Toronto 1 Yorkville | 183.18m | 58s | Bazis | Rosario Varacalli

[ProjectEnd]

Who is "he"? I hope it is not me, since I never put you on my ignore list, and I never propose a "tear-it-all-down" approach, which is uneconomical. Adding a few floors makes more sense.

"He" does indeed refer to you. My apologies for misunderstanding this exchange from the Pier 27 thread:

Alright, I'm finally sticking you on my Ignore list. This is just getting ridiculous.

LOL. I did the same to adma a while ago and now surfing UT becomes so much more pleasant

In any case, the point has less to do with how you think our city should evolve (/should have evolved) than how this view has permeated and gunked up a number of different threads. It also has to do with how that view is expressed since you clearly have advocated for a 'tear-it-all-down' approach even if that's not necessarily what you meant.

 

[balenciaga]

Kudos to adma, that's a very well written response at the top of this page.

After taking a road trip to Buffalo and Hamilton last weekend, it has made me appreciate how vibrant and consistent our downtown is. Although both those cities featured enviable collections of architectural pieces, the lack of activity and low retail unit occupancy rates made their downtown areas quite lifeless and dull. The Victorian storefronts on this block along with countless others scattered throughout our main streets are a vital component to our dynamic streetscapes and urban fabric. I'd rather the developers make it a priority to apply the Five St. Joseph concept here, maintaining the Victorian buildings along Yonge. The healthy mix of retail usages in these buildings have not been successfully replicated by any uniformed high-rise podium in the city to date. I'm generally a pro-development person but the alarming trend in recent years is that new condo activity has pushed creative class out of neighbourhoods.

Not to deny Toronto's vibrancy and good street life, but to compare with Buffalo and Hamilton to show Toronto's superiority is simply not the right way. Buffalo has 1/10 of Toronto's population, less than half of Scarbourough in terms city proper. Hamilton has fewer people than Scarborough too. Plus these two cities don't have a diverse economy has Toronto does.
More important cities like Chicago, Montreal, Philadephia and Washington DC are more like Toronto's peers.

 

[reactx]

Bazis' E Condos maintains the low-rise retail strip along Yonge, so hopefully same thing applies here.

 

[innsertnamehere]

reactx, that's because Bazis doesn't own those low rises.

 

[reactx]

My bad, thanks for that info.

 

[adma]

Is the only thing you see the height of any given building? You completely ignore the importance of retaining a variety of buildings from different eras, as we'll never see anything like the architecture from the late 1800s through early 1900s again. In addition to providing contrast and texture to the urban fabric, the buildings you apparently deem a waste of space can be continually updated for modern use, all while providing a "living" link to our history (which is worth much more than a few more storeys).

I don't want to use subjective points to support my argument (I happen to love the gorgeous detailing and masonry work that defines a lot of our old retail streets), but again, tearing these structures down is completely disrespectful to the city as a whole and those who built it. You're citing vibrant midrise European cities that have centuries of development on Toronto, whose retail and residential environments have evolved organically. Blank slate redevelopment is the exact opposite of what you're citing, be it 4 storeys or 40.

Please explain how building higher for the sake of "using land better" would make for a better city. Your suggestion that I think the older houses are interesting because they're 1-2 storeys is completely missing the point, and not even correct for that matter. What I'm saying is that the pre-existing built form of our older residential and commercial neighbourhoods is what makes up the backbone of this city, and provides a vibrancy that very few large-scale modern developments can provide (even the most sensitive developments, due to the nature of the cost of new construction).

Though it's worth noting that this trollish obtuse myopia seems to be common to those who aren't naturalized to Toronto and whose so-called-superior "urban headspace" lies some real-or-imagined elsewhere, usually Asia with a touch of Europe for good measure. This also goes for past plagues on UT such as kkgg666 or whatever he called himself--and it often goes so far as to be disconcertingly non-critical of the means by which Asian boomburbanism has manifested itself. Or to set aside the disconcerting possibility that what they're embracing in the name of "urbanism" isn't progressive so much as it's pidgin. Sorry to be Godwin about it, but it'd be akin to witnessing a 30s/40s/50s version of these forums where Hitler and Mussolini and Stalin are presented as exemplars because they actually "did stuff" rather than just dithering.

But, Godwin aside, it's probably nothing more than "New Canadian hubris". No different from Mediterranean arrivals applying arches and wrought iron and garish paint jobs to older Toronto neighbourhoods in the 60s or 70s, or Asian arrivals enacting their "monster home" teardowns in Vancouver in the 80s and 90s. And in both cases, the alibi might have been that they came from superior cultures with years of history next to which all of this was nothing...

 

[agoraflaneur]

+1 well said Adma.

 

[Tewder]

+2 (this is fun).

 

[egotrippin]

Though it's worth noting that this trollish obtuse myopia seems to be common to those who aren't naturalized to Toronto and whose so-called-superior "urban headspace" lies some real-or-imagined elsewhere, usually Asia with a touch of Europe for good measure. This also goes for past plagues on UT such as kkgg666 or whatever he called himself--and it often goes so far as to be disconcertingly non-critical of the means by which Asian boomburbanism has manifested itself. Or to set aside the disconcerting possibility that what they're embracing in the name of "urbanism" isn't progressive so much as it's pidgin. Sorry to be Godwin about it, but it'd be akin to witnessing a 30s/40s/50s version of these forums where Hitler and Mussolini and Stalin are presented as exemplars because they actually "did stuff" rather than just dithering.

But, Godwin aside, it's probably nothing more than "New Canadian hubris". No different from Mediterranean arrivals applying arches and wrought iron and garish paint jobs to older Toronto neighbourhoods in the 60s or 70s, or Asian arrivals enacting their "monster home" teardowns in Vancouver in the 80s and 90s. And in both cases, the alibi might have been that they came from superior cultures with years of history next to which all of this was nothing...

Well said adma.

I have a feeling you're on the mark there, often I find dismissive attitudes to Toronto's heritage to come from people who didn't grow up here. Old Toronto is viewed as provincial and insignificant compared the the big ooo's and ahh's of Asian metropolises, European cities with centuries of habitation, and of course, places like NYC and Chicago. Perhaps understandable, but an effort to learn about our history and the importance of preservation alongside new development could go a long way.

 

[khris]

Adma, you put it so well. I've felt that for a long time, but was never able to express it as well as you just did.

 

[CN Tower]

Though it's worth noting that this trollish obtuse myopia seems to be common to those who aren't naturalized to Toronto and whose so-called-superior "urban headspace" lies some real-or-imagined elsewhere, usually Asia with a touch of Europe for good measure. This also goes for past plagues on UT such as kkgg666 or whatever he called himself--and it often goes so far as to be disconcertingly non-critical of the means by which Asian boomburbanism has manifested itself. Or to set aside the disconcerting possibility that what they're embracing in the name of "urbanism" isn't progressive so much as it's pidgin. Sorry to be Godwin about it, but it'd be akin to witnessing a 30s/40s/50s version of these forums where Hitler and Mussolini and Stalin are presented as exemplars because they actually "did stuff" rather than just dithering.

But, Godwin aside, it's probably nothing more than "New Canadian hubris". No different from Mediterranean arrivals applying arches and wrought iron and garish paint jobs to older Toronto neighbourhoods in the 60s or 70s, or Asian arrivals enacting their "monster home" teardowns in Vancouver in the 80s and 90s. And in both cases, the alibi might have been that they came from superior cultures with years of history next to which all of this was nothing...

A xenophobic and covertly racist jibe at contrary opinions on urban development. When you produce the deed for the dust bins you so gallantly champion perhaps I'll give your level 5 vitriol more credence. Til then I dismiss it as plastic gun cyber arrogance at it's finest.

Btw the Godwin reference couldn't be less applicable here. You guys are attacking Balencia are pissing in the wind.

 

[adma]

Well said adma.

I have a feeling you're on the mark there, often I find dismissive attitudes to Toronto's heritage to come from people who didn't grow up here. Old Toronto is viewed as provincial and insignificant compared the the big ooo's and ahh's of Asian metropolises, European cities with centuries of habitation, and of course, places like NYC and Chicago. Perhaps understandable, but an effort to learn about our history and the importance of preservation alongside new development could go a long way.

And the irony is: as per my point, what those supposedly "superior" outsiders actually inflict upon our "provincial and insignificant" cities all too often scarcely reflects the supposed taste/culture/enlightenment from which they come. Which leaves one thinking that even within their home own realms, the history/heritage/urbanist realm would regard them as obtuse parvenu laughing stocks. (Which may be part of their reasoning behind coming "here": the vain presumption that we're a history-free tabula rasa. where it's all about FREEDOM, baby...)

 

[adma]

A xenophobic and covertly racist jibe at contrary opinions on urban development. When you produce the deed for the dust bins you so gallantly champion perhaps I'll give your level 5 vitriol more credence. Til then I dismiss it as plastic gun cyber arrogance at it's finest.

Btw the Godwin reference couldn't be less applicable here. You guys are attacking Balencia are pissing in the wind.

Given the wimp-bravado vehemence of your reaction, methinks you're cornered, and panicking.

 

[AHK]

Given the wimp-bravado vehemence of your reaction, methinks you're cornered, and panicking.

While I have long disagreed with some, if not many, of your arbitrary and doctrinaire opinions, I have always tried to keep an open to other perspectives - for which you have been one of the major beneficiaries on this board. Finally, enough is enough - welcome to my personal ignore list.

 

[Danny Crispin]

What is interesting is that Adma, cannot only get away with, but isn't even questioned for cultural generalities. Everyone, but CN Tower, overlooked those statements, and gave Adma is usual lionization.

"Though it's worth noting that this trollish obtuse myopia seems to be common to those who aren't naturalized to Toronto and whose so-called-superior "urban headspace" lies some real-or-imagined elsewhere, usually Asia with a touch of Europe for good measure."

"But, Godwin aside, it's probably nothing more than "New Canadian hubris". No different from Mediterranean arrivals applying arches and wrought iron and garish paint jobs to older Toronto neighbourhoods in the 60s or 70s, or Asian arrivals enacting their "monster home" teardowns in Vancouver in the 80s and 90s. And in both cases, the alibi might have been that they came from superior cultures with years of history next to which all of this was nothing..."

I guess his use of "seems to be", in the first quote, and "the alibi might have been", in the latter, let him off the hook, eh? Yet, if someone says something like most gun crimes in Toronto are committed by people who are black, the response is, "how you could say such a thing?!" "You're a bigot, racist", "where is your evidence", etc.) Can someone please explain this rationale to me? This board could use some Ben Shapiro's to "punch back" against the bullying of the dissidents. To be clear, I'm actually on Adma's side of the heritage discussion -- I'm just sick of the way he flaunts his knowledge and treats those who disagree with him as lesser beings, about as worthy as vermin. Act your age.

"Given the wimp-bravado vehemence of your reaction." Another ad hominem attack. Will the mods do anything or just cater to Adma, as usual?