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
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
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.
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.)
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.
I doubt it very much. I will be shocked if these aren't chopped down at least a couple-of-hundred feet.
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.
Btw, when you bump into a real heritage-minded urban buff, say hi for me.
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.
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.