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

Ramako said:
How is it moot? My entire point is that they do, indeed, exist.

Listen, if it's possible to retain these buildings or their facades in some incarnation, here or on another site, then I'd be all for it, but ultimately I'd be absolutely willing to sacrifice them outright to build these Gehry towers.



How is the Royal York not a valid example? The 80+ year old Queen's Hotel was razed to build the Royal York. Old buildings got demolished in every era.
Click to expand...

The problem is that you are attempting to reduce the argument to a "What if theeeese buildings weren't built!" #spooky

The problem is that you're ignoring history to support your claim. That shouldn't be the case. All these instances of buildings represent eras where a modernist line of thinking was widely accepted, and the world has long since rejected that line of thinking.

Mirvish Gehry is an instance of neo-modernism/deconstructivism clashing against pre-modernist tedencies, less of an instance of something bigger replacing something smaller. In essence, the heart of the argument this thread has been going through is essentially "Do we want this architectural style to replace this architectural style?"

This is the same reason why the Royal York still doesn't count in my opinion as it doesn't represent the absolute break in the architectural timeline that is modernism. With modernism, you simply no longer have the continuty of materials and proportions that came before it.

I consider the Royal York and its cohorts to be of a different era, closer in line to the warehouses than to the other examples you listed.
 
Last edited:
jje1000 said:
The problem is that you are attempting to reduce the argument to a "What if theeeese buildings weren't built!" #spooky

The problem is that you're ignoring history to support your claim. That shouldn't be the case. All these instances of buildings represent eras where a modernist line of thinking was widely accepted, and the world has long since rejected that line of thinking.

Mirvish Gehry is an instance of neo-modernism/deconstructivism clashing against pre-modernist tedencies, less of an instance of something bigger replacing something smaller. In essence, the heart of the argument this thread has been going through is essentially "Do we want this architectural style to replace this architectural style?"

This is the same reason why the Royal York still doesn't count in my opinion as it doesn't represent the absolute break in the architectural timeline that is modernism. With modernism, you simply no longer have the continuty of materials and proportions that came before it.

I consider the Royal York and its cohorts to be of a different era, closer in line to the warehouses than to the other examples you listed.
Click to expand...

I disagree. The argument in this thread has barely touched on the contrasting architectural styles of the warehouses and Gerhy's towers, and has been predominately focussed on the fact that these warehouses are heritage buildings, and that heritage buildings are de facto sacrosanct. The question hasn't been "do we want this architectural style to replace this architectural style?" but "do we want something beautiful if it means demolishing something irreplaceable?"

Someone earlier in this thread mentioned that they would support this project if it were not for the loss of the heritage buildings on site. That's why I pointed out that many of the buildings in this city that replaced heritage structures, are themselves now considered important pieces of heritage. My point is that "heritage" is a moving target and it would be a shame to cancel this project on the basis of heritage preservation alone because in 100 years, these Gehry towers may be considered no less a piece of Toronto's "heritage" than these warehouses.
 
That is a completely generalizing notion, which you seem to be a fan of.
Click to expand...

The generalized notion is the rejection of anything based on a dogmatic idea that you can't replace anything. According to your mantra, everything ever built should remain intact forever...new things are supposed to be built on virgin land I suppose? And facadism is a piss poor way to practice heritage preservation in the first place if you ask me. In many instances, it's insulting to both the old and the new components (a good example would be the poor old Concourse Building). Your concept is just too flawed and counterproductive.


What I am focusing on is on areas like this area of Adelaide, King West and Cabbagetown which contain examples of fairly well-preserved instances of architecture that are no longer possible to replicate.
Click to expand...

Cabbagetown is a residential enclave and like most of them in Toronto, are intact and will probably remain that way for practical reasons associated with the nature of residential areas.

The ED is part of a very large former industrial zone. It represents a large downtown brownfield redevelopment area (Queen to the lake...Dufferin to the Don River). There will always be retrofitted "loft" style spaces of these old warehouses, because there is a market for it. But this was never a candidate for a "heritage District". And this particular site is not a fabulous argument in favour of preservation anyway.

There's obviously a razor's edge between city building and heritage preservation where only the most dogmatic will oppose any demolition of anything. I, like a lot of fans of this project, am a strong heritage preservationist.
 
Ramako said:
I disagree. The argument in this thread has barely touched on the contrasting architectural styles of the warehouses and Gerhy's towers, and has been predominately focussed on the fact that these warehouses are heritage buildings, and that heritage buildings are de facto sacrosanct. The question hasn't been "do we want this architectural style to replace this architectural style?" but "do we want something beautiful if it means demolishing something irreplaceable?"

Someone earlier in this thread mentioned that they would support this project if it were not for the loss of the heritage buildings on site. That's why I pointed out that many of the buildings in this city that replaced heritage structures, are themselves now considered important pieces of heritage. My point is that "heritage" is a moving target and it would be a shame to cancel this project on the basis of heritage preservation alone because in 100 years, these Gehry towers may be considered no less a piece of Toronto's "heritage" than these warehouses.
Click to expand...

You make an excellent point, but I dispute the notion that heritage is a moving target. Preservation for pre-modernist building stock froze in the 50-60s with the advent of modernism, which has replaced pre-modernist architecture as the defacto mode of architecture to this day. Simply put, it's like an extinction boundary- we aren't going to get any more of this form of pre-war architecture in any way possible.

Furthermore, the argument that "do we want something beautiful if it means demolishing something irreplaceable?" also applies to the notion of a disagreement over the styles of architecture. We wouldn't be having this argument in the first place if none of the existing buildings were aesthetically pleasing, heck, they probably wouldn't have been listed in the first place anyways. The point is that some people find historical and aesthetic value in these warehouses, while others find the aesthetic value of Mirvish-Gehry to be much more significant. Hence, the choices are binary in this instance- do you want unadulterated modern architecture or do you want to retain pre-modernist building stock in the mix?

Of course, the stakes aren't as high as proponents of Mirvish Gehry like to say they are. The project isn't going to be cancelled merely because a couple of heritage buildings are retained in some manner. If it is, the economic feasibility of the project would have been poor to begin with. I believe that there is a middle ground for co-existence, that Gehry can incorporate these historical structures in a way that will allow for bold architectural gestures while allowing the area to retain some actual historical context.
 
I believe that there is a middle ground for co-existence, that Gehry can incorporate these historical structures in a way that will allow for bold architectural gestures while allowing the area to retain some actual historical context.
Click to expand...

But the argument is that it would be detrimental to do that. Your idea that incorporating the old into the new is always the superior path to take is flawed. The options have been explored, and decided by the parties involved. The Royal Alex remains intact...that was the historical preservation decision for the site...and the smart one.


The project isn't going to be cancelled merely because a couple of heritage buildings are retained in some manner.
Click to expand...

When TD and Fairview wanted to move some buildings around on Mies's TD Centre design, he told them they were going exactly where he placed them. It was a take it or leave it scenario....luckily they did the smart thing...and took it. The City should stop flirting with stupidity...and take this one as well.
 
TheTigerMaster said:
Really? This building has some kind of devine right to be on that particular plot of land?
Click to expand...

Here's the's the original statement I was responding to:

Automation Gallery said:
In a German or Dutch city, this bldg. would sit beside many of the same stock....here, this one looks out of place from what's next door,
Id say, dismantle it and shove it somewhere else in the city where it may look like it belongs

Click to expand...

Note that all the buildings to be demolished are the "context." Besides, the original poster fails to indicate where it should go.

Furthermore, the design being proposed by Gehry is, by far, more radically "out of context" to what is in the immediate area, yet that fact is not questioned by those here who promote this proposal (like Automation Gallery).

These are the buildings that have, until quite recently, defined this particular area in the city. They are not out of context. If anything, the proposal is out of context.

By the way, what exactly is a "devine" right? If you are attempting to make a reference to a "divine" right, then no building has any such "right" to that plot of land, including the proposed M&G plan - unless you have some knowledge otherwise.
 
argus said:
You said it's out of place. I dispute that view because, comparatively speaking, the M&G proposal would be far more "out of place."
Click to expand...

Why would three 85 story buildings be out of place? The site has Metro Hall to the South, Festival Tower to the West, Theatre Condo to the East, and the 2nd Festival Tower to the North. Its a thicket of banal towers already, and a stones throw from the CBD. I'd say this whole strip is out of place. I loved how bold and progressive the retirees were who attended the public meeting!
 
Why can't they take the facades and flip them around to the back side of these so called heritage buildings, they would then face Pearl Street in all their glory
 
Michael62 said:
Why can't they take the facades and flip them around to the back side of these so called heritage buildings, they would then face Pearl Street in all their glory
Click to expand...

There's something about rampant facadism that irks me. As it is, we have numerous neighbourhoods that would be considered downtown, but safely outside the CBD and the intensification that is occuring there. Some examples are King & Queen immediately West of Spadina and East of Yonge, and many other areas. These need to be guarded because they are intact and authentic. To protect these areas we shold give over some other areas to development. If we lose these warehouses that's fine the area has tipped over already. A city filled with facafdes reminds me excess cosmetic surgery.
 
Last edited:
You must log in or register to post here.

Back
Top