Toronto First Parliament Site | ?m | ?s

[Ramako]

The lot would make a very nice public square, regardless of its history. That Canada's first parliament once existed on the site is just another reason, among many, to turn it over to the public realm. That said, I'm still in favour of some serious intensification of the east side of the core (save the St. Lawrence Market area).

 

[AndreaPalladio]

Sure - an expansion of the park would be nice. But remember that it's not Canada's first parliament - it was Ontario's first legislative building. Legislatures were running in Halifax, Fredericton & Charlottetown when this site was still forest, or beach, or whatever.

 

[Ramako]

Sure - an expansion of the park would be nice.

Personally, I would rather see this site turned into a tower than a park. Parks do almost nothing for me and we've got quite a few already scattered around town. What I'd really like to see here is a public square where citizens can lounge, congregate, watch performances, protest, etc.

I feel like parks are where people go to withdraw from the city, whereas squares are where people go to engage with the city. We're seriously lacking good public squares in Toronto.

 

[Torontovibe]

Yes, I agree. I would much rather see it be used as a public square. We have so few of them in this city.

 

[neubilder]

By 'greenspace and civic architecture' I basically had a civic square in mind, and that is also my impression of what is being proposed.

 

[Hipster Duck]

I'm with AndreaPalladio on this one. History is important to preserve if there's something worth preserving, and if the historical events that took place there were meaningful. Nothing remains of the original building and hasn't for centuries; the historical relevance of this site is very minor for Canada and even for Toronto since it wasn't the site of the first parliamentary assembly in Upper Canada, let alone the confederation of colonies that would later make up present-day Canada.

All things considered, Toronto actually does extremely well when it comes to preserving the oldest remnants of its history - buildings that harken back to a time when the "city" was basically a collection of pioneers that had hacked some form of settlement out of the primal forest on the shores of Lake Ontario. We amazingly have Scadding cabin, built in 1794, Old Fort York, founded in 1793 even if the buildings are slightly post-1812, the Gibraltar Point Lighthouse (1808), as well as early Georgian brick houses like the Grange and Campbell House. All of these landmarks would have been torn down within a generation of their construction in every other growing city on the continent. To compare, the oldest surviving building in Manhattan, Fraunces Tavern, was built in 1719, 95 years after the founding of New Amsterdam - if that was the case in Toronto, our oldest building would only date back to 1888.

 

[Red October]

If we want to show the historical significance of this site without creating yet another park, why don't we create a public square, and within keep the outline of the old foundations that remain under the current site, and have something akin to the National September 11 Memorial within the old foundations (though replacing the trees and parkland in that memorial to a public square).

Yes I am aware this isn't nearly as significant as the WTC site, but a public square with something like this around the old foundaitons of the two buildings would look really good, both paying homage to the historical aspect of the 2 buildings, and creating a usable space for the people of the city those Yanks tried to drive out when they sacked the buildings and the city 200 years ago.

 

[Tewder]

Could someone explain to me the civic and national significance of this site? The building, was, architecturally, a nothing, before it burned. Twice. The Legislative Assembly of Upper Canada had met in Newark (now Niagara on the Lake) before the capital was moved, so it's not the location of the first meeting of the Legislature. Legislatures existed in other provinces well before this one was formed. To the best of my knowledge, no legislation of lasting significance was promulgated in the building. Nothing remains of the building, other than, possibly, a few charred foundation stones.

So why is it felt to be crucial, to some, that the location should be marked in any way other than the plaque that is there now?

This is the site of the first 'purpose-built' legislature of Upper Canada. It is important in its symbolism as part of the evolution of democracy and eventually nationhood in Canada. It is also a site that is closely linked to many significant historic events, including the burning of these very buildings during the War of 1812 (and subequent burning of Washington that resulted). These are merely events perhaps but they tell an important story if we dig a little deeper for meaning (literally and figuratively)...

The thing is you can downplay any of these things if you choose, right? ... or not. I'd opt for not! To commemorate this site is to commemorate the centuries of history here that ultimately have come to define what we are as a city, province and country. This is a tall order for a pile of foundations burried under a parking lot, I know, but let's not dismiss the worth and potential of the site because of our lack of creativity to deal with it or our phlegmatic inability to care at all (more condos anyone?).

We often complain in Toronto about a lack of culture, history or unity among our disparate peoples, that we are a balkanized community with collective amnesia. The development of important historic sites like Fort York (new community centre), St. Lawrence Market, the Distillery District and the potential of a First Parliament site all anchoring an evolving 'Old Town' identity for much of the heart of the waterfront city goes a long way to establishing some of these things. Maybe you simply don't care or think any of these things are important?

 

[AndreaPalladio]

The site is already commemorated. How much more commemoration, or faux-historic reconstruction, is required for a building where nothing of note, architecturally or politically, happened?

Would you follow your own reasoning to recreate the 2nd legislative buildings at King & Simcoe? If not, why not?

 

[Tewder]

The site is already commemorated. How much more commemoration, or faux-historic reconstruction, is required for a building where nothing of note, architecturally or politically, happened?

Would you follow your own reasoning to recreate the 2nd legislative buildings at King & Simcoe? If not, why not?

Who said anything about 'faux-historic' reconstruction? Again, don't dismiss the site because of your own lack of vision or creativity or ability to grasp the history in question or its significance!

... but if that doesn't float your boat how about the tourist potential in developing the First Parliament site into a beautiful public space that further anchors and develops 'Old Town' by connecting St. Lawrence with the Distillery?? A condo is just a condo after all and there are many many other possible sites for them right? So I'm not sure I understand the vitriolic opposition to preservation/commemoration here (beyond the obligatory plaque, I should say).

 

[Red October]

The site is already commemorated. How much more commemoration, or faux-historic reconstruction, is required for a building where nothing of note, architecturally or politically, happened?

Would you follow your own reasoning to recreate the 2nd legislative buildings at King & Simcoe? If not, why not?

Nothing of note? The sacking and subsequent burning of these buildings is what led to the burning of Washington by the British/Canadians.. In fact the reason the White House is white is because they painted it white to cover up the scorch marks from the retaliation for what happened to these buildings.

That's pretty damn significant if you ask me, and for a city that was just colonized barely over 200 years ago, it's as significant as it gets.

Would you argue that nothing of note happened at Fort York, and therefore preserving it is just as much of a waste of time and resources?

 

[AndreaPalladio]

I'm not being vitrolic. I just asked a question, which remains unanswered. I grasp the history and significance of the place, and can't see how it requires more commemoration than what's already there. There is a beautiful public space there now. Why, children even play football on it.

If you went there, you would know that St. Lawrence is already connected to the Distillery by the Esplanade, which is heavily used as a link now.

 

[AndreaPalladio]

Nothing of note? The sacking and subsequent burning of these buildings is what led to the burning of Washington by the British/Canadians.. In fact the reason the White House is white is because they painted it white to cover up the scorch marks from the retaliation for what happened to these buildings.

That's pretty damn significant if you ask me, and for a city that was just colonized barely over 200 years ago, it's as significant as it gets.

Would you argue that nothing of note happened at Fort York, and therefore preserving it is just as much of a waste of time and resources?

As wars go, the War of 1812 was about nothing, changed nothing, and ranks up there with the War of Jenkins Ear and the War of the Austrian Sucession as minor footnotes. Why would we glorify senseless killing and destruction?

What, pray tell, events of note took place at Fort York? It's an irrelevant consideration anyway. It exists, and no one could argue for destroying it. But if it didn't exist, there would be no point in recreating it.

 

[Torontovibe]

I'm not being vitrolic. I just asked a question, which remains unanswered. I grasp the history and significance of the place, and can't see how it requires more commemoration than what's already there. There is a beautiful public space there now. Why, children even play football on it.

If you went there, you would know that St. Lawrence is already connected to the Distillery by the Esplanade, which is heavily used as a link now.

Where do you see a "beautiful" public space? What is so beautiful about a sports field? If grass and a few random trees is what you call beautiful, you need to raise your standards. We need a highly designed public square in that location, not just grass and trees.

 

[Tewder]

As wars go, the War of 1812 was about nothing, changed nothing, and ranks up there with the War of Jenkins Ear and the War of the Austrian Sucession as minor footnotes. Why would we glorify senseless killing and destruction?

What, pray tell, events of note took place at Fort York? It's an irrelevant consideration anyway. It exists, and no one could argue for destroying it. But if it didn't exist, there would be no point in recreating it.

... oh I'm sorry I thought we were having an intelligent discussion about this. You win then! Sigh.