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

[Urban Shocker]

In other words this ends up where many debates end with you - "I like it therefore it's good". The burden of proof should be on the ones making the claim, not on others to prove a negative.

On the contrary - if it is good it is bound to be liked. After all, you can't draw anything out of a creative work that wasn't put into it by the architect or designer who made it in the first place. And there's nothing wrong with you for not appreciating how well the Distillery works, syn, though your continued claim that your inability to see its presence means it doesn't exist is quite silly.

 

[syn]

On the contrary - if it is good it is bound to be liked. After all, you can't draw anything out of a creative work that wasn't put into it by the architect or designer who made it in the first place. And there's nothing wrong with you for not appreciating how well the Distillery works, syn, though your continued claim that your inability to see its presence means it doesn't exist is quite silly.

That's very specious logic. If it's good it's bound to be liked; it's liked (by some, not all), therefore it's good?

That's like me arguing I have a magical pencil that keeps aligators away and then pointing to the lack of aligators in Toronto as proof that it works.

 

[gristle]

On the contrary - if it is good it is bound to be liked. After all, you can't draw anything out of a creative work that wasn't put into it by the architect or designer who made it in the first place. And there's nothing wrong with you for not appreciating how well the Distillery works, syn, though your continued claim that your inability to see its presence means it doesn't exist is quite silly.

I've been reading the debate on this thread for some time now, but I thought I would draw attention to the first sentence cited here. I find it odd because there is no clear definition here of "good" being offered as a universal principle. If anything, given the lack of context, the reverse could be viewed as more *accurate* - as in: if it is liked it is bound to be perceived as good in the popular sense. Ultimately, I think that this is one of the points that syn would appear to be driving at. There has been no clear explication of the inherent goodness of this project (other than personal preferences), and that the best that could happen is that the larger vote in favour of this project is all that can be achieved in terms of defining any notion of "goodness." That being said, it is not at all evident in this matter whether a majority vote really defines anything other than a bigger collection of subjective points of view, because there is no objective definition of goodness being offered otherwise.

 

[Urban Shocker]

syn puts the horse ( or, in his case, the alligator ) before the cart by claiming that "goodness" is defined by someone liking something ( "I like it therefore it's good" ) - rather than it being the inherent quality that's a result of the talent put into the creation of something. As indicated earlier, you can't draw anything more from a work of the imagination ( and I include the Distillery as a concept as such ) than was put into it in the first place. I've yet to encounter any convincing definition of how that "good" is created, but I know that it can be perceived, and that our lives are more enjoyable as a result. Such a "high" has parallels in other art forms, not just architecture, obviously. If the essence of such talent ( the "good" ) could be defined and quantified it could be endlessly reproduced and we'd have a city full of beauty rather than a place of much mediocrity and some ugliness - enlivened, occasionally, by the beautiful - which is the Toronto we actually live in. And in that light, Cityscape's first smart move was getting a good architectural firm, rather than a second rate one, to design the Distillery for them. That some don't intuit the Distillery's excellence isn't a moral failing on their part. The bind syn's in is that the good is defined by those who see it, not by those like him who don't; review his earlier posts in particular to see how profoundly he doesn't "get it", even if those who do get it have been at some great pains to explain it to him within the limits of explaining how anything that works ... works.

 

[syn]

syn puts the horse ( or, in his case, the alligator ) before the cart by claiming that "goodness" is defined by someone liking something ( "I like it therefore it's good" ) - rather than it being the inherent quality that's a result of the talent put into the creation of something. As indicated earlier, you can't draw anything more from a work of the imagination ( and I include the Distillery as a concept as such ) than was put into it in the first place. I've yet to encounter any convincing definition of how that "good" is created, but I know that it can be perceived, and that our lives are more enjoyable as a result. Such a "high" has parallels in other art forms, not just architecture, obviously. If the essence of such talent ( the "good" ) could be defined and quantified it could be endlessly reproduced and we'd have a city full of beauty rather than a place of much mediocrity and some ugliness - enlivened, occasionally, by the beautiful - which is the Toronto we actually live in. And in that light, Cityscape's first smart move was getting a good architectural firm, rather than a second rate one, to design the Distillery for them. That some don't intuit the Distillery's excellence isn't a moral failing on their part. The bind syn's in is that the good is defined by those who see it, not by those like him who don't; review his earlier posts in particular to see how profoundly he doesn't "get it", even if those who do get it have been at some great pains to explain it to him within the limits of explaining how anything that works ... works.

You`re repeating the same basic thing over and over. You see it as good because you like it. You can reword it as much as you`d like, but it doesn`t change what you`re communicating.
Anyone can claim virtually any building is good using this logic.

If the essence of such talent ( the "good" ) could be defined and quantified it could be endlessly reproduced and we'd have a city full of beauty rather than a place of much mediocrity and some ugliness - enlivened, occasionally, by the beautiful - which is the Toronto we actually live in.

No, it wouldn`t. It`s quite obvious why we don`t have a city full of only beautiful and well designed buildings. We live in a society where economic factors are one of the primary considerations when it comes to what we design and build.

If good design was simply a matter of identifying some undefined essence there`d be no point in having art and design schools.

 

[Urban Shocker]

You see it as good because you like it. You can reword it as much as you`d like, but it doesn`t change what you`re communicating.
Anyone can claim virtually any building is good using this logic.

We're not talking about any other building - though someone who has abandoned all discriminating faculties could make the argument you're making. Meanwhile, back on earth, issues of quality are central - despite the "I don't get it therefore it can't possibly exist" mode you're stuck in.

It`s quite obvious why we don`t have a city full of only beautiful and well designed buildings. We live in a society where economic factors are one of the primary considerations when it comes to what we design and build.

Economic factors apply as much to Casa as to BSN. Good design is what elevates the one, qualitatively and aesthetically, above the other.

If good design was simply a matter of identifying some undefined essence there`d be no point in having art and design schools.

What have you got against educational bodies that teach design excellence and promote visual literacy?

 

[whatever]

Do they promote visual literacy or define it?

 

[syn]

We're not talking about any other building - though someone who has abandoned all discriminating faculties could make the argument you're making.

Meanwhile, back on earth, issues of quality are central - despite the "I don't get it therefore it can't possibly exist" mode you're stuck in.[/quote]

The issue is the "I like it therefore it's good" reasoning you apply to any project you like. Anyone could apply that reasoning to any project.

What have you got against educational bodies that teach design excellence and promote visual literacy?

I have no idea how you interpreted my post as a statement against such institutions. The point was that your definition of what qualfies as good (what you and others like, or should I say "get") mitigates the need for any design training.

 

[Urban Shocker]

Although syn doesn't "get" the Distillery, he uses predictably consistent arguments in his attempts to discredit it. The standard line has been that because other contemporary buildings in other parts of town ( some by the same architectural firm ) are lower in height, then the Distillery's new residences must also be lower in height - with no reason given. Then, in a variation on that fuzzy logic, we're sometimes told that because the Distillery has point towers it means that unrelated neighbourhoods ( residential Riverdale, for instance ) that don't have point towers must get them too - no reason given. And his latest conceit, in reply to those here who celebrate the success of the new district, is to claim that just about any building anywhere can be elevated to a level of design excellence merely by talking it up, regardless of its inherent design merits. Generally, his anti-Distillery arguments rely heavily on the idea of interchangeable sets of circumstances with buildings in other parts of town, which don't stand up to scrutiny.

 

[Urban Shocker]

The issue is the "I like it therefore it's good" reasoning you apply to any project you like. Anyone could apply that reasoning to any project.

Misrepresenting me again. The correct approach is: "It is good, therefore I like it". That you could twist the idea of recognizing excellence into the idea that any building anywhere can be elevated to a level of design significance merely by talking it up is something you're promoting, not I.

 

[syn]

Although syn doesn't "get" the Distillery, he uses predictably consistent arguments in his attempts to discredit it. The standard line has been that because other contemporary buildings in other parts of town ( some by the same architectural firm ) are lower in height, then the Distillery's new residences must also be lower in height - with no reason given. Then, in a variation on that fuzzy logic, we're sometimes told that because the Distillery has point towers it means that unrelated neighbourhoods ( residential Riverdale, for instance ) that don't have point towers must get them too - no reason given. And his latest conceit, in reply to those here who celebrate the success of the new district, is to claim that just about any building anywhere can be elevated to a level of design excellence merely by talking it up, regardless of its inherent design merits. Generally, his anti-Distillery arguments rely heavily on the idea of interchangeable sets of circumstances with buildings in other parts of town, which don't stand up to scrutiny.

If that's what you believe then you obviously haven't been reading the posts very carefully.

 

[syn]

Misrepresenting me again. The correct approach is: "It is good, therefore I like it". That you could twist the idea of recognizing excellence into the idea that any building anywhere can be elevated to a level of design significance merely by talking it up is something you're promoting, not I.

Yes, and apparently since something good is bound to be liked, the fact that you (and others) like it means it's good. You've not provided any sort of reasonable definition of why it's good; you simply claim it is.

I should sell you that magic pencil I have.

 

[Urban Shocker]

Yes, and apparently since something good is bound to be liked, the fact that you (and others) like it means it's good. You've not provided any sort of reasonable definition of why it's good; you simply claim it is.

If that's what you believe then you obviously haven't been reading the posts that a number of us have made.

I have no idea how you interpreted my post as a statement against such institutions. The point was that your definition of what qualfies as good (what you and others like, or should I say "get") mitigates the need for any design training.

More misrepresentations, since I've never said that art and design schools are irrelevant to either teaching or appreciating excellence in design.

 

[Parkdalian]

Wow. I can't believe this discussion is still going.

It's clear that this argument is heading towards an argument between essentialism vs relativism in aesthetics. US appears to be in the essentialist camp; syn is hazy but appears to be on the edges of relativism. Since the argument between essentialism and relativism has been raging for years among people much smarter than any of us, I don't think we are going to resolve it here.

But what I think can be done is to suggest a vocabulary of criteria that both sides can agree on to enlarge our ideas of what constitutes the beauty of the Distillery District - a vocabulary that is neutral about where aesthetic value or the "good" comes from. It's something I tried to do earlier. Some beginnings to a vocabulary would be:

1. Formalism - How do the forms of the Distillery balance one another? If the point towers overwhelm, how do they overwhelm? Would there be specific ways they wouldn't overwhelm?
2. Historic quality - Is history ruined by having newer pieces near it? Why is it preferable not to have newer buildings next to older ones?
3. Urban planning - Do the buildings add to or detract from the ability of the Distillery to function as part of the city? Is this good or bad?
4. Atmosphere - Do the absence of the buildings create a particular - for the lack of a better word - "atmosphere" that is harmed when they are there?

I think the supporters of the towers have provided several reasons why the first three criteria are supported (the forms provide a contrast and as narrow point towers do not overwhelm their neighbours; history is enlivened by the conversation between buildings of different ages; the towers provide many practical benefits, such as numerous residents).

The fourth - that the atmosphere of the area is harmed by the presence of the towers in one's peripheral view - some people like me would argue is a benefit. In fact, I would be curious to know what practical benefits a "preserved" atmosphere would provide, and if the atmosphere that is "preserved" would represent anything but the random prejudices of the viewers. As Tewder pointed out, the decision was made not to turn this into a museum, so how can we trust any detail we see in the "preserved sections" as being informative except from a design and urban planning perspective? (Restoration and the revision of use essentially puts a big question mark over any detail's authenticity.)

Or is it just a more commercial argument - that Europe has low-rise historic districts, so from a tourism perspective, we should too?

 

[Mongo]

^ I would add to that list Utility as well (which while not part of aesthetics per se, has a vital bearing on the existence or non-existence of this project). The fact is that the Distillery District project is intended to be a money-making endeavor. It has apparently succeeded in that regard, attracting throngs of people who would otherwise never have ventured near this area. So first of all, a lot more people are aware of, and visit, this set of buildings than would otherwise have done so -- I would guess by a factor of 100 or more. This is a big plus in my opinion. Secondly, this project has ensured the continued existence of the remaining buildings for decades or more to come, whereas without the project the entire stock of buildings was facing continued decay and eventual demolition.

So strictly from a practical point of view, the changes made as part of the Distillery District project were hugely beneficial.