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

adma said:
But, look at it this way, skyrises of the world. You seem awfully concerned w/new construction. Yet you also seem to be disconcertingly unconcerned/disinterested re old construction; almost to the point where overengaging to it is a formula for "stagnation".


Within a "skyrise" universe, all the niggling would be over the quality of its replacement. But what I'm arguing is that a healthier and even more "progressive" approach to beholding urbanity would be to have some constructive regard for what already exists. Which I'd rather advance as a "preemptive" argument than a "save" argument--though yes, I realize (and even welcome the fact) that the former can feed and nurture the latter.

*That's* what makes cities and built environment endlessly interesting and fascinating: the years, decades, and centuries of depth and density and "readability". And, stagnant, schmagnant; it's the perfect approach t/w "redeeming" the Buffalos and Hamiltons of the world (remember: their suffering isn't merely lack of development, it's through the underdeveloped ability to "read oneself").
Click to expand...

On the contrary. For example, I am completely disgusted with the treatment of the Concourse Building which, had you been paying attention, I have mentioned a few times in this thread. In a city that has a very limited stock of Art Deco high-rises, to lose this one is an absolute travesty. What we get is a facadectomy, and we will forever lose the charm of the entire built form of this building and its incredible lobby. I applaud developments such as Five, the Distillery District, and The Imperial Oil Building. Projects that actually preserve heritage.

As for Mirvish, I am fine with integrating the warehouses, though I do not agree they have the same significance as the aforementioned heritage redevelopments. In all likelihood they will be retained in some sort of facadectomy, which is absolutely, in no way, heritage preservation.

The bigger issue here for me is the fear that so many in Toronto have of this development, its scale, and audaciousness. This is the litmus test, if you will, to if to see if Toronto can move past its conservative, conformist approach to design. Its also about letting go of Toronto's outdated definition of density, and realizing this is not downtown Sudbury or the suburbs.
 
Speaking of fear, isn't that the primary driver of that comment? Fear that Toronto is too conservative, fear that if this project doesn't go ahead no other interesting proposal will come along, fear that this is the litmus test, the last chance etc.

I'm definately pro development but to me this project raises serious question marks. It is not however some kind of do or die issue to be enshrined in the sky. If this proposal marks anything historically to me it may be as a symbol of the end of this real estate cycle. A cycle that has brought great change and a lot of interesting material for this forum and on balance (as critical as I am of our highrise condo legacy) a lot of positives to the city.
 
TrickyRicky said:
Speaking of fear, isn't that the primary driver of that comment? Fear that Toronto is too conservative, fear that if this project doesn't go ahead no other interesting proposal will come along, fear that this is the litmus test, the last chance etc.
Click to expand...

True, we will see what happens to other mega projects (ex. 1 Yonge Street and Oxford Place) and have a better idea of what direction City Planning is taking
 
Adma a child genius? I don't think so (at least not anymore). He is a grown up genius now.
Reverse those two numbers and I think you'll have a more accurate age range:p
 
skyrise said:
On the contrary. For example, I am completely disgusted with the treatment of the Concourse Building which, had you been paying attention, I have mentioned a few times in this thread. In a city that has a very limited stock of Art Deco high-rises, to lose this one is an absolute travesty. What we get is a facadectomy, and we will forever lose the charm of the entire built form of this building and its incredible lobby. I applaud developments such as Five, the Distillery District, and The Imperial Oil Building. Projects that actually preserve heritage.
Click to expand...

Though a few qualifications on behalf of (if not in defence of) the Concourse situation:
(a) it may be a facadectomy (or more precisely, a facadectomy-*plus*, i.e. you'll more likely see the "incredible" lobby reconstituted and restored); but when it comes to optics, that still registers as a token step upward from total demolition--that is, it's no worse than the resurrected Commercial Bank facade within BCE Place;
(b) it was a facadectomy with an elaborate E.R.A. historical report behind it, something which also aided the retention of 111 Richmond for Google et al--common technique which E.R.A. is expert at providing services for: offer a rich, glossy report worthy of Toronto Preservation Services as a client's "yeah, we care, we're conscientious, but" smokescreen for demolition as opposed to preservation (not surprisingly, E.R.A. has provided a counter-report to the City's heritage report for Mirvish)
(c) the real critical moment for protesting the proposed Concourse demolition was 13, 14 years ago--thanks to downtown office economies et al, what's happening now was "in the can" for that long; the City dropped the ball then, not now. And back then, we didn't have the mass-whistleblowing network of urban blogs and forums and sites we have now--indeed, back then, grassroots heritage activism was still pigeonholed as the realm of old grumps and fussbudgets like Jane Beecroft, etc

Oh, and (d) I'd quibble about Imperial Oil due to what's been done to the penthouse.
 
adma said:
Though a few qualifications on behalf of (if not in defence of) the Concourse situation:
(a) it may be a facadectomy (or more precisely, a facadectomy-*plus*, i.e. you'll more likely see the "incredible" lobby reconstituted and restored); but when it comes to optics, that still registers as a token step upward from total demolition--that is, it's no worse than the resurrected Commercial Bank facade within BCE Place;
(b) it was a facadectomy with an elaborate E.R.A. historical report behind it, something which also aided the retention of 111 Richmond for Google et al--common technique which E.R.A. is expert at providing services for: offer a rich, glossy report worthy of Toronto Preservation Services as a client's "yeah, we care, we're conscientious, but" smokescreen for demolition as opposed to preservation (not surprisingly, E.R.A. has provided a counter-report to the City's heritage report for Mirvish)
(c) the real critical moment for protesting the proposed Concourse demolition was 13, 14 years ago--thanks to downtown office economies et al, what's happening now was "in the can" for that long; the City dropped the ball then, not now. And back then, we didn't have the mass-whistleblowing network of urban blogs and forums and sites we have now--indeed, back then, grassroots heritage activism was still pigeonholed as the realm of old grumps and fussbudgets like Jane Beecroft, etc

Oh, and (d) I'd quibble about Imperial Oil due to what's been done to the penthouse.
Click to expand...

Incredible. You were involved in heritage activism at the age of 2? ;)

I have to agree with skyrise on this. The loss of the Concourse Building is a huge blow to heritage preservation in this city, which has, IMO, triggered a reactive activism that aims to prohibit the redevelopment of anything old enough to be deemed "heritage" (often regardless of actual uniqueness/importance). The side effect is a complete disregard to the uniqueness/importance of the replacement building(s); blind/blanket activism is really kind of ironic, because the mentality is very similar to that which lead to the destruction of many of our worthy heritage buildings.
 
Last edited:
adma said:
(not surprisingly, E.R.A. has provided a counter-report to the City's heritage report for Mirvish)
Click to expand...

Adma, have you seen this? I looked in the obvious places online but couldn't find it. I generally find ERA to do high quality work, but their report submitted with this application was the worst one I've seen them do.
 
greenleaf said:
Adma, have you seen this? I looked in the obvious places online but couldn't find it. I generally find ERA to do high quality work, but their report submitted with this application was the worst one I've seen them do.
Click to expand...

Probably half "coasting" on their reputation, and half knowing that if they offered any more than a token half-baked client-satisfying effort, they might well wind up undermining the case they're working on behalf of...
 
DtTO said:
I have to agree with skyrise on this. The loss of the Concourse Building is a huge blow to heritage preservation in this city, which has, IMO, triggered a reactive activism that aims to prohibit the redevelopment of anything old enough to be deemed "heritage" (often regardless of actual uniqueness/importance). The side effect is a complete disregard to the uniqueness/importance of the replacement building(s); blind/blanket activism is really kind of ironic, because the mentality is very similar to that which lead to the destruction of many of our worthy heritage buildings.
Click to expand...

Except that technically, what I'd interpret as the "reactive activism" you're decrying actually pre-dated the Concourse crisis--going back at least to the dawn of the facadectomy era in the 1980s, if not further. To suggest that the decreed loss of the Concourse Building triggered anything just reflects your ignorance of the subject at hand--all the more so if one considers that if it weren't for the "Group Of Seven" decorative aspect, I'd reckon that you'd find the case for the Concourse to be yet more of that "reactive activism", especially when one considers that the regurgitated Concourse actually means to *retain and restore* said decorative aspect.

In fact, I'd rather invert your argument--that is, rather than a trigger for "reactive activism", the Concourse demolition proposal actually marked a turn away from 80s/90s-style timid clingy reactivism; and as such, ushered in the era in which Mirvish/Gehry schemes were possible...
 
You must log in or register to post here.

Back
Top