Adma, this is exactly my point. That "openness" is a sensibility that very few people share. And Shawn Micallef is never going to convince the average (boomer) powerful Torontonian that the T2 parking garage is worthy of preservation. In any case, there is zero chance of that happening, under any circumstances. In what role could you preserve it? In this case he is purely wanking to the converted.
Except that you're missing his (and my) larger point--
it's not about preservation per se. Note this paragraph in particular...
Though there is no need to strike a Save Terminal Two Committee or chain hippies to the concrete to block the wrecking ball, this old parking garage and terminal will be missed a little. When a place this big suddenly ceases to be a place, it’s a strange thing, and leaves a bit of hole in the psychogeography of the city. Two years ago we flew out of Montreal’s Mirabel Airport during it’s dying days — it had a similar feeling of mass abandonment. You can almost hear the buildings say “I used to be somebody, I used to be a contender.â€
You see, he's
not arguing for its preservation; he's arguing that it's worthy of creative reflection.
Big--and enlightening--difference. Even a lot of "average (boomer) powerful Torontonians" could open their eyes to that, I'll betcha.
But I do understand what you're getting at; there's a certain cramped mindset out there that gets reactive at
any such "creative reflection" (i.e. "hey, you like it? you wanna preserve it? then fork over eleventy jillion bucks and find a place to move it!"). Like, it may be deemed an obtrusively sentimental reflex in the way of progress; a more passive-aggressive tributary of the same old "preservationist impulse" perhaps--but is that bad, necessarily?
And besides, a couple of other points...
(1) frankly, if it's so-called "undiscerning nostalgia" that pains you, modernists don't claim exclusivity--think of the 48 Abell flap, which some may argue is out of all proportion to the address's merit and design and physical integrity, et al. Yet, maybe there's a deeper message, which is why the address has become such a powerful emblem--anyway.
(2) for all of JMM's (or, I guess, Shawn Micallef's) focus upon "trifling things", TBH I highly doubt a more discerning professional/professorial realm can do any better in building bridges, converting skeptics, etc; indeed, they may be even more strongly stigmatized on that count, pigeonholed as complicit in the sins of our elders--consider, once again, the Boston City Hall issue. Or, heck, consider Babel's arguments on behalf of 77 Elm, the 4SC, etc, on this board--I mean, *I'm* fundamentally on-side (sorta), but...
So, re the business of "History. Famous Architects. A Fine Example of Mid-Century Modern Design and Craftsmanship"; yes, but. A bigger key here might be, yes, in those so-called "trifling things"--that is, a constructive, inclusive pushing of the bar beyond a stiff canon, toward the everyday. Maybe the trifling *isn't* so trifling--although it helps when it forms part of a bigger picture, and is not made to seem more "important" than it is (in which case, I understand the point of your criticism). Anyway, it's a bit of an organic cultural process, and it has happened before, with other stylistic periods--and conversely, be aware of how an excessive focus upon "fine examples" can be misused and abused (y'know, "not as good as H. H. Richardson", et al).
It's a matter of breaking down so-called "style snobbery"--and unfortunately, we're talking about a design idiom that's been terribly stigmatized by said "snobbery". And doubly unfortunately, it's the kind of thing that can be better achieved by a de facto network of so-called trivia/everyday-chasers like John M-M, Shawn Micallef, Dave LeBlanc, than by Babel tying the style-snob strings too tight on "typographical interest", et al. Really.
Incidentally,
speaking of Spacing...