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

[Grimace]

These so-called heritage warehouse buildings in question are actually holding back this stretch of King. They were not designed or built to perform the kind of street front engagement that is required. That's why the most interesting thing on that stretch is a Tim Hortons you have to access via stairs. They would have to be altered so much to become usable that any "heritage" value would be compromised. So what's the point?

This block of King needs to build on the momentum of first rate venues that are the reason we call this the Entertainment District....RTH, Royal Alex, the many big events that take place in the square across the street, TIFF, Restaurant Row.

I agree with this and it is something that has been raised before but which those who support retaining these buildings haven't addressed. If the point of preservation is to preserve buildings for the sake of it, fine. But if the goal is to preserve them because they are good for the area, I would say these buildings do not relate well to the area. Yes, they are warehouses, but they interact poorly with King, and create a complete deadzone on John, which is supposed to be revitalized as a feature street. I think threats to restaurant row, even though they are not restaurants I frequent, are concerning. But these buildings do not animate the Entertainment District at all. Outside of POW, the most interesting part (I would say) is not Tims but Dentsu, a Japanese ad and public relations firm.

 

[adma]

Y'know, the way this thread is going, and the way how Catherine Nasmith's Spacing interview has been thoroughly negated in the discussion, is...disturbing.

Though it really bears out a thorough discussion and deconstruction of the last half century of heritage-preservation-leveraged urban culture--especially in the aftermath of Koolhaas's and Glaeser's critiques; because, once again, this whole Gehry/Mirvish scheme seems a response to, well, the post-Koolhaas/Glaeser "mood in the air".

And once again, my old question: what if Penn Station's replacement was by Mies, instead of Charles Luckman? Would the last half-century heritage narrative be significantly different?

Because in a way, that's what help fuel the "heritage revolution". Not the mere losses per se, but the fact that the replacements were so often humdrum-to-schlock and inadequate for the occasion. To the point where the posthumous "never again" furor even wound up attaching itself to cases where the replacement *was* up to the occasion (say, Carrere & Hastings' Bank of Toronto, sacrificed for Mies). Which ultimately led to, I suppose, the hyperactive fetishization of contextualism and existing building fabric retention: "good manners", "respect for what's extant", et al--with an assist from the fact that the apron of "latent heritage worthiness" wound up spreading far beyond what the 1960s could have forecast, even paradoxically landing on the doorstep of the replacement buildings which 60s activists decried.

And beneath all of this, there was a vestigial architectural culture that was hot and bothered--with all these heritage and NIMBYish constraints, they couldn't do nuthin'. That is, unless they went to "developing metropolii" such as in Asia, where the hysterical preservationists hadn't gone bonkers yet. So, that's what they did--and the "future template" was set. Now, they're transcribing it all back to North America by, basically, squatting atop the wimpy heritage community kinda like George Smitherman squatted atop wimpy Joe Pantalone. In which case, no contest. And barely any wiggle-room for discussion, either--or at least, the prospect of "discussion" ought to be conveniently framed and brushed off as a bunch of dotty contemporary-hating Prince Charleses...

It's in that climate where you have people like freshcutgrass expressing opinions like "I'd bulldoze those dead zone buildings for a lot less than what is proposed"--IOW, it's as if Gehry/Mirvish has unleashed a more thoroughgoing heritage-hostile sentiment out there, even if it's in the guise of "post-heritage"...

 

[jaycola]

I say peel the skins off these and pave the streets with them. Flatten them out where necessary for street cars. For the cars, make it like speed bumps to maintain the texture. Wrap it right up the sidewalk and into buildings across the street where necessary.

 

[buildup]

Y'know, the way this thread is going, and the way how Catherine Nasmith's Spacing interview has been thoroughly negated in the discussion, is...disturbing.

Though it really bears out a thorough discussion and deconstruction of the last half century of heritage-preservation-leveraged urban culture--especially in the aftermath of Koolhaas's and Glaeser's critiques; because, once again, this whole Gehry/Mirvish scheme seems a response to, well, the post-Koolhaas/Glaeser "mood in the air".

And once again, my old question: what if Penn Station's replacement was by Mies, instead of Charles Luckman? Would the last half-century heritage narrative be significantly different?

Because in a way, that's what help fuel the "heritage revolution". Not the mere losses per se, but the fact that the replacements were so often humdrum-to-schlock and inadequate for the occasion. To the point where the posthumous "never again" furor even wound up attaching itself to cases where the replacement *was* up to the occasion (say, Carrere & Hastings' Bank of Toronto, sacrificed for Mies). Which ultimately led to, I suppose, the hyperactive fetishization of contextualism and existing building fabric retention: "good manners", "respect for what's extant", et al--with an assist from the fact that the apron of "latent heritage worthiness" wound up spreading far beyond what the 1960s could have forecast, even paradoxically landing on the doorstep of the replacement buildings which 60s activists decried.

And beneath all of this, there was a vestigial architectural culture that was hot and bothered--with all these heritage and NIMBYish constraints, they couldn't do nuthin'. That is, unless they went to "developing metropolii" such as in Asia, where the hysterical preservationists hadn't gone bonkers yet. So, that's what they did--and the "future template" was set. Now, they're transcribing it all back to North America by, basically, squatting atop the wimpy heritage community kinda like George Smitherman squatted atop wimpy Joe Pantalone. In which case, no contest. And barely any wiggle-room for discussion, either--or at least, the prospect of "discussion" ought to be conveniently framed and brushed off as a bunch of dotty contemporary-hating Prince Charleses...

It's in that climate where you have people like freshcutgrass expressing opinions like "I'd bulldoze those dead zone buildings for a lot less than what is proposed"--IOW, it's as if Gehry/Mirvish has unleashed a more thoroughgoing heritage-hostile sentiment out there, even if it's in the guise of "post-heritage"...

This looks promising, but I'll have to take another stab in the morning with a Starbucks. Shocker would be proud.

 

[buildup]

you fell into my pedant trap, please try again

You are a funny troll, your other post was amusing too. what brought you to this site?

 

[jje1000]

You are a funny troll, your other post was amusing too. what brought you to this site?

Probably the overinflated egos and exaggerated perceptions of experience/intelligence amongst forumgoers.

 

[freshcutgrass]

the way how Catherine Nasmith's Spacing interview has been thoroughly negated in the discussion, is...disturbing.

I'm sorry, but I have to call her out on her description of the current buildings as "collectively they constitute a wonderful, historic street-scape". But then again, what would you expect her to say? According to her, there are no historic building that can be demolished, and projects like this one can only take place on empty land. In other words, she doesn't live in the real world.

In fact, she is the perfect pedant described in Troll's post.

it's as if Gehry/Mirvish has unleashed a more thoroughgoing heritage-hostile sentiment out there, even if it's in the guise of "post-heritage"...

It's neither. Sometimes when you have a bigger picture in mind, you can make necessary value judgments that biased parties can't. You can't tear it all down...and you can't save it all either....so why take the position that you can? And that is Nasmith's position.

I can recall a time when the Mirvish Block had some significance. When this area was completely derelict, Mirvish painted his entire block of buildings white, and had them covered with tons of blinking black & white signs and created a buzz in an area that was as dead as a doornail. It had nothing to do with any historical aspect at all.

 

[WiddleBittyKitty]

I can recall a time when the Mirvish Block had some significance. When this area was completely derelict, Mirvish painted his entire block of buildings white, and had them covered with tons of blinking black & white signs and created a buzz in an area that was as dead as a doornail. It had nothing to do with any historical aspect at all.

Bang on.

It was our Little White Way, and I still miss the wonderful post-Victorian kitsch of Old Eds et al, but now that those restaurants and blinking lights are gone, so is my nostalgia for this stretch. The brick warehouses are fine but non-essential for this city's wholeness. Losing the terra cotta Anderson Bldg is regrettable, but still not enough to stop what should happen here.

 

[adma]

In other words, she doesn't live in the real world.

In fact, she is the perfect pedant described in Troll's post.

And honestly, this kind of judgment might as well telescope into other aspects of Koolhaas/Glaeser-era revisionist POV on "protectionist" Toronto victories of the 1970s--yeah, maybe not when it comes to the Spadina Expressway, but certainly when it comes to streetcars (i.e. those who want to retain the existing King and Queen car status quo "don't live in the real world", etc). (NB: it's nothing to do with the Rob Ford la-la-land opposition to streetcars.)

Though it may all depend on where one comes from--as I've said in the past, those who participate in urban forums can be divided into "new construction" and "existing conditions" enthusiasts. Those who are into "building", and those who are into "beholding". And I do know that there are some past UT regulars from the beholding/existing-conditions realm who have eased away from UT out of concern for its being, I dunno, too developer/slick-yuppie-scumbag friendly for its own good lately...thus, the utter lack of heritage-cognizant/sympathetic oxygen in this thread. Which isn't just to do with whether these particular properties are to be saved; but almost as if Gehry/Mirvish has telescopically unleashed a bigger, broader-ranging "post-heritage" revisionism out there. IOW invoking past Bank of Toronto-esque losses not just from an "it's been done" standpoint, but from a "if I had to do it all over again, I would" standpoint.

All kinda scary, really.

 

[AlexCorey]

I'm sorry, but I have to call her out on her description of the current buildings as "collectively they constitute a wonderful, historic street-scape". But then again, what would you expect her to say? According to her, there are no historic building that can be demolished, and projects like this one can only take place on empty land. In other words, she doesn't live in the real world.

In her article for Spacing Nasmith never states that "no historic building can be demolished". Her stance is that "...there’s no such thing as exceptional heritage or just a little bit of value". if a building has been designated it is deserving of preservation, period. You don't get to pick-and-choose what buildings that have been designated are fodder for 'exceptional' development. It's seeing heritage preservation for what it is, an ethical responsibility to preserve those buildings we consider representative of a specific time and/or style and that we feel reflect our collective culture and society.

The fact that Mirvish fought for these buildings to be preserved and is subsequently back-stepping in order to develop this land shows that he didn't push for their designation for the right reasons (i.e. "don't develop these buildings unless I want them to be developed"). The idea that you can invoke and subsequently rescind designation threatens to set an unpleasant precedent.

 

[neubilder]

Calling people out as things like 'pedants' for intelligently expressing views on important issues is similar to the Ford 'nation' supporters calling out urbanites as 'latte sipping elites' for having opinions and standards about the city. The prevalence of this kind of small-mindedness for a city like Toronto is disconcerting. Makes me want to cash in my chips and kiss this place goodbye.

 

[fedplanner]

Calling people out as things like 'pedants' for intelligently expressing views on important issues is similar to the Ford 'nation' supporters calling out urbanites as 'latte sipping elites' for having opinions and standards about the city. The prevalence of this kind of small-mindedness for a city like Toronto is disconcerting. Makes me want to cash in my chips and kiss this place goodbye.

don't feed the Troll

(but I hope we can keep him because he's been hilarious thus far)

 

[buildup]

Y'know, the way this thread is going, and the way how Catherine Nasmith's Spacing interview has been thoroughly negated in the discussion, is...disturbing.

Though it really bears out a thorough discussion and deconstruction of the last half century of heritage-preservation-leveraged urban culture--especially in the aftermath of Koolhaas's and Glaeser's critiques; because, once again, this whole Gehry/Mirvish scheme seems a response to, well, the post-Koolhaas/Glaeser "mood in the air".

And once again, my old question: what if Penn Station's replacement was by Mies, instead of Charles Luckman? Would the last half-century heritage narrative be significantly different?

Because in a way, that's what help fuel the "heritage revolution". Not the mere losses per se, but the fact that the replacements were so often humdrum-to-schlock and inadequate for the occasion. To the point where the posthumous "never again" furor even wound up attaching itself to cases where the replacement *was* up to the occasion (say, Carrere & Hastings' Bank of Toronto, sacrificed for Mies). Which ultimately led to, I suppose, the hyperactive fetishization of contextualism and existing building fabric retention: "good manners", "respect for what's extant", et al--with an assist from the fact that the apron of "latent heritage worthiness" wound up spreading far beyond what the 1960s could have forecast, even paradoxically landing on the doorstep of the replacement buildings which 60s activists decried.

And beneath all of this, there was a vestigial architectural culture that was hot and bothered--with all these heritage and NIMBYish constraints, they couldn't do nuthin'. That is, unless they went to "developing metropolii" such as in Asia, where the hysterical preservationists hadn't gone bonkers yet. So, that's what they did--and the "future template" was set. Now, they're transcribing it all back to North America by, basically, squatting atop the wimpy heritage community kinda like George Smitherman squatted atop wimpy Joe Pantalone. In which case, no contest. And barely any wiggle-room for discussion, either--or at least, the prospect of "discussion" ought to be conveniently framed and brushed off as a bunch of dotty contemporary-hating Prince Charleses...

It's in that climate where you have people like freshcutgrass expressing opinions like "I'd bulldoze those dead zone buildings for a lot less than what is proposed"--IOW, it's as if Gehry/Mirvish has unleashed a more thoroughgoing heritage-hostile sentiment out there, even if it's in the guise of "post-heritage"...

Isn't it true that popular sentiment is never in equilibrium on any issue. In fact we swing on either side, hopefully not too far. And of course within popular sentiment there are parties on opposite rotations. I think this leads to more durability than some stable static brittle view. So we need to be cautious about destroying old structures because they are by defination finite, whereas new projects are theoretically infinite. Also older structures provide a sense of place that newer building take decades to establish. It must be heart-rending for Chinese people to visit spots that were once humble thatch roofed villages where they were born and spent time with long dead grand-parents. And to see literally everything gone - trees, streams, farm plots replaced by legions of apt buildings. Well that is very jarring and bad for the psyche. But statis is also unnatural. So its all about finding a balance or moving towards it, constantly over shooting, and reversing course.

I've found that once a new building is completed, within 5 years i cant recall what preceded it. There may be some intuitive rate of replacement that humans can absorb without losing sense of place. Maybe its 5% of the city's stock (for the sake of argument). So actual pace matters. But concentrated replacement of existing stock isn't bad - who knows what Chartres Cathedral replaced? Sometimes you need a clean slate! On balance Toronto has done an exceptional job of preserving whatever was worth preserving over the last 20 years. The only wholesale changes have occured in derilict areas like the rail-lands. I think people can psychologally handle radical range in contrained confines. 90% of Toronto's residential and historic areas are safe. No-one belives King East, for example, is going to get razed.

However, there is also a sense that extraordinary projects do not materialize often. They are vulnerable to economic slow-downs, political interference or grand standing, small mindedness and so forth. So when petty issues get raised in a reflexive way supporters understandably rush to defend the proposals because they are very vulnerable in their rearly days. there is a strong feeling that the buildings in questions are ordinary. Sure its a place that seems to work because we are used to it being there. But honestly - it is not special!

 

[Hipster Duck]

On balance Toronto has done an exceptional job of preserving whatever was worth preserving over the last 20 years. The only wholesale changes have occured in derilict areas like the rail-lands. I think50s people can psychologally handle radical range in contrained confines. 90% of Toronto's residential and historic areas are safe. No-one belives King East, for example, is going to get razed.

The only reason for this is that the historic fabric of Toronto was so thoroughly destroyed in the 1950s-early 1970s that by the mid-90s basically 1/3 of the downtown surface area was covered in parking lots. This sustained the boom of the last 12 years, but downtown parking lots are starting to (thankfully) become an endangered species, and I think you'll see that developers will turn to historic areas and you will also see how toothless Toronto's preservation laws really are.

there is a strong feeling that the buildings in questions are ordinary. Sure its a place that seems to work because we are used to it being there. But honestly - it is not special!

Maybe that's precisely what makes them special - the fact that they're ordinary. Think about it this way: the area in question is basically a concentration of landmarks: the Royal Alex, Metro Hall, Roy Thompson hall, the Bell Lightbox, the Convention Centre, the CN Tower and, in a strange way, the former Holiday Inn. This row of buildings represents a sort of normalcy to an area that would otherwise just be a bunch of contrasting building forms and shapes that compete with one another. I prefer cities where the landmarks are distributed evenly throughout the city than those which concentrate them in one spot. Imagine how silly it would look if the ESB, Chrysler building, UN HQ and World Trade Center were all on opposite corners of the same intersection.

 

[buildup]

"I think you'll see that developers will turn to historic areas and you will also see how toothless Toronto's preservation laws really are."

I disagree. I any case, that is not what we are addressing here.


"Maybe that's precisely what makes them special - the fact that they're ordinary."

Well played Hipster, well played. I hadn't antipated that gambit.

Hey TROLL! Get in here!!