Toronto Clear Spirit | 131.36m | 40s | Cityscape | a—A

[Tulse]

If the towers weren't there, I think the Distillery would feel like some sort of Disneyland "Old-Timey Town", creating a bizarro dichotomy of authentic and inauthentic space occupying the same area. The Distillery would have the original built form, cobblestones, and other Victorian whimsies that make it feel real. However, standing in isolation, the District would turn its back on the community and in time make it feel quite fake.

Nicely put. In many ways, the most respect one can have for heritage structures is to ensure that remain part of actual fabric of the city, rather than museums. The condos will help to make the area a genuine part of the city and not something like Black Creek Pioneer Village or Fort York.

 

[Rowe]

^ This I like. The Distillery District is part of the city, not a separate entity.

 

[Towered]

Nicely put. In many ways, the most respect one can have for heritage structures is to ensure that remain part of actual fabric of the city, rather than museums. The condos will help to make the area a genuine part of the city and not something like Black Creek Pioneer Village or Fort York.

This begs the question: How many of you would have a problem with glass towers being built right inside Fort York?

 

[Tulse]

I have no problem with glass towers being built right next to Fort York. As for the Distillery District itself, I suppose it depends on what you count as being "inside" it. But let's be clear -- there has already been a lot of work on the site prior to Clear Spirit, and I'm sure there are purists of industrial history that would view converting the original buildings into boutiques, restaurants and artist studios as a gross violation of the past. What the condos do is ensure that there is a constant population there, people who will actually live in the area as opposed to tourists, and who will make the location into an actual, vibrant neighbourhood, rather than a theme park.

 

[Urban Shocker]

The fact is, anything that's done is making history. They could tear all the buildings down and replace them with a sea of flagpoles and they'd be making history. City Hall could order the demolition of every heritage building in the city and have them replaced by trees, and they'd be making history.

Again, more scaremongering false choices - neither based on the sort of design excellence that the Distillery District represents. And nowhere near as likely to happen as the "Walnut Hall" demolition-by-neglect scenario which might have overtaken the Gooderham & Worts complex which I suggested earlier.

Nicely put, Tewder and greenleaf.

 

[Tewder]

This begs the question: How many of you would have a problem with glass towers being built right inside Fort York?

I would. Fort York is a museum.

 

[Urban Shocker]

And hallowed ground, in that it was a battlefield in a war where people died defending our Province against a military invasion. Quite different from a commercial distillery.

 

[Hipster Duck]

If the towers weren't there, I think the Distillery would feel like some sort of Disneyland "Old-Timey Town", creating a bizarro dichotomy of authentic and inauthentic space occupying the same area. The Distillery would have the original built form, cobblestones, and other Victorian whimsies that make it feel real. However, standing in isolation, the District would turn its back on the community and in time make it feel quite fake.

The towers need to be there. They make the district feel like a neighbourhood rather than some fantasy Victorian World that one visits a couple times a year to remember how things used to be. Regardless of how tall the new buildings are or if they should have only been mid-rise buildings, the towers do integrate the Distillery with the rest of the city, and will be a part of the continuity of early 21st century Toronto style for spaces higher than 4 floors (podium & point tower; glass & brick architecture; Peter Clewes' work).

Does it have to be towers?

I would be much more sympathetic to the new developments if they were 6 to 10 storey midrises.

 

[interchange42]

Hipster, as I asked on the last page of posts, would you be prepared for the lack of sunlight that would end up on distillery streets if the towers all went horizontal? To get the same square footage, the towers would turn into mighty big slabs.

If it's the total square footage that's the problem though, then it's the City and the OMB where the questions should be directed.

42

 

[urbandreamer]

Do the condos in Old Mtl/Griffintown--none of which are highrise point towers--cause the area to suffer from lack of sunlight? (What's with this obsession with sunlight anyway? It causes cancer.)

The only reason the DD has point towers is--the developer thought they'd make more money from them. A truly innovative developer could get around such issues and profit from beautiful 6-10 storey buildings. If Peter Freed can make a buck, so can anyone....

 

[egotrippin]

I think the lot of you need to actually go walk through the Distillery again. I go there several times a week, and the presence of the tower isn't even noticeable. It punctuates the area from a distance, and then blends into the background as you wander about the brick lined streets. The two new towers will have the same effect, and between the three new buildings, it's their podiums that shape the area. So far Pure Spirit's is sympathetic to the overall character, while not resorting to faux approximations; the reuse of existing brick in the new podium will achieve a similar effect.

Overall, as this general area of the city develops and fills in, the entire place will feel more natural and integrated as part of the city. Besides, they already tried to do shorter buildings largely in brick and matching tones, and I find that everything prior to the aA towers fails to add anything to the area. At best they are generic and safe, whereas the glassy towers sitting on unique podiums add interesting layers to the architectural timeline. If you disagree with these statements, well you're entitled to your opinion, but I really ask that you walk around the area again with a fresh mindset. I think a lot of people have jumped onto the hate bandwagon with predetermined opinions.

 

[Hipster Duck]

I think the lot of you need to actually go walk through the Distillery again. I go there several times a week, and the presence of the tower isn't even noticeable. It punctuates the area from a distance, and then blends into the background as you wander about the brick lined streets.

I disagree with that statement. The towers clearly stand out from nearly every vantage point in the Distillery district unless you are facing away from them - in which case you will soon be confronted by the new tower in the future. I don't necessarily have a problem with contemporary architecture in a historical setting, but it has to pay deference to the structures in the area that made the place so desirable to begin with. While the distillery district is not a museum, it does preserve a near perfect record of industrial architecture of the period in a campus-like setting. Great industrial architecture from the 19th century is a dime a dozen; several great examples of 19th century industrial architecture that work together as an ensemble is as rare as hen's teeth and, frankly, a glass tower taller than the chimneys that were once the campaniles of this complex ruins that ensemble-like feel.

To put it in an analogy that modernist sympathizers would begin to understand, this would be like taking a really fine example of lowrise modern campus architecture - say Saarinen's GM technical center in Warren, MI or Ron Thom's Trent University - and building some sort of PoMo highrise of 50 storeys smack dab in the center of it. Would this ruin the striking beauty of these ensembles? Absolutely.

i42, this is a philosophical debate about the architectural appropriateness of modernist highrises and not an exercise in determining who to blame for the construction of that highrise, so I don't know why I would need to direct my complaints to anybody.

 

[Urban Shocker]

Freedville has beautiful contemporary Toronto Style 6-10 storey buildings, and the Distillery has beautiful contemporary 30-40 storey Toronto Style buildings, urbandreramer. We can have it all ... and we do.

 

[egotrippin]

I disagree with that statement. The towers clearly stand out from nearly every vantage point in the Distillery district unless you are facing away from them - in which case you will soon be confronted by the new tower in the future. I don't necessarily have a problem with contemporary architecture in a historical setting, but it has to pay deference to the structures in the area that made the place so desirable to begin with. While the distillery district is not a museum, it does preserve a near perfect record of industrial architecture of the period in a campus-like setting. Great industrial architecture from the 19th century is a dime a dozen; several great examples of 19th century industrial architecture that work together as an ensemble is as rare as hen's teeth and, frankly, a glass tower taller than the chimneys that were once the campaniles of this complex ruins that ensemble-like feel.

To put it in an analogy that modernist sympathizers would begin to understand, this would be like taking a really fine example of lowrise modern campus architecture - say Saarinen's GM technical center in Warren, MI or Ron Thom's Trent University - and building some sort of PoMo highrise of 50 storeys smack dab in the center of it. Would this ruin the striking beauty of these ensembles? Absolutely.

i42, this is a philosophical debate about the architectural appropriateness of modernist highrises and not an exercise in determining who to blame for the construction of that highrise, so I don't know why I would need to direct my complaints to anybody.

Fair, and good points. I do agree, so I'll adjust my statement: when I personally meander throughout the DD, I find that Pure Spirit blends into the background enough that it doesn't detract or seem jarring. This is especially so during the day when its glass takes on reflections of the sky. Perhaps it pops out to others a lot more, and perhaps I've just become so accustomed to it (I live just up the street), so at this point I consider a natural part of the area. Either way, I typically prefer a midrise built form, but find this tower innocuous enough and situated just far enough from the centre to not have a negative impact on the overall character of the Distillery.

Of course my feelings towards the next two phases are based on speculation, and considering that they'll be built far more closely to the centre than PS, it could very well be a lot more intrusive.

 

[Urban Shocker]

I disagree with that statement. The towers clearly stand out from nearly every vantage point in the Distillery district unless you are facing away from them - in which case you will soon be confronted by the new tower in the future.

From most locations in the Distillery the one tower that's been built so far isn't even visible. And it ought to be patently obvious that the heritage industrial buildings, combined with the new podiums, have a far larger footprint and visual weight than aA's slim towers will have. As with any tower building rising from a podium, the visual foreshortening that occurs when you look up at it reduces the prominence of the tower and increases the prominence of the podium, the closer you get.

We have nothing to fear but fear-of-heights itself.