adma
Superstar
What kinds of ideas? Preventing the O'Keefummingsony Centre from being turned into Libeskind's stomping board? In that case, join the concreted-in crowd...
What kinds of ideas? Preventing the O'Keefummingsony Centre from being turned into Libeskind's stomping board? In that case, join the concreted-in crowd...
Tewder
Senior Member
Well, this twerp, for one, rather likes the low-rise development of the St. Lawrence neighbourhood, but that is not the area in question. The no-man's land of parking lots and spotty mix of low-rise buildings around the district is what I am referring to more specifically.
H
Hydrogen
Guest
Would tearing down a sizable portion of the south eastern block of the Distillery and the construction of two more towers do?
urbandreamer
recession proof
Which option is better:
1)big towers in a theme park (DD)
2)big towers in a nature park (slab city@high park?)
1)big towers in a theme park (DD)
2)big towers in a nature park (slab city@high park?)
adma
Superstar
Re 1): reframe it as "historic district" rather than as "theme park". Then it acquires a tinge of the dubious.
Re 2): 40 odd years later, other than the chronic anti-60s-commie-block crowd, who's complaining? OTOH if one were to propose such a thing *now*...
Jarrek
Active Member
Portions of the base have been absolutely butchered. What were they thinking?
egotrippin
Senior Member
Working in the Distillery always leads to interesting talks with people involved in the new developments. Admittedly I haven't been following this thread too closely, so I was pretty irritated to find out that the Rackhouse building is being torn down. It took a lot of restraint not to get angry when one of the salespersons told me this, and dismissed the heritage buildings by noting that "we're not in the Victorian era anymore". It was this mentality that led to the senseless destruction of a lot of Toronto's past, and sadly it hasn't ceased to this day. Whenever I walk around the areas immediately surrounding the Distillery, it's for the most part desolate and unoccupied; must they really raze more buildings for average condo towers rather than place them a little farther back?
I really do appreciate the rejuvenation of this area, but not enough to justify tearing down any of our declining historical stock. At this rate it's only a matter of time before all that's left of the historical Distillery District are a couple of contrived faux-facades using a few of the original bricks.
I really do appreciate the rejuvenation of this area, but not enough to justify tearing down any of our declining historical stock. At this rate it's only a matter of time before all that's left of the historical Distillery District are a couple of contrived faux-facades using a few of the original bricks.
Urban Shocker
Doyenne
Why would the developers spend lots of time and money tearing down buildings they've already spent lots of time and money restoring when they were derelict?
Rack House 'M' isn't "Victorian".
Rack House 'M' isn't "Victorian".
syn
Senior Member
Urban Shocker
Doyenne
If egotrippin is going to get peeved about "Victorian" buildings being taken down he should at least know that the only building that is proposed to be taken down isn't Victorian, despite what some clueless salesperson tells him.
There is no proposal to demolish the buildings that have already been renovated, despite egotrippin's claim that "at this rate it's only a matter of time before all that's left of the historic Distillery District are a couple of contrived faux-facades".
There is no proposal to demolish the buildings that have already been renovated, despite egotrippin's claim that "at this rate it's only a matter of time before all that's left of the historic Distillery District are a couple of contrived faux-facades".
syn
Senior Member
But it's part of a historic district. Whether it's Victorian or not is irrelevant.
Not yet, but I can see them doing it if it makes financial sense for them. As you've pointed out they're replacing Rackhouse M with something 'better'. It's not out of the realm of possibility that they come up with something "better" for some of the other buildings.
As the salesperson pointed out, "we're not in the Victorian era anymore".
Urban Shocker
Doyenne
Just as well perhaps! None of the disused Victorian buildings are being taken down, though the original Victorian owners of these properties were continually tearing them down and rebuilding them.
alklay
Senior Member
To focus on the word 'Victorian' is to miss the point of egotrippin's well reasoned post.
egotrippin
Senior Member
Thank you for knowing what I meant.
I'm sorry I mistakenly referred to the building in question as Victorian. My whole point is that yet another heritage building is coming down (which I'm sure could be saved), and that while the remaining buildings are safe for now, I'm concerned for their futures regardless.
Also, urban shocker, I made no claim that the buildings were coming down. It was merely speculative, thinking of Toronto developers' past mindsets, as well as the current ones regarding the Distillery.
Urban Shocker
Doyenne
Actually, I think "Victorianness" is central to the arguments that have been used quite a lot on this thread. We're not talking about the demolition of the modernist heritage of Molson Brewery to make way for West Harbour City, after all. Here, as elsewhere on this and other threads, the use of the emotive word "Victorian" is central to evoking the "Don't shoot the sweet little puppy dog" reflex. By using the "V"-word you can get people to rally round just about anything that's old ( even non-"V" buildings that they think are "V" buildings ), regardless of their design merit or even heritage ( as in "it survived" ) status, as far as I can tell. When mistakenly told that Rack House 'M' is a gonner and "We're not in the Victorian era anymore", egotrippin admits he can barely restrain his anger.