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

[Strange Advance]

I also think Gehry and Mirvish may get around height concerns by conceding on some other issues, heritage being one of them.

I doubt it very much. I will be shocked if these aren't chopped down at least a couple-of-hundred feet.

 

[adma]

For those who want know what was destroyed to make way for the heritage warehouses, read the following:

Here's the links to info & video on the history of the entertainment district http://torontoed.com/about

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bTAETH2YdXw&feature=youtu.be

The area that presently comprises the Entertainment District is rich in history, having experienced nearly two centuries of continual change in its built character and land uses, including periods of growth and decline.

In the early part of the 19th century, the area was primarily a wealthy residential neighbourhood that housed the Parliament Buildings of Upper Canada.

At the turn of the last century and with the advent of the railroad, the area was a burgeoning industrial and manufacturing district that included primarily poor and working class housing where many immigrants to Toronto settled.

By the middle of the last century, the garment industry had risen and begun to fall, and the area entered into an era of economic decline fuelled by suburbanization combined with a diminishing manufacturing sector.

Towards the end of the last century, the area began to experience an emergence with the influx of entertainment, creative and IT industries, and aided by innovative planning policies that encouraged mixed uses and the adaptive reuse of former warehouses.

Benefiting from economic, environmental, and social factors driving downtown growth, the present-day Entertainment District is in the midst of a renaissance, firmly establishing itself as a thriving and vibrant district for living, creating, working, and playing.
- See more at: http://torontoed.com/about#sthash.fSkcPHs9.dpuf

If you're trying to debunk the heritage argument by highlighting what used to be on-site, you failed--as any heritage-minded urban buff would tell you, knowing the subtext can actually make existing conditions more *cherishable*, not more dispensable. (All the more so given your likely ignorance of the fact that the Parliament was a couple of blocks to the south, and what *actually* stood on warehouse/Royal Alex row was Upper Canada College.)

 

[supercilious]

as any heritage-minded urban buff would tell you

All six of you.

Keep fighting the good fight though man. I think your points are really sinking in.

 

[TheTigerMaster]

Keep fighting the good fight though man. I think your points are really sinking in.

And they'd sink in more if it weren't for adma's... creative use of language.

 

[jje1000]

All six of you.

Keep fighting the good fight though man. I think your points are really sinking in.

And city planning and local residents. Whatever, you can go ahead and keep on rubberstamping projects based on their stararchitecture only. I'd like to wait and take a better, nonsuperficial look at this project.

 

[buildup]

And city planning and local residents. Whatever, you can go ahead and keep on rubberstamping projects based on their stararchitecture only. I'd like to wait and take a better, nonsuperficial look at this project.

What does "nonsuperficial" actually mean in your usage? Do you mean 'less is more' or more glass box? Sorry to put you on the spot by I am curious. This is the problem with the internet I suppose, meaningless statements..

You're not helping Adma's cause at all. He would recommend more sophistry, more cowbell.

 

[supercilious]

 

[E.B.]

If you're trying to debunk the heritage argument by highlighting what used to be on-site, you failed--as any heritage-minded urban buff would tell you, knowing the subtext can actually make existing conditions more *cherishable*, not more dispensable. (All the more so given your likely ignorance of the fact that the Parliament was a couple of blocks to the south, and what *actually* stood on warehouse/Royal Alex row was Upper Canada College.)

adma, adma, adma, you say "knowing the subtext can actually make existing conditions more *cherishable*, not more dispensable". If you have eyes to see, take a good look at 1:19, there are plaques. That makes *cherishable* sound trite. We could add plaques for the warehouses to Gehry's new buildings. I know you heartily agree with that.

You say "All the more so given your likely ignorance of the fact that the Parliament was a couple of blocks to the south, and what *actually* stood on warehouse/Royal Alex row was Upper Canada College."

I actually said "the area". You make it sound like Upper Canada College is insignificant.

Btw, when you bump into a real heritage-minded urban buff, say hi for me.

adma, sing this for me, Plaques, Plaques, Plaques here we come.

 

[jje1000]

What does "nonsuperficial" actually mean in your usage? Do you mean 'less is more' or more glass box? Sorry to put you on the spot by I am curious. This is the problem with the internet I suppose, meaningless statements..

You're not helping Adma's cause at all. He would recommend more sophistry, more cowbell.

Nonsuperficial refers to a look beyond the pure aesthetics and name recognition (GEHRY! GEHRY!) of the project and into things like the impact on services, history, program, etc. These things might be inmmaterial, or not immediately apparent, but they should matter in today's world if we want to avoid repeating mistakes made since te 50s with megaprojects.

If you want meaningless statements, look at the last 187-or so pages, all filled with people rah-rahing this project and declaring it good as built. We need to get away from that and take a closer look at this project- and city council has effectively said so too. If projects like Oxford's Convention Centre development demand closer investigation, so should this.

 

[renvel]

height reduction

I doubt it very much. I will be shocked if these aren't chopped down at least a couple-of-hundred feet.

I far as I'm in concern , any reduction in overall height of this project would make it totally unworkable from economical as well as aesthetical point of view...

 

[buildup]

Nonsuperficial refers to a look beyond the pure aesthetics and name recognition (GEHRY! GEHRY!) of the project and into things like the impact on services, history, program, etc. These things might be inmmaterial, or not immediately apparent, but they should matter in today's world if we want to avoid repeating mistakes made since te 50s with megaprojects.

Well, thanks for trying.

 

[TheTigerMaster]

I far as I'm in concern , any reduction in overall height of this project would make it totally unworkable from economical as well as aesthetical point of view...

That would be a shame if it were true...

 

[adma]

Btw, when you bump into a real heritage-minded urban buff, say hi for me.

Well, if you're to use threads like this on UT as a barometer, they might appear like a fringe element. But then again, if you were to use threads like this on UT as a barometer, a female perspective would seem a fringe element as well.

With that in mind, it's not my fault that you'd rather consume your urbanism on huffing puffing Tom Of Finland "no gurlz allowed" terms.

 

[adma]

If you want meaningless statements, look at the last 187-or so pages, all filled with people rah-rahing this project and declaring it good as built. We need to get away from that and take a closer look at this project- and city council has effectively said so too. If projects like Oxford's Convention Centre development demand closer investigation, so should this.

And, once again, when it comes to understanding the wisdom involved here, let's keep in mind who were the dissenters on Council re the need for a closer look: Dumb & Dumber & Del Grande. Ponder that; put two and two together, then three and three and whatever else. With municipal friends like that, the supposedly rubber-stampable "undeterred brilliance" of Mirvish/Gehry doesn't need enemies.

In the end, it may not mean the scheme will be *that* fatally different (even down to the "necessary" warehouse sacrifice) from what is now proposed. Or if you want to claim otherwise, well, consider Toronto City Hall as proposed

versus as built

After all the "necessary" planning and design and functional and constructional hurdles to jump *there*, the end result might be not unfairly deemed to be clunkier, heavier-handed and less "ethereal"--but these days, who's complaining? (Other than the usual tear-down-the-walkways chorus, of course.)

 

[Canadian Chocho]

Well, if you're to use threads like this on UT as a barometer, they might appear like a fringe element. But then again, if you were to use threads like this on UT as a barometer, a female perspective would seem a fringe element as well.

With that in mind, it's not my fault that you'd rather consume your urbanism on huffing puffing Tom Of Finland "no gurlz allowed" terms.

Keep it up, seriously. You appear to have incredible patience with the reactionary-urbanism types, and they just keep making themselves look worse when responding to you. Really brings out their true colors.