Tewder
Senior Member
What makes these any different from the "real deal"? And when one considers that the "real deal" ones have likely been beaten up, gutted, and rebuilt to be just as new as these ones.
They are inspired by buildings from a previous age but actual buildings from that age are in the neighbourhood, and many of them are indeed beautiful and in fine condition (from the outside at least) or have the potential to be.
Furthermore, aren't there some similarities here to issues raised in the Chinatown East Gate thread? We can quite happily be content in recreating a particular perception of what Yorkville was or is or should be, and we can even do so earnestly with faithful attention to detail, but maybe should be asking ourselves whether this is the best approach? In my opinion we should be vigilant about preserving what does remain, no question, but we should also be just as passionate about creating new approaches that push the built form of the city ahead in unique ways. In this particular case a new iteration of the Yorkville rowhouse, one that respects the scale and massing of the area, could have been a nice fit, and maybe - just maybe - Toronto vernacular design moves forward in a way that it doesn't by simply churning out copies of the design innovations of previous generations?