John Street Revitalization

[adma]

I do. The last time I suggested that desnsification should take priority over preserving Don Mills bungalows, I was basically accused of being Mark Harris' sex slave for failing to see the inherent camp value of bungalows.

Funny thing is, what's been threatening said bungalows are "replacements in kind", i.e. single family McMansions. *Not* densification. (And all in all, wouldn't vintage Don Mills be a perfect 50s version of fitting your Baldwin/Kensington "special case" scenario?)

Again, your contemptuous tone. "Inherent camp value". Whoaccio, you have this way of digging yourself into an angry, angry hole when taken to task; I can feel your voice rising, your blood pressure boiling, your testosterone welling up. It's like a guy who, when accused of disrespect by a girlfriend, says "yeah, well, when are you going to show me some respect, bitch?"

http://www.dccomics.com:80/mad/media/downloads/chrisbrown_comics.jpg

If we're going to argue for densifying the suburbs, your ham-handed way isn't the way to go about it.

 

[unimaginative2]

Hahaha. You gotta admit, he's creative with the insults.

 

[adma]

Yeah, sho'nuff.

And actually, if you want a perfect positive-synergy byproduct of Toronto's so-called "neo-Victorian" obsession, look no further than (to get back t/w thread topic) what's at the very top of John St: Frank Gehry's AGO. Or even, to some degree, Alsop's OCAD...

 

[Whoaccio]

Again, your contemptuous tone. "Inherent camp value". Whoaccio, you have this way of digging yourself into an angry, angry hole when taken to task; I can feel your voice rising, your blood pressure boiling, your testosterone welling up. It's like a guy who, when accused of disrespect by a girlfriend, says "yeah, well, when are you going to show me some respect, bitch?"

Taken to task? I haven't been taken to task, at least not by you. All I've been accused of is calling trams trams (which makes me an indignant prick) and then being the 'standard bearer of Reform' and now being some kind of right wing Hulk. Great, you can trivialize domestic abuse in order to feel smug about your own utter lack of independent thought. All it reads like is an argument between 12 year olds at some alternative school for kids who are to enamored with their own self worth to admit they aren't smart enough for public school.

 

[Tewder]

Perhaps we are taking the 'small town' concept too literally? What we tend to like about so-called 'small town' development, traditionally speaking, is its very sense of urban-ness (tight streetwall/population density/mixture of use/pedestrian friendly, etc) It's not like we absolutely require three-storey Victorians or a gingerbread aesthetic to achieve this result, and in fact the whole 'heritage' argument may just be confusing the issue.

'Small town' development has been proven to work, and lets not forget that many urban neighbourhoods - in Toronto or elsewhere - were in fact independent small towns and villages once themselves, but the objective here is not to recreate a nostalgic and idealized ersatz small-town experience so much as to translate the essential urban characteristics that define the success of traditional development to suit a growing and expanding city. It is unfortunate that the whole 'small town' label for some may be rife with unpleasant connotations or historicist implications. We need to get beyond that. As AoD says there are certain streetscapes or neighbourhoods that are worthy of heritage preservation, but this is a different issue. If we're looking for templates for future successful urban development in Toronto we probably need to find different answers than the unfortunate precedence being set in much of the new development emerging south of the QEW, which is why the impulse to keep looking 'back' at what worked.

 

[adma]

Great, you can trivialize domestic abuse in order to feel smug about your own utter lack of independent thought.

Ah, but consider the opposite number to a so-called "utter lack of independent thought", i.e. the kind of "independent thought" that's obtusely, contemptuously ignorant of the true nature of the context in question, and gets angrily defensive when confronted about the fact.

Re your past opinion-mongering, to point-blank call Commerce Court West "crap" and stand firmly by that opinion isn't a proud emblem of independent thought. It's an emblem of pig-headed ignorance. (In "independent thought" drag.)

 

[Whoaccio]

Ah, but consider the opposite number to a so-called "utter lack of independent thought", i.e. the kind of "independent thought" that's obtusely, contemptuously ignorant of the true nature of the context in question, and gets angrily defensive when confronted about the fact.

Re your past opinion-mongering, to point-blank call Commerce Court West "crap" and stand firmly by that opinion isn't a proud emblem of independent thought. It's an emblem of pig-headed ignorance. (In "independent thought" drag.)

I didn't 'point blank' call CCW crap, I said I wouldn't want to preserve it if something better came along, in the process rendering it crap. Likewise, I haven't bothered mentioning it thusfar, but calling island people 'squatters' the same sentence I describe flying an A380 onto YTZ may have just a hint of hyperbole to anybody but yourself. For all your obsession with fact, you never seem to actually bother reading what I write, preferring to assign motive and call names. The last time you gave a fact on this thread was pointing out that the rendering was of the Hudson Yards in NYC. Everything else was just calling me names. Whenever I point this out, you just issue a stale quip and call me more names.

Wait, wait, let me guess. Last time I was pig headed, the time before that a wife beater, the time before that a clot, the time before that the standard bearer of reform and so forth. So... I am probably Leona Helmsley with a sex change operation? Close? No?

This is ridiculous. I don't expect anyone to agree with me, but if all you want to do is call people names and ignore what they are saying in favor of inserting them into your lone culture war why don't you just go to the Star's message board and call everyone idiots? Or at the very least why don't you just call me an idiot once, and just let everyone assume you still think that is the case as opposed to spamming every thread with insults.

 

[emacs]

Perhaps we are taking the 'small town' concept too literally?

perhaps, although i do think the term 'small town' is misplaced here. from what i've seen this project is meant to promote pedestrian traffic in a relatively dense urban location.

 

[adma]

I didn't 'point blank' call CCW crap, I said I wouldn't want to preserve it if something better came along, in the process rendering it crap. Likewise, I haven't bothered mentioning it thusfar, but calling island people 'squatters' the same sentence I describe flying an A380 onto YTZ may have just a hint of hyperbole to anybody but yourself. For all your obsession with fact, you never seem to actually bother reading what I write, preferring to assign motive and call names. The last time you gave a fact on this thread was pointing out that the rendering was of the Hudson Yards in NYC. Everything else was just calling me names. Whenever I point this out, you just issue a stale quip and call me more names.

Wait, wait, let me guess. Last time I was pig headed, the time before that a wife beater, the time before that a clot, the time before that the standard bearer of reform and so forth. So... I am probably Leona Helmsley with a sex change operation? Close? No?

This is ridiculous. I don't expect anyone to agree with me, but if all you want to do is call people names and ignore what they are saying in favor of inserting them into your lone culture war why don't you just go to the Star's message board and call everyone idiots? Or at the very least why don't you just call me an idiot once, and just let everyone assume you still think that is the case as opposed to spamming every thread with insults.

And you still sound like my father yelling at my mother.

And I'd go further in this vein, except that it'll lead to big swaths of the thread deleted, et al.

 

[adma]

perhaps, although i do think the term 'small town' is misplaced here. from what i've seen this project is meant to promote pedestrian traffic in a relatively dense urban location.

Though as oft-mythologized cases such as Greenwich Village and Montmartre prove, even so-called dense urban locations can have a touch of the small town to them.

"Small town" does not necessarily equate with "backward-looking" or "parochial". Figuratively speaking, Gehry's ROM was designed for a "small-town" location--that being, the fait accompli of the surrounding urban fabric. Localism, in the Jane Jacobs sense. (And it was Gehry's own "small town"; quite literally, This Used To Be His Playground...)

 

[Whoaccio]

And you still sound like my father yelling at my mother

Thats not even funny. It really is unbelievably stupid for any number of reasons, not least of which it trivializes domestic abuse to cover your own logical failings. Real avant garde.

"Small town" does not necessarily equate with "backward-looking" or "parochial". Figuratively speaking, Gehry's ROM was designed for a "small-town" location--that being, the fait accompli of the surrounding urban fabric. Localism, in the Jane Jacobs sense. (And it was Gehry's own "small town"; quite literally, This Used To Be His Playground...)

There is a difference between designing a specific structure to have a good interplay with its surroundings and planning a street to look a certain way in its totality. So, yea, the AGO (I hope you don't actually mean the ROM was designed with a small town location in mind) works well with the houses across the road, but from a streetscape design point of view any street that hopes to keep a small town vibe can't seriously expect a 250m dollar starchitect designed glass plane with a 4 storey blue titanium box to help that cause. You can respect something without continuing its legacy and copying its feel.

You also got your literallys and figurativelys mixed up. The AGO was literally designed to oppose victorian town homes, while this was figuratively Gehry's 'small town.' (Toronto is either a small town or it isn't. If it isn't, this can't 'literally' be Gehry's 'small town')

 

[unimaginative2]

I'm assuming you mean Gehry's AGO...?

 

[adma]

There is a difference between designing a specific structure to have a good interplay with its surroundings and planning a street to look a certain way in its totality. So, yea, the AGO (I hope you don't actually mean the ROM was designed with a small town location in mind) works well with the houses across the road, but from a streetscape design point of view any street that hopes to keep a small town vibe can't seriously expect a 250m dollar starchitect designed glass plane with a 4 storey blue titanium box to help that cause. You can respect something without continuing its legacy and copying its feel.

You also got your literallys and figurativelys mixed up. The AGO was literally designed to oppose victorian town homes, while this was figuratively Gehry's 'small town.' (Toronto is either a small town or it isn't. If it isn't, this can't 'literally' be Gehry's 'small town')

But what I'm implying is that as such, it is more, not less, attuned to the Adam Vaughan/Margie Zeidler way. They're not the straw men you're portraying them as...

 

[emacs]

Though as oft-mythologized cases such as Greenwich Village and Montmartre prove, even so-called dense urban locations can have a touch of the small town to them.

Greenwich Village is a largely residential area. Montmartre was an actual small town up until the late 19th century when it was absorbed into Paris. John St., in Toronto, isn't even remotely like the two aforementioned places and, as such, the use of 'small town' is misplaced.

 

[adma]

I'm assuming you mean Gehry's AGO...?

Belatedly, yes. (Easy mixup to make.) Thanks for noticing (though I'll keep my original typo in as a reminder).

Greenwich Village is a largely residential area. Montmartre was an actual small town up until the late 19th century when it was absorbed into Paris. John St., in Toronto, isn't even remotely like the two aforementioned places and, as such, the use of 'small town' is misplaced.

True enough; but the issue, in the end, is whether this whole strawman notion of small-town neo-Victoriana really should have been brought up in the first place.

Look: as I see it, the universe and perspective of Adam Vaughan and whatever, uh, "urban lefty activists" is urban. Big city. Big picture*. And more inherently nuanced than one gives credit for. And I see the Gehry ROM*ahem*AGO as the perfect byproduct of that synergy, not as a spit-in-the-face. Ditto with Alsop's OCAD, and the community processes leading up to either project. There's nothing at all small town and reactionary there, and any guardedness along the way by some within the community is perfectly natural. To portray this crowd in a Prince-Charles-vs-Lord-Foster light is totally inapt--the synergy made the projects more magical, not less. (Well, maybe it's arguable re OCAD; but if so, blame that more on The Cheapening than on community protest.)

In fact, if you want some kind of obnoxiously misbegotten small-town neo-Victorian obstructionist fetish in effect, don't look to Queen & John: look to the inner burbs, to the Stintz/Walker anti-Mintoites or Save Our St Clair. Heck, in 2006's mayoral campaign, it was Jane Pitfield, not David Miller, who more reflected that supposed standpoint.

I suppose Whoaccio's issue is (judging from his comments elsewhere) that it's only because of low turnout that these urban lefty municipal politicians waltz in time and again; and that if more showed up to vote, everything would become more "accountable". (Leaves me wondering if he's himself the veteran of a failed municipal campaign. "Whoaccio" - "Wookey"?)

*Though I'll grant this: there are limitations to this sort of "big picture". Which is why I don't hold out much hope for an Adam Vaughan mayoral run.