Toronto 160 Front West | 239.87m | 46s | Cadillac Fairview | AS + GG

I think maybe he was just sharing his own conclusion and people don't need to become oddly defensive about it...
 
Why can't they orient the wider side of the tower north-south and leave the warehouse alone. Yet another beautiful old warehouse gets molested in a lame cop-out excuse for heritage protection.
 
egotrippin said:
Why can't they orient the wider side of the tower north-south and leave the warehouse alone. Yet another beautiful old warehouse gets molested in a lame cop-out excuse for heritage protection.
Click to expand...

That's a little dramatic, don't you think? There's nothing beautiful about this building. If I were the developer I would have pushed hard to have it demolished.
 
greenleaf said:
An education: Union Station Conservation District Plan, approved by the city in 2006 of which this building was deemed important enough to be part of.
Click to expand...

Education indeed. There is a difference between fact and opinion, which some people here don't understand. Liking an old warehouse is allowed here; disliking it makes you uneducated. Nobody has objective knowledge of what good architecture looks like. It's just personal opinion.
 
Waterloo_Guy said:
It's just an old warehouse.
Click to expand...

No. It's not "just" that. It's a part of the city's (disappearing) heritage and it adds character to the area.

Waterloo_Guy said:
Any normal person would know that.
Click to expand...

No. And pulling out the "normal person" schtick makes you sound like a ten year old.


Waterloo_Guy said:
Defending ugly old buildings makes you look pretentious.
Click to expand...

No. It makes your comments appear poorly considered and lacking in critical thinking skills.
 
Waterloo_Guy said:
Education indeed. There is a difference between fact and opinion, which some people here don't understand. Liking an old warehouse is allowed here; disliking it makes you uneducated. Nobody has objective knowledge of what good architecture looks like. It's just personal opinion.
Click to expand...

Ish. It's less the dislike of a particular building than the knuckle-dragging, neanderthalic, *tear it all down* stance you've adopted that has other members calling you out. Maybe some context / justification as to why this building should meet the wreckers ball might help others see your point?
 
ProjectEnd said:
Ish. It's less the dislike of a particular building than the knuckle-dragging, neanderthalic, *tear it all down* stance you've adopted that has other members calling you out. Maybe some context / justification as to why this building should meet the wreckers ball might help others see your point?
Click to expand...

Knuckle-dragging and neanderthalic. You've just made my point: you're a snob. I want that building replaced because I don't like the way it looks. That's a valid opinion based on my own preferences. The difference between us is that I'm willing to acknowledge it.

Advocating the destruction of an old building is no less valid a stance than advocating its preservation, regardless of the snobbish opinions of some people here.
 
Waterloo_Guy said:
Knuckle-dragging and neanderthalic. You've just made my point: you're a snob. I want that building replaced because I don't like the way it looks. That's a valid opinion based on my own preferences. The difference between us is that I'm willing to acknowledge it.

Advocating the destruction of an old building is no less valid a stance than advocating its preservation, regardless of the snobbish opinions of some people here.
Click to expand...

Ha Ha Ha Ha Ha Ha. Hilarious
 
You must log in or register to post here.

Back
Top