tewder: you've already labelled Old Sick Kids on College Street a "great ungraceful red brick building" (in the Lumiere thread). If you're going to get into heritage discussions from that dunderheaded POV, you're best off not bothering...

Yes, well I'll keep such sage advise in mind as I muse over the keen insight on offer here...

But at the same time, I'm hardly treating 90 Harbour as-is as a simple "throw away"--indeed, the fact that it is being taken seriously on grounds of heritage worth (and not just as an accidental "Union Station HCD" component) is a positive sign of how our parameters have broadened over the past few decades.

 

[Traynor]

I want the whole Southcore area brought back to it's original water-faring ways. More wharves and boat slips please! Where else am I to berth my schooner? LOL

Toronto waterfront c1919

(Courtesy http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedi...ur,_1919.jpg )

 

[Tulse]

Thanks for that fantastic photo, Traynor -- it really gives a sense of perspective on the building and the site.

 

[Mongo]

60 Harbour Street was REALLY close to the waterfront in 1919, when the building was two years old -- it almost looks like if you tripped walking down the entrance stairs, you would end up taking a dip in the water.

Given the building's purpose, it seems to me that having it on a location next to the water is more historically meaningful than having it stay at its current location, surrounded by busy highways.

 

[Traynor]

^I agree. And I'm prepared to be bashed by the usual preservationists for having that opinion.

I think building a jetty-type spit of land into the harbour from Harbourfront somewhere and moving the old Toronto Harbour Commission building there, would free up the land for developing and at the same time place the THC in a prominent location for a waterfront museum. It would be reminiscent of it's original placement in the harbour and better located for tourism. Harbourfront is a tourist local anyway and a museum there makes good sense.

Anyone against "revisionist historicism" would take note that the THC was built on a spit of land that never existed on the original waterfront anyway. So what time period is the true Toronto? Any answer to that question is arbitrary and subjective.

I could argue that Toronto should look the way Lord Simcoe saw it, or else it isn't authentic. It may seem silly, but no less arbitrary than arguing that 1948, 1969 or 2003 is the cutoff.

 

[urbandreamer]

It would be interesting to see that photo retouched in colour! It's hard to imagine the city my grandmother and great (great) grand parents etc knew so well! She always seemed to remember the city as a grim industrial town with a few pockets of genteel wealth, centred around the UofT. Perhaps I would've seen the city differently?