DavidJamesTO
Active Member
Has it been confirmed that 284 King will bite the dust too? If so I kind of feel sorry for the antique store inside; this will be the second time they've been displaced by condos.
Toronto Forma | 308m | 84s | Great Gulf | Gehry Partners
- Thread starter golodhendil
- Start date
Hipster Duck
Senior Member
"I disagree"? Do you mean, "I disagree with you on that point, and let me provide evidence why I don't think this is the case" or "I disagree."?
Wow. Stay klassy, buildup.
RC8
Senior Member
Where do you not get this kind of nonsense?
Toronto (without the amalgamated bits) is an incredibly mature city in this regard, I think. The political structure that allows 'ford nation' to decide what happens to bike lanes downtown is the real problem.
What makes the situation quite awkward in Toronto is how many people from the suburbs occupy the office space downtown. That trend will hopefully correct itself a bit in the long term.
buildup
Senior Member
"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."
No, I just disagree. But I will elaborate at your request. To assume that once the parking lots are filled in that developers will turn to historic areas ignores the vast reservior of banal buildings of no merit which can be replaced in the core. Good examples are the 6-8 story office buildings on Bay around college and elsewhere. The conciousness of the city has, without question, reached the point where the destruction of historic areas would not be tolerated. If you disagree then your have little faith in your fellow citizens. Are there any recent examples of historic areas being materially compromised?
I admit your other argument was intriquing and nearly, but not qute, convincing.
No, I just disagree. But I will elaborate at your request. To assume that once the parking lots are filled in that developers will turn to historic areas ignores the vast reservior of banal buildings of no merit which can be replaced in the core. Good examples are the 6-8 story office buildings on Bay around college and elsewhere. The conciousness of the city has, without question, reached the point where the destruction of historic areas would not be tolerated. If you disagree then your have little faith in your fellow citizens. Are there any recent examples of historic areas being materially compromised?
I admit your other argument was intriquing and nearly, but not qute, convincing.
Hipster Duck
Senior Member
Well, there's this example. I still support the Mirvish project, but it is basically a form of blockbusting at least one very significant cultural and architectural property (PoW). There are other cases like the Mirvish project where I grudgingly support the new project because the promise of something exciting offsets the loss of something important. Thus, I guess I'm okay with Snohetta's Ryerson project replacing Sam's spinning neon records or Gehry's AGO replacing the Barton Myers, or the Aga Khan replacing the Bata office building or the L tower looming over what remains of the O'Keefe centre.
But then there's the actual losses, and there are a lot of 'em:
There's the heritage mansion on Wellesley, east of Church that was recently trashed. There are threats to Restaurant row. There is a threat that an entire row of warehouses will be demolished further west on King, past Spadina, to build a banal office tower. A row of abandoned but restorable high Victorian bay and gables was demolished for 10 St. Thomas (or whatever) that's still a parking lot and sales centre years later. There were other forms of blockbusting that took place recently that we have forgotten about: Harry Stinson promised to restore the Nag's head tavern that 1KW replaced, but I think those plans are as good as gone; a lot of properties were flattened to make way for 1 Bedford, and all we got was the tackiest facadectomy; TGH had both its arms amputated to make way for MaRS.
I don't have enough space to chronicle how many brick, commercial facades have been blighted by EIFS or how many postwar bungalows have been ripped down to make way for the most sordid McMansions in the inner suburbs.
For every Dineen building or James Cooper mansion there are about ten other historic buildings that get demolished, facadectomied, stuccoed, or burn down or fall down due to neglect.
Last edited:
adma
Superstar
And regarding some of this "bring it on" or "I'd sacrifice it for much less" sentiment: remember something else--this forum "presumably" has a lot of participants from the design and development realm who, probably, in the past, have been cheesed off at having to jump various preservation-board hurdles in order to get their projects or "unfettered visions" through. It's like the Mars of Design having to grapple with the Venus of Heritage. I mean, I can understand when it leads to mongrelized shotgun results like the Lyle Studio at 1 Bedford--however, IIRC none other than Ye Godde Of Contemporarie Toronto Modernisme Peter Clewes deputed to the Preservation Board re the Thompson Hotel that International Harvester/Crangle's was of negligible real heritage importance and essentially dispensible, or something like that.
Yeah, I can understand if Clewes felt that retaining it compromised his artistic vision, much as retaining the King warehouses might compromise Gehry's vision--and I'm reserving judgment on how it was resolved (though it's definitely less pathetic than Lyle). But to get away from Thompson--imagine, in the broad (and I mean broad, not just "pedant") heritage-sympathetic universe out there, how such unimportant/dispensible judgment would go over. Not. Well. At. All. I mean, Clewes may be a great designer and all; but if my IIRC's correct, he, on his own, is truly self-servingly obtuse when it comes to today's heritage scope--perhaps, again, because it's the Venus to his Mars, professionally speaking.
For this mentality "in the air" (and from his tone, I'd wonder if that reflects the realm in which freshcutgrass operates), I'm sure that Gehry/Mirvish must come as a Banzai! moment--finally, they can sublimate all their years of aggravation at the hands of overzealous heritage-committee pedants through Something Truly Great, Better Than Clewes, Even.
Another case in point I've raised in the past: Context's gutting of the Ryrie Building at Yonge + Shuter for their offices--before Context came in, it was a glorious if tragically underappreciated rabbit warren of lightcourts and Sam Spade-ian offices like no other in Toronto. But I suppose that saving that would, in the eyes of a freshcutgrass, be "denying reality". (Well, look at it this way. Were the Ryrie incarnation to be a Doors Open attraction in its old incarnation or its present incarnation, guess which one would go over better with the Doors Open crowd. You guessed it: the old incarnation--though yeah, I suppose the sterile loft-style gut spaces presently within would have their fatuous design-dork attractiveness, particularly if Context has displays of their projects especially for Doors Open...)
Yeah, I can understand if Clewes felt that retaining it compromised his artistic vision, much as retaining the King warehouses might compromise Gehry's vision--and I'm reserving judgment on how it was resolved (though it's definitely less pathetic than Lyle). But to get away from Thompson--imagine, in the broad (and I mean broad, not just "pedant") heritage-sympathetic universe out there, how such unimportant/dispensible judgment would go over. Not. Well. At. All. I mean, Clewes may be a great designer and all; but if my IIRC's correct, he, on his own, is truly self-servingly obtuse when it comes to today's heritage scope--perhaps, again, because it's the Venus to his Mars, professionally speaking.
For this mentality "in the air" (and from his tone, I'd wonder if that reflects the realm in which freshcutgrass operates), I'm sure that Gehry/Mirvish must come as a Banzai! moment--finally, they can sublimate all their years of aggravation at the hands of overzealous heritage-committee pedants through Something Truly Great, Better Than Clewes, Even.
Another case in point I've raised in the past: Context's gutting of the Ryrie Building at Yonge + Shuter for their offices--before Context came in, it was a glorious if tragically underappreciated rabbit warren of lightcourts and Sam Spade-ian offices like no other in Toronto. But I suppose that saving that would, in the eyes of a freshcutgrass, be "denying reality". (Well, look at it this way. Were the Ryrie incarnation to be a Doors Open attraction in its old incarnation or its present incarnation, guess which one would go over better with the Doors Open crowd. You guessed it: the old incarnation--though yeah, I suppose the sterile loft-style gut spaces presently within would have their fatuous design-dork attractiveness, particularly if Context has displays of their projects especially for Doors Open...)
adma
Superstar
Oh, and incidentally, if I want to be a design-judge pedant for a second. contrary to a lot of armchair judges, I actually find the Anderson Building to be the ungainliest of the threatened frontages--it's only because it's clad in Oh Wow! Terra Cotta that it seems like the heritage star. (And I'll assert once again: the true star is Eclipse Whitewear, not least because of its more recent Diamond/Myers/KPMB provenance. Interestingly enough, it wasn't part of Mirvish's holdings until much later, perhaps even around the time of/in connection with the the Princess of Wales. It's also worth noting that it was listed on the Inventory of Heritage Properties way back in 1973; the others weren't listed until 1984. And every single one of these properties was designated just last year.)
freshcutgrass
Senior Member
Even if you were right...it's still just another straw man argument.
freshcutgrass
Senior Member
The original "Restaurant Row". And if the claim is correct.." 6000 meals per day", then probably almost as busy as the current one.
These buildings served their purpose long ago. It belonged to a lost era that included Winston's, Fenton's and Bemalmans.
Time to make way for greater things.
Thanks for the memories.
junctionist
Senior Member
In terms of the Princess of Wales Theatre, it's hard to believe it would be sacrificed. People like the Princess of Wales Theatre. It has murals by Frank Stella--one of which is 10,000 square feet in surface area. It gets great reviews, like a 4.5/5 on TripAdvisor and a 4.5 on Yelp. The Princess of Wales diversifies entertainment in the city. We already have an exceptional art gallery in the city. Its architect was Frank Gehry. Will the architecture even be original, or will it be a variation on 8 Spruce Street and merely reinforce the tiring "just like New York" cliche?
How can we demolish a building like the terracotta-clad Anderson Building at 254 King Street West? It's beautiful and it's historical. Crudely tacking its facade onto an eighty storey tower wouldn't achieve anything. It's hard to slight it because even with the finest architecture contemporary possible, it offers us something that we can't replace: economic and social history, a distinct and ornate architecture style, and a fine cladding material that was rather neglected in contemporary architecture post-1945. Frank Gehry can't give us 20th century history, and he can't give us this sort of ornate industrial architecture that could pass for a prestigious office. Here's what a warehouse looks like today. We're probably not going to get second chances with these King Street buildings.
In terms of the argument that building around such buildings would compromise the contemporary architecture, I consider it an outmoded tenet of Modernism. Unless the site is awkward, if an architect cannot work with the old buildings and fabric of the city, then that architect cannot be said to be very talented. I know Frank Gehry can work with the old. He has worked in cities where he could not demolish buildings like the Anderson Building. Dancing House in Prague, which stands wall-to-wall with heritage buildings, is iconic. It evokes progression and cultural sophistication standing beside those heritage buildings, rather than some elephant having crushed everything in its way. The development plan should build on the great things we already have; otherwise it seems like a trade-off we don't actually have to make. I won't accept David Mirvish's hypocrisy on heritage.
How can we demolish a building like the terracotta-clad Anderson Building at 254 King Street West? It's beautiful and it's historical. Crudely tacking its facade onto an eighty storey tower wouldn't achieve anything. It's hard to slight it because even with the finest architecture contemporary possible, it offers us something that we can't replace: economic and social history, a distinct and ornate architecture style, and a fine cladding material that was rather neglected in contemporary architecture post-1945. Frank Gehry can't give us 20th century history, and he can't give us this sort of ornate industrial architecture that could pass for a prestigious office. Here's what a warehouse looks like today. We're probably not going to get second chances with these King Street buildings.
In terms of the argument that building around such buildings would compromise the contemporary architecture, I consider it an outmoded tenet of Modernism. Unless the site is awkward, if an architect cannot work with the old buildings and fabric of the city, then that architect cannot be said to be very talented. I know Frank Gehry can work with the old. He has worked in cities where he could not demolish buildings like the Anderson Building. Dancing House in Prague, which stands wall-to-wall with heritage buildings, is iconic. It evokes progression and cultural sophistication standing beside those heritage buildings, rather than some elephant having crushed everything in its way. The development plan should build on the great things we already have; otherwise it seems like a trade-off we don't actually have to make. I won't accept David Mirvish's hypocrisy on heritage.
Last edited:
adma
Superstar
I suspect that when push comes to shove, the only "reality" being denied is your own self-interest.
Well, as per my design/development-professional point: freshcutgrass likely represents a contingent that would gladly do some kind of Common Sense Revolution de-fanging number on Toronto's existing heritage policy and inventories, because they're sick and tired of jumping hurdle after obstructionist hurdle...
rpeters
Active Member
What about the millions of torontonians who don't give a crap about theatre or can't afford it. They will get sculptures on their skyline for free. This is PUBLIC ART that would replace a private enterprise.
G
gabe
Guest
I like the theatre too, but it does sit empty more than it should. The last several shows i saw there it wasn't filled to capacity. If Mirvish wants to rejuvenate Toronto's theatre scene he can hire another "starchitect" and build a new smaller theatre some where else in the downtown.
freshcutgrass
Senior Member
That would require the city to...
A: have fangs
B: know how to use them
But I fail to see the relevance of your theories on what my position is on other topics.
Not only would I like to see the city develop fangs regarding heritage policy....I'd like them to use them. I'd also like them to use their time wisely when designating buildings. And the single biggest mistake here is designating the Mirvish buildings in question in the first place. Just because a building is 80 years old is hardly justification for heritage designation.
And the proof is in the pudding....if it were such a valuable designated heritage building, and therefore off limits...why the eff is it all being demolished even a conversation?????
freshcutgrass
Senior Member
Which are going to be saved. Frank Stella doesn't have a problem with it...David Mirvish (the OWNER) doesn't have a problem with it....so why do you? I don't think anybody appreciates the value of Stella in Toronto as much as Mirvish does....he probably owns more than anyone else, and is close personal friends with him (as well as many other artists).
If you are so in love with art, then you should support this project.
I think I can safely say that we should let David Mirvish worry about the theatre business in Toronto....seeing as I doubt there's anyone who knows more about how to operate in the theatre business than him. He'll be just fine without input from the peanut gallery.
Speaking of galleries, I can't believe all this energy is being spent pooping our pants over the loss of these vapid and inconsequential warehouses, instead of rubbing our hands with glee over the idea of gaining something as critical as a new gallery containing the private collection of David Mirvish, which I assure you...is of significance.