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

[Ramako]

A lot of the opposition, at least in here, to the proposal seems moralistic and reactionary from a method not of objectively assessing the development but of punching one's own independent-thinker card by way of contrarian posturing. The debate certainly entertains shades of interpretation through moral, aesthetic, and other lenses. However the resistance to it self-indulgently colour the booster side as facile, prosaic dilettantes, which casts some doubt on their intellectual honesty. There is a germ of truth to this but in my reading I think it has steered some away from agreement out of some fallacious interior reasoning that suggests if one arrives at a similar conclusion as someone else who has arrived at it through a less studied, imperfect ratiocination, they should not share that conclusion and insist on the dispositive character of the subtler issues that the other camp has missed, elided, or taken for granted.

There is an anti-intellectual cross current but I think it is proportionally very small and has stoked an unhelpful identity which has taken the opportunity to polarize the issue in order to advertise its academic and industry cachet. To me there is some apparent bad faith in the evaluation of this issue, on both sides, but mostly on the part of our resident intelligentsia.

I am definitely 'for' and can appreciate the project has known and unknown deficits. I'm saying simply that since the attitudes here indicate a lot of conspicuous K-dropping and pontification, that the balance of dispassionate assessment, without such conceit, would be in favour. Succinctly, though the values are credible, and the arguments are coherent, the tone betrays their artificiality.

Very well said. I've definitely picked up on these undercurrents.

 

[syn]

Your line of thinking is flawed, because to you, no matter how architecturally significant these buildings will be, they will always be "new" and therefore, inferior. If we can set a point system for a building's desirability, many (legitimately) significant heritage buildings would score high enough to almost guarantee their continued existence. Even these buildings would receive a certain amount of points just based on their age. However, that is not nearly enough for them to be as desirable as M-G.

Had 300 Front been proposed here, I'd be on the other side of the argument, but M-G is certainly nothing like 300 Front, and for that reason, I am very supportive of the demolition of these warehouses.

They will be "new" in our lifetimes, but 100 years from now they will be hertitage buildings.

 

[E.B.]

Not that this will have any teeth (sadly), or that you Gehry-worshippers will care, but the city's Heritage Preservation Services group is against the demolition of the warehouses.

"This report will recommend that City Council refuse the proposed demolition of four designated heritage properties at 266, 276, 284 and 322 King Street West as part of
Zoning By-law amendment application12-276890 STE 20 OZ. The proposed demolition of four designated buildings does not satisfy the requirements of the Planning Act, the associated Provincial Policy Statement and the City's Official Plan Heritage Policies. It also does not comply with the Standards and Guidelines for the Conservation of Historic Place in Canada, which was adopted by City Council."

src. (on the agenda for the forthcoming Toronto Preservation Board's meeting)

This is why we, thankfully, have the OMB.

This was reinforced today by the Province:

"Perhaps more notable than what is being reviewed, is what is not being reviewed"

"eliminating or changing the OMB’s operations, practices and procedures"

I also agree with Ramko's astute observation:

"I, for one, am shocked that the entity specifically tasked with preserving heritage in this city would, of all things, recommend preserving heritage in this city. This changes everything!"

 

[E.B.]

Though there's a reasonable metaphor there, i.e. a lot of this wish for "amazing" "monuments of the 21st century" reminds me of pubescent boys for whom feminine desirability is defined by the glossy plastic Barbie dolls on porn sites, to the point where they don't know how to handle real women unless said women groom themselves to look like said glossy porn-site girls.

I mean--sure, we could use a few monuments, just like we can use a few purty babes. But a lot of this obsession w/modern-day "amazing" seems, to me, to betray an inability to come to terms w/the pre-existing environment at large, never mind at this particular location.

And there's a reason why the "porn" metaphor often comes up re skyscraper and new-architecture fanboy sites.

Methinks thou dost protest too much.

 

[freshcutgrass]

I, for one, am shocked that the entity specifically tasked with preserving heritage in this city would, of all things, recommend preserving heritage in this city. This changes everything!

Sarcasm is funny ....until you realize much more has been approved for demolition to make way for much less. Then it isn't so funny.

 

[skyrise]

There is an anti-intellectual cross current but I think it is proportionally very small and has stoked an unhelpful identity which has taken the opportunity to polarize the issue in order to advertise its academic and industry cachet. To me there is some apparent bad faith in the evaluation of this issue, on both sides, but mostly on the part of our resident intelligentsia.

^^You hit the nail on the head with that statement Lansdude. Many members have felt the wrath of the so called "intelligentsia" types and their pretentious self importance and thinly veiled put downs. Their approach is akin to trolling as far as I am concerned. They are discussed on other forums and many have left UT because of them.

 

[adma]

Adma is smart, I rarely understand his arguments (my limitation, not his) but when I do I learn something. I just wish he’s pick on ROCP, Aura, Trump, Museum House, Infinity. I wish he was on the side of the angels…

Though the important point re the tenor of this discussion is: none of those (except, maybe, oh so marginally, Museum House--or perhaps a few marred vistas re some of the others) involved the immediate sacrifice of "heritage".

 

[adma]

It's the reason why opponents of brazilians/manzilians have come off as so ossified. They act as though the "glossy plastic Barbie doll" aesthetic is somehow unnatural without accepting that their own aesthetics are just as normative! Very few people are interested in returning to the sexual norms of the 1950s!

We live in a post-deferential society; if people want to defend afro-pubes they will have to prove why they're better than alternatives and not really on an flimsy dichotomy between 'pre-existing' and 'fake'

Well, think of it like one of my other idee fixes: road tripping. Brazilian vs bush is like Hwy 401 vs Old Hwy 2: "boring" vs "interesting". And of course, you can likewise claim that "very few people are interested in returning to the motoring norms of the 1950s".

Of course, in our "post-deferential society", it may be argued that as w/pubic grooming and old-new urbanism, 401 vs 2 are better viewed as symbiotic rather than as oppositional--which in itself is an advance from raw retro-50s reactivism. What I'm *really* needling are those who'd find my so-labelled "interesting" to be even *more* boring, in an "aw jeez, Dad, when are we going to get there" way. Who IMO are like those who find pubes, or Jane Jacobs-style messy-old-urbanism, "gross".

And in practice, I find those who expound all the more about ooh! aah! neato new starchitecture to be all the more incompetent in "taking in" the fullness of our existing fabric...which can be a powerful preemptive to our starchitect fix, and even enable us to "manage" the potential compromise or even collapse of a scheme. Sort of like: even if Mirvish/Gehry fails, Toronto's still strong.

And if you're incompetent at "taking existing Toronto in", you'd probably be likewise in grander and lesser municipalities, alike.

 

[Strange Advance]

I'm an exponent of bush and skyscrapers. Women shouldn't wax their pubes (blecch) and the Gehry towers should go ahead as planned. That is all.

 

[freshcutgrass]

Though the important point re the tenor of this discussion is: none of those (except, maybe, oh so marginally, Museum House--or perhaps a few marred vistas re some of the others) involved the immediate sacrifice of "heritage".

But I will submit that it is healthy to purge "heritage". As with anything, you need to be careful about what you purge, and what you keep. It is equally important what you replace it with, and why. There's obviously a formulaic goal to net out ahead.

That's why some of us see this one as a no-brainer.

 

[SP!RE]

I think any metaphor related to women in a sexual context is probably going to be lost on the general demographic here.

 

[freshcutgrass]

I think any metaphor related to women in a sexual context is probably going to be lost on the general demographic here.

In which case, I should point out that the only detail about a vagina that heterosexual men are generally concerned with...is that one is available.

 

[E.B.]

Well, think of it like one of my other idee fixes: road tripping. Brazilian vs bush is like Hwy 401 vs Old Hwy 2: "boring" vs "interesting". And of course, you can likewise claim that "very few people are interested in returning to the motoring norms of the 1950s".

Of course, in our "post-deferential society", it may be argued that as w/pubic grooming and old-new urbanism, 401 vs 2 are better viewed as symbiotic rather than as oppositional--which in itself is an advance from raw retro-50s reactivism. What I'm *really* needling are those who'd find my so-labelled "interesting" to be even *more* boring, in an "aw jeez, Dad, when are we going to get there" way. Who IMO are like those who find pubes, or Jane Jacobs-style messy-old-urbanism, "gross".

And in practice, I find those who expound all the more about ooh! aah! neato new starchitecture to be all the more incompetent in "taking in" the fullness of our existing fabric...which can be a powerful preemptive to our starchitect fix, and even enable us to "manage" the potential compromise or even collapse of a scheme. Sort of like: even if Mirvish/Gehry fails, Toronto's still strong.

And if you're incompetent at "taking existing Toronto in", you'd probably be likewise in grander and lesser municipalities, alike.

You appear to grasp the gravity of the dilemma. Your ability to expound profusely and Loquaciously on this matter of consequence is exemplary. The issue, is to seek-out what's prudent for our city and will only be accomplished by sober forethought and due diligence.

 

[diminutive]

Well, think of it like one of my other idee fixes: road tripping. Brazilian vs bush is like Hwy 401 vs Old Hwy 2: "boring" vs "interesting". And of course, you can likewise claim that "very few people are interested in returning to the motoring norms of the 1950s".

Of course, in our "post-deferential society", it may be argued that as w/pubic grooming and old-new urbanism, 401 vs 2 are better viewed as symbiotic rather than as oppositional--which in itself is an advance from raw retro-50s reactivism. What I'm *really* needling are those who'd find my so-labelled "interesting" to be even *more* boring, in an "aw jeez, Dad, when are we going to get there" way. Who IMO are like those who find pubes, or Jane Jacobs-style messy-old-urbanism, "gross".

And in practice, I find those who expound all the more about ooh! aah! neato new starchitecture to be all the more incompetent in "taking in" the fullness of our existing fabric...which can be a powerful preemptive to our starchitect fix, and even enable us to "manage" the potential compromise or even collapse of a scheme. Sort of like: even if Mirvish/Gehry fails, Toronto's still strong.

And if you're incompetent at "taking existing Toronto in", you'd probably be likewise in grander and lesser municipalities, alike.

You're missing the point. Your finding of waxed pubes 'unreal' or fake or superficial is just as unsupportable as someone finding the reverse. You're just using your own conservatism as a universal standard then judging any deviation from it as immature or somehow less able. It's not at all the case that a man or woman who doesn't like grinding their genitals against a scour pad is "incompetent in 'taking in'" the situation. They're just as capable of taking it in as you are, they just reached conclusions you haven't.

It's tautological. If you define something as unnatural or fake, it lets you denigrate anyone who values it as some kind of uncultured rube just jumping on the newest fad without engaging any of their actual reasons for liking it. You're ignoring the reasons people (who aren't stupid) genuinely think M-G is an improvement over the warehouses, and just arguing they suck at urbanism, since nobody who doesn't suck at urbanism would feel that way.

The real irony is, given your obvious fossil-philia, I doubt you've ever even tried getting a Brazilian/Manzilian, yet you're still 100% sure that the people who do are superficial pubescent boys who don't know anything about sex.

It's like the old foggies who hang around record shops complaining about how much new music sucks and all the kids with their rap music and electro and dubstep simply don't understand music since, if they did, obviously they'd be listening to Pink Floyd or Rush or some such fossil band. These people think they're all cultured and musically knowledgeable, but they're just confusing their own preferences for some kind of objective reality which they use to judge others.

It reminds of Lansdude's comment; so many of the criticisms of M-G aren't even about M-G vs. the warehouses, it's about the people doing the criticizing and their need to "punch one's own independent think card." Supporters become 'pubescent,' 'immature,' 'Gehry-worshippers,' 'fanboys' or some such things. It apes the language of the aforementioned 'Classic Rock aficionados' perfectly; whereas they "know" about music, the 'kids' who like rap are just some stupid teenagers who've never even listened to a full album on their iphones.

It's not enough to say why they like Rush or Bush or warehouses more than the newer alternative, they have to demean the people who don't share their view as immature. This wouldn't be an issue if you said "I like the warehouses because of x,y and z" or "I like pubic bush because I like getting wires stuck in my teeth when I go down," they would just be your preferences. But your preferences aren't facts for everyone else.

And, to briefly address your last point that Toronto would be fine if we didn't build M-G, that's a ridiculous point. Obviously keeping the status-quo wouldn't make anything worse than the status-quo, that's the entire point of the term status quo. The issue is whether we would be better or worse with M-G replacing the warehouses.

 

[jaycola]

I like natural women and flashy skyscrapers. I never recognized the incongruity of my aesthetic sense.

Surely there are members of this forum who treat others in a disrespectful manner and who come across as having a superiority complex. The constant "schooling" of other members while claiming full and absolute knowledge of truth in the veracity of their opinions becomes tiresome. Forum members who do not share your sentiment are not simple minded or ignorant.
Some of us see that the benefits of this project outweigh the costs. It simple math, we just have a different set of numerals. There are many buildings within this city I would never support demolition of, regardless the lost opportunity for something great to replace it. This block happens to be something I would gladly sacrifice for what I see to be a rare and exceptional opportunity.

Building cost + development charges+ future taxes + iconic structures + public facilities +tourism dollars + jobs > lost heritage structures + density issues

Which of these locations would I visit if I was a tourist in this city?