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

[Tewder]

I see it slightly differently, Tewder. As a result of having one architect ( or at least aA with a supporting role from the heritage-conscious E.R.A.) the new buildings have a coherent look that contrasts the new with the old but also makes something entirely new out of the whole complex. The new additions - such as the prow-like podium for Pure Spirit and the low arm building that will fill in the southern flank of the complex - build on the established character of the place by giving us new laneways similar to what already exists and a feeling of enclosure. The tower buildings, built and unbuilt, are definitely "inside the walls" of the unique little village that the Distillery District will eventually become. The closest comparison I can think of is a Tuscan hill town - San Gimignano, complete with towers, maybe.

...Yes, I agree US. What you describe is why I do think the highrises in question are sympathetic to their surroundings.

 

[ShonTron]

But I do not think that tall condos themselves create a village. Condos have their own in-house amenities - fitness centres, pools, security, parking, so that it could be very possible that the residents will have very lovely "grounds", but not necessarily use them.

I still think that just because there's lots of residents, that their presence will provide a proper customer base for the types of local retail uses anyway, except possibly Mill Street Pub and Balzac's. Putting in condos as a customer base is not, in my mind, a justification.

Building a customer base for the types of uses requires marketing as well (events, ads, awareness campaigns), and attracting people from outside the area. There's modern condos all over Toronto, not a bad thing at all, but how do these make the Distillery unique then? I think the Distillery is unique because it is a preserved historic district that is starting to come on its own (it takes time to make a district like this successful!), but marking it with condos, particuarly those that are really overbearing, is not the way to go in my opinion.

St. Lawrence Market area is full of historic buildings, like the Market, St. James', the old streetcar barns that are now a Young Peoples' Theatre, and old commerical blocks. New buildings have gone in there, but they are midrise, at least east of Church. The neighbourhood is a great success, so I agree old and new can coexist.

And I am not against residental uses in and around the district. I'd love to see a hotel in there, as that type of customer (a tourist) is more likely to be a customer of most types of businesses in there.

I really fear that with demolition (of a reusable building, as Unimaginative points out), and overwhelming buidlings with such contrast in heights in the current flavour of modernist condos, really don't add to the wonderful collection that's there now.

Just like in St. Lawrence - the Hazelton Hotel works well in Yorkville, it's taller, it's modern, but doesn't overwhelm. It can be done.

 

[Urban Shocker]

Rack House 'M' is being reused - the footprint is maintained, the unpleasant windowless bulk will be reduced, windows and doors are to be added, people will be able to use it 24 hours a day because it will become a condo, and the leftover brick will be reused elsewhere on the site.

As we all know, there are other hotels planned for Yorkville that are high rise, sit next to elderly buildings such as the fire station, and look like they'll complement them just fine. Indeed, some of us far prefer this approach, neo-Modernist and contemporary, to lowrise historicist structures such as the Hazelton.

 

[Hipster Duck]

^yes, but why do neo-modernist and contemporary buildings in this city necessarily have to be highrise? Why can't Clewes take it all back to where he began with sensitively scaled projects like 20 Niagara and the Ideal Lofts?

If that were the case here I would be all for the project.

 

[syn]

Rack House 'M' is being reused - the footprint is maintained, the unpleasant windowless bulk will be reduced, windows and doors are to be added, people will be able to use it 24 hours a day because it will become a condo, and the leftover brick will be reused elsewhere on the site.

The site is being re-used. Tearing down a building and including some token bricks in the new one is not re-using it.

As we all know, there are other hotels planned for Yorkville that are high rise, sit next to elderly buildings such as the fire station, and look like they'll complement them just fine. Indeed, some of us far prefer this approach, neo-Modernist and contemporary, to lowrise historicist structures such as the Hazelton.

Now who's applying a uniform solution to everything? There is a precedent for high-rise structures in the area. No such precedent exists inside the Distillery.

 

[Urban Shocker]

http://www.san-gimignano.com/

 

[ShonTron]

^yes, but why do neo-modernist and contemporary buildings in this city necessarily have to be highrise? Why can't Clewes take it all back to where he began with sensitively scaled projects like 20 Niagara and the Ideal Lofts?

If that were the case here I would be all for the project.

Indeed, I think I would as well, at least to be consistant with what I have been arguing. Modernism is, if nothing else, a good style to contrast with older architecture. It's all about the scale for me now.

 

[syn]

http://www.san-gimignano.com/

The tallest tower is 200 feet. The tallest tower slated for the Distillery is 508.5 feet - more than 2.5 times the tallest in San-Gimignano. The design of the towers also use similar materials to the other buildings in the town. While they may be taller, they're not completely out of whack. I also doubt they tore down any existing historical structures for their construction.

 

[Urban Shocker]

Obviously, syn, the high rise buildings at the Distillery are creating the precedent.

Rack House 'M' is being considerably improved in it's new form.

 

[syn]

Obviously, syn, the high rise buildings at the Distillery are creating the precedent.

They're creating a bad precedent for the Distillery.

The example you provided really isn't comparable.

Rack House 'M' is being considerably improved in it's new form.

There is no new form. It's being razed and replaced with a completely out of scale condo. Putting some old bricks into it doesn't constitute some sort of rebirth.

 

[Urban Shocker]

The scaled down Clear Spirit podium - complete with windows and doors - is a better match in terms of scale to the surrounding old buildings, which also have windows and doors, than the windowless Incredible Hulk of Rack House 'M' ever was - and it will also be an improvement in terms of the amount of use it will have with both members of the public who'll visit the Distillery District and use the retail that goes there, and with those who'll live in the building. So, yes, a disused building is being reborn as something useful and notable.

 

[scarberiankhatru]

Rack House 'M' is being considerably improved in it's new form.

I've done the math and Fort York will be more useful if we improve it with condos, too...those barracks are such a blight. The rabid preservationists can be assuaged by sympathetic building footprints and innovative laneways.

 

[interchange42]

Yawn.

Fort York is publicly owned. That's different. See the politics subforum here.

BTW, there were fights about allowing tall buildings south of Fort York on the other side of the Gardiner too.

42

 

[syn]

Yawn.

Fort York is publicly owned. That's different. See the politics subforum here.

BTW, there were fights about allowing tall buildings south of Fort York on the other side of the Gardiner too.

42

Is the question here really ownership? There should be some sort of respect for our limited historical stock regardless of ownership.

 

[alklay]

One can justify the destruction of any 'historic' building but just stating that one has a better use for the new building replacing it.

This is simply absurd.