Toronto Forma | 308m | 84s | Great Gulf | Gehry Partners

AlvinofDiaspar said:
Actually, Centre Pompidou might be a better characterization of the intended impact and contextual "fit". And besides, the historic centre of Paris isn't exactly similar in built form to I don't know, the King strip - bookended on three sides by structures of significantly more intense uses and height.
Click to expand...

Though in some ways, I'd think of Pompidou as analogous to the Eaton Centre--not just through 70s-tech aesthetic coincidence, but also though its doing a rather deft and clever aesthetic and institutional salvage job upon an overall urban schema that was already being discredited at the time (in which case, the nearby demolition of Les Halles should be deemed part of what it meant to "fix")
 
freshcutgrass said:
Hey...if Mirvish had presented a proposal that somehow "un-whitewashed" the current warehouses as part of a complex on the site, I'd be all for it. I like old post & beam warehouse buildings....I used to own three units in such a building.
Click to expand...

Yes, this!

... and while I'm still dreaming, retain the POW and still add the art gallery/OCAD element. This would truly be expanding the 'entertainment district' in the right direction, this would truly be visionary for Toronto. I'd trade all kinds of height and variances for this!!

Is it too late for a third-act happy ending to all of this? Go Mirvish!
 
I think it is super-important to note that this is a case of relativity - at issue isn't the general merit of preservation, but the exceedingly high potential of the proposed scheme. To assault the former is IMO misguided without referencing this context.

AoD
 
adma said:
Actually, leaving aside the specific situation we're dealing with in this thread, when it comes to the broader argument about "heritage", I'd reckon that even the sensitive European heritage realm would laugh in your face. It's like you're suggesting they'd scoff at Mount Forest because it's not Montparnasse. Look: there's a universality to "heritage sensitivity"--it covers the ancient, the medieval, and the seemingly-unimportant-by-comparison recent past--and not only in North America in the latter case, given how even Europe recognizes and respects its c20 heritage these days. And yes, that includes commie blocks from the 1960s, etc.

OTOH, your attitude might well have more in common with those from those apparently more "heritage-rich" lands who move to Canada to, well, *escape* the kinds of strictures they identify with their teeming-with-heritage homelands; that is, by opting for a land of comparative unregulated freedom with, in their eyes, negligible fare that's of "historical importance". And rather paradoxically, they're prone to using the "we come from a land of rich history" alibi to excuse their own philistine insensitivity.

So, get this straight. The "most other people" you're speaking of isn't the heart of the heritage realm; in fact, they're probably more Sunday-painter amateurish in their scoffing than those they are scoffing at. Especially if you consider that those they're scoffing at are not "heritage or bust" absolutists even in this loaded case, but simply allowing for a valid heritage argument as part of the overall dialogue--believe you me, it'd be no different in Europe, however much you protesteth otherwise...
Click to expand...

Hilarious.

"most other people" couldn't care less about what happens to this block of land as long as something great is built on top of it... is all that I was trying to say.

I'm sure that most of them, like myself... are from here as well, and not from "heritage-rich lands". They've just got bigger things to worry about than old warehouses.
 
supercilious said:
Hilarious.

"most other people" couldn't care less about what happens to this block of land as long as something great is built on top of it... is all that I was trying to say.

I'm sure that most of them, like myself... are from here as well, and not from "heritage-rich lands". They've just got bigger things to worry about than old warehouses.
Click to expand...

Yeah, but by extension from your overall train of thought, you might as well claim that they've got bigger things to worry about than heritage--period--except, maybe the obvious-potboiler Old City Hall/Queen's Park type of stuff. Which is technically true--at the end of the day, the realm of comprehensive heritage awareness, let alone "heritage activism", is a minority pursuit. And I suppose it's the kind of enlightened-elite minority pursuit that could well counter-spark a "Stop the Heritage Gravy Train" backlash, if necessary--esp. when said "Gravy Train" frets over "nondescript" old warehouses, or plots of university-campus grass, or NPS's walkways, or crumbling Victorian rows along Yonge, or this kind of so-called ugly crap.

I mean, Gehry's design-as-presented might be "great" and all, and to arbitrarily postage-stamp the existing warehouses onto it out of "heritage obligation" would be absurd (and even I've admitted as much in this thread). But you have to realize: it's counterproductive to cloak the case for Gehry in overall tyranny-of-the-majority heritage ignorance...
 
I mean, Gehry's design-as-presented might be "great" and all, and to arbitrarily postage-stamp the existing warehouses onto it out of "heritage obligation" would be absurd
Click to expand...

So in other words, it's a trade-up. For some, not a painless one, but a trade-up nonetheless. And I'm sure no one will feel more pain than Mirvish.
 
adma said:
I mean, Gehry's design-as-presented might be "great" and all, and to arbitrarily postage-stamp the existing warehouses onto it out of "heritage obligation" would be absurd (and even I've admitted as much in this thread).
Click to expand...

Nothing should ever be done arbitrarily.
 
Nothing should ever be done arbitrarily.
Click to expand...

At this point it would have to be. There's no way Gehry is going to use them in any design. His wooden podium beams as a nod/tribute/interpretation/whatever to old post & beam Toronto warehouses is about the best you can expect.

This whole thing seems silly when a few blocks east, Oxford is demolishing the Concourse Building for a humdrum glass office building.
 
It's being demolished (and recreated) because it's of essentially zero use. No one wants to pay to lease it, it's cost prohibitive to bring up to current standards and it has a huge tax bill every year. We're lucky at least part of it is being kept instead of letting it fall into greater disrepair and eventually demolition by neglect.
 
And the Concourse Bldg is probably more significant than any of the buildings along this strip - with perhaps the except of PoW (given the artworks).

AoD
 
What's bringing down these buildings are the high taxes imposed by the city over all buildings regardless of their significance. The city could choose to save all these if it wanted to.
 
RC8 said:
What's bringing down these buildings are the high taxes imposed by the city over all buildings regardless of their significance. The city could choose to save all these if it wanted to.
Click to expand...

You can't assess buildings' tax rates based on their 'significance.'

That makes no sense
 
diminutive:

I can certainly see it being a policy option in other jurisdictions - but I don't believe the city is empowered to do that under the current legislation.

AoD
 
AlvinofDiaspar said:
diminutive:

I can certainly see it being a policy option in other jurisdictions - but I don't believe the city is empowered to do that under the current legislation.

AoD
Click to expand...

Yes, I imagine if the City tried that it would quickly lead to lawsuits.

How on earth would a term like 'significance' even be operationalized? The amount of appeals would be huge!

Like, isn't it perfectly reasonable that Mirvish-Gehry would be far more 'significant' than the existing warehouses and hence deserving of a lower tax burden? Would a more 'significant' project like, I dunno, the L-tower deserve a lower tax rate than a typical hum-drum condo project?

A far more legal solution would likely be to create some kind of fund to subsidize the operation and renovation of listed heritage structures. That would likely be a very difficult sell politically, however.
 
You must log in or register to post here.

Back
Top