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

diminutive said:
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.
Click to expand...

Though the funny thing re your framing such insistence as 50s-style repression is: such scour-pad sexuality is *not* commonly associated w/the 50s--it's associated w/the dense, musty, hedonistic, boom-chikka 70s. The repressive 50s, in fact, tried to deny scour pads existed.

And indeed, it may be no coincidence that it was also the 70s that saw the hyper-embrace of the, er, dense, musty realm of heritage and existing built environments. Something was metaphorically "in the air" then--if it weren't for the 70s, we wouldn't have to be dealing w/these warehouses as "heritage".

With that in mind, keep in mind that the rejection of 70s hairy sexuality has less to do with it being oppressive/repressive a la 50s, than with its being somehow diseased and gross, associated w/everything from the Polanski case to the rise of AIDS. Which of course, compounds the "impracticality" to a certain modern-day perspective...
 
adma said:
Though the funny thing re your framing such insistence as 50s-style repression is: such scour-pad sexuality is *not* commonly associated w/the 50s--it's associated w/the dense, musty, hedonistic, boom-chikka 70s. The repressive 50s, in fact, tried to deny scour pads existed.

And indeed, it may be no coincidence that it was also the 70s that saw the hyper-embrace of the, er, dense, musty realm of heritage and existing built environments. Something was metaphorically "in the air" then--if it weren't for the 70s, we wouldn't have to be dealing w/these warehouses as "heritage".

With that in mind, keep in mind that the rejection of 70s hairy sexuality has less to do with it being oppressive/repressive a la 50s, than with its being somehow diseased and gross, associated w/everything from the Polanski case to the rise of AIDS. Which of course, compounds the "impracticality" to a certain modern-day perspective...
Click to expand...

You must have a lot of time on your hands to wax so eloquently. And I must say that I agree with you on building the M-G project as is.
 
For me, the sad thing in all of this is that we're down to an either-or scenario.

Both of those images that jaycola posted show worthwhile urban fabric. Toronto's downtown can use a lot of improvement, and I for one wish we could get this exact proposal but somewhere else. It's a pity that we lose a stretch of mid-rise warehouses, when mid-rise urban fabric is so scarce in Toronto altogether.
 
M. R. Victor:

Or, at the risk of being utterly contrary to contemporary heritage preservation best practices - why not dismantle the facades and reuse them in areas of the city that will see densification at a similar scale as those structures?

AoD
 
jaycola said:
Which of these locations would I visit if I was a tourist in this city?
Click to expand...

As there is a theatre there presently, many tourists have visited that location over the years. If it's a question of just architecture, then the M-G will be an attraction. One question is: do we build buildings like this solely on the basis of their possible tourism attraction?
 
AlvinofDiaspar said:
M. R. Victor:

Or, at the risk of being utterly contrary to contemporary heritage preservation best practices - why not dismantle the facades and reuse them in areas of the city that will see densification at a similar scale as those structures?

AoD
Click to expand...

Brilliant. I wouldn't be one to claim that a transplanted facade counts as "heritage preservation" but they are still quite attractive in their own right and could provide some warmth and character to other streetscapes in the city. Take a project like The Bohemian on Queen West and imagine if it could have been built with the exact same massing and uses, but with these transplanted facades fronting Queen. Of course it would be historically apocryphal, but it would improve the aesthetics of the street in a significant way.

It's also interesting to me to consider at what point transplanted facades become historically significant as transplanted facades? Tokens of an era where facadism was de rigueur? Decades after being integrated into their new neighbourhood, they would be just as integral to the existing streetscape as the "native" buildings but would always be anecdotally noteworthy because of their origins, kind of like New Market House's facade on St. Lawrence Market.
 
Last edited:
Ramako:

Understand that by making such a decision we are basically arguing for the primacy of the object itself, instead of its' history - that it is an aesthetic judgement more than anything else. What would prove interesting going down that route is the preservation of the preserved facade itself when the time comes to redevelop a site containing these "artifacts". Do we then take a "working museum piece" approach?

AoD
 
Even if they preserved these heritage bldgs. and incorporated them into this development, it still wouldn't fly because of its sheer height...too many individuals nervous about that.
Shame, considering this is a "one in a lifetime development for this city"
 
jaycola said:
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.
Click to expand...
Amen, secularly speaking.
 
"one in a lifetime development for this city"

I agree with this statement but I disagree that it is a relevent or forceful argument for or against the project. The future will hold another "one in a lifetime development" for the city and another after that, and another, and another.

Maybe an argument like this makes more sense: This is the last chance to have another signiture building by Frank Gehry's design studio while the man is still alive built in the city. I care about this because I admire his work.

or

I don't feel this site will get another more impressive or significant treatment in my lifetime
 
E.B. said:
You must have a lot of time on your hands to wax so eloquently. And I must say that I agree with you on building the M-G project as is.
Click to expand...

Am I advocating such? I actually *admire* that bygone metaphorical dense, musty, diseased/grossness. (And there's actually a deeper 70s-style epiphanous-sexuality subtext to the block: after all, the Royal Alex was where Hair had its illustrious domestic run in 1970, and cast photos used to litter the washroom-zone circulation space at Old Ed's giving you a chance to spot Gilda Radner before she became famous, etc.)

Think of it a little like those who've had a yen for the grittiness of pre-Giuliani Manhattan, and tried to seek reminders of it wherever they could--the Chelsea when Stanley Bard was still in charge, or wherever else...
 
adma said:
Am I advocating such? I actually *admire* that bygone metaphorical dense, musty, diseased/grossness. (And there's actually a deeper 70s-style epiphanous-sexuality subtext to the block: after all, the Royal Alex was where Hair had its illustrious domestic run in 1970, and cast photos used to litter the washroom-zone circulation space at Old Ed's giving you a chance to spot Gilda Radner before she became famous, etc.)

Think of it a little like those who've had a yen for the grittiness of pre-Giuliani Manhattan, and tried to seek reminders of it wherever they could--the Chelsea when Stanley Bard was still in charge, or wherever else...
Click to expand...

I think subconsciously you do. And I might add, that you're very well-spoken for someone who is only sixteen.
 
Last edited:
You must log in or register to post here.

Back
Top