Toronto Regent Park: Phases 4 and 5 | 134.1m | 39s | Tridel | Karakusevic Carson Architects

AlvinofDiaspar said:
I'd rather save one of those old Dickinson slabs than these nondescript, functionally obsolete buildings for the sake of memory.

AoD
Click to expand...
what is heritage conservation beyond the telling the story of our collective history? Heritage assessments assess cultural relevance as well as physical features for a reason.

That's not to say every old building needs to be preserved, far from it, but I think it would be an error to demolish the original Regent Park complex in its entirety with nothing to show for the 70 years of history the complex created for the neighbourhood. I agree that the retention of a DIckenson Slab would have been preferable, but that's not possible any more and was apparently functionally challenging even when it was possible regardless.
 
innsertnamehere said:
what is heritage conservation beyond the telling the story of our collective history? Heritage assessments assess cultural relevance as well as physical features for a reason.

That's not to say every old building needs to be preserved, far from it, but I think it would be an error to demolish the original Regent Park complex in its entirety with nothing to show for the 70 years of history the complex created for the neighbourhood.
Click to expand...

If one can't get itself to save something that has both architectural and historical merit (in fact, it's been specifically mentioned that they don't want to save it because it reminds them of community trauma), I don't really see the point of saving this for "heritage" just because it is the easiest thing to do.

AoD
 
AlvinofDiaspar said:
If one can't get itself to save something that has both architectural and historical merit (in fact, it's been specifically mentioned that they don't want to save it because it reminds them of community trauma), I don't really see the point of saving this for "heritage" just because it is the easiest thing to do.

AoD
Click to expand...
it's not an "easy" thing at this point - like it or not the Dickensons are gone. So we are left choosing from what is actually still standing.

I understand the trauma bit, but it's important to show history in its truest, ugliest form sometimes.

Weaponizing Heritage is a real concern in modern planning, but I don't think saving a single building on a site this size to preserve the tower-in-the-park public housing works history is weaponizing it at all. It's acknowledging that past while still allowing the community to move on from it.
 
innsertnamehere said:
what is heritage conservation beyond the telling the story of our collective history? Heritage assessments assess cultural relevance as well as physical features for a reason.
Click to expand...

Saving what is beloved and beautiful.

I would argue these are by far the most important reasons for heritage retention.
 
innsertnamehere said:
it's not an "easy" thing at this point - like it or not the Dickensons are gone. So we are left choosing from what is actually still standing.
Click to expand...

I'm not sure why these are viewed favourably by many in the architectural community. I always found them unattractive.
Residents generally didn't see much merit in them either.

I suspect if you polled the broader community about the value of retaining them, it wouldn't pass muster.

I grant, that might be said of some building I find worthy; and/or perhaps so in the past. But I find it hard to ascertain either historical importance or aesthetically exceptional qualities (in a positive sense) from these.

Heretical, I know.

innsertnamehere said:
I understand the trauma bit, but it's important to show history in its truest, ugliest form sometimes.
Click to expand...

Why? This is not a German concentration camp; nor a hangman's gallows.........

I don't see any great lessons on social justice being taught through retention here.

***

I hasten to add, the massing conceptualization is actually adaptive re-use, with 2 additions, a tower, a single-storey on the other side) which would obliterate many of the original apartments; would alter its exterior appearance significantly and remove what is arguably the defining feature of Regent Park's original iteration which is the tower/townhouse in-the-park feel.

I have included a cropped image below:

1639070537915.png
 
Last edited:
Northern Light said:
Saving what is beloved and beautiful.

I would argue these are by far the most important reasons for heritage retention.
Click to expand...


Beloved and beautiful to who? White educated / monied torontonians?

We've already seen so many examples of cultural and architectural erasure - putting up blinders to our modernist past in favour of a more pastoral victorian diorama view of history. Telling the story of Regent Park's history can't be done through interpretation alone - I think saving one of the buildings and putting it to use in a new way will only add to the vibrancy of the area.
 
DavidCapizzano said:
Beloved and beautiful to who? White educated / monied torontonians?

We've already seen so many examples of cultural and architectural erasure - putting up blinders to our modernist past in favour of a more pastoral victorian diorama view of history. Telling the story of Regent Park's history can't be done through interpretation alone - I think saving one of the buildings and putting it to use in a new way will only add to the vibrancy of the area.
Click to expand...

What does money have to do with it?

Just read what's written.

Area residents (as in residents of Regent Park itself) already stated as noted in posts above that they did not wish to retain the buildings.

In fact, it's only a small minority of people, largely well educated and monied who wish to retain the building, none of whom live in this complex.
 
On heritage: There’s a lot of speculation here about why one apartment building is being retained, and who wants this to happen.

I’ll say this. When I wrote a blog post defending the Dickinson towers, I received emails from not one but two residents of those buildings who shared the view that they should have been retained. While it is certainly true that many people in Regent Park were happy with a tabula rasa approach, not everyone was or is.

And when a building is transformed, with new additions and likely new cladding, its reception can change.

In any case, there are many reasons to consider adaptive reuse of a bldg like the apartments in question. Doing so guarantees a diversity of spaces and materials. It also conserves the embodied energy in the structure of the building.

This is good news.
 
I'm glad they are planning to retain some of the existing buildings, but I'm a bit surprised that they've chosen that particular residential building. In my mind, the H-shaped 4 story buildings with green entranceways are what Regent is known for. Those footprints are especially iconic. I would have liked if one of those had been repurposed in an interesting way. As for the incinerator building, I'm eagerly awaiting what the vision is for that. It's not much of a visual landmark currently, but may make sense as the centre of a northern extension to the Big Park.
 
Northern Light said:
Area residents (as in residents of Regent Park itself) already stated as noted in posts above that they did not wish to retain the buildings.

In fact, it's only a small minority of people, largely well educated and monied who wish to retain the building, none of whom live in this complex.
Click to expand...
I don't think it's fair to make blanket statements about the preferences of residents. As with anything, there is certainly a diversity of opinions.

Even though the building isn't architecturally exciting on its own, I agree that it has contextual value. Do we really need to knock down every last brick of one of Canada's earliest and most significant public housing projects? If an original building can be successfully integrated into the redevelopment, why not try to do it? We're clearly in good hands, architecturally speaking -- let's see what they have in store for the building before deciding that it must be demolished.
 
As as someone who knows someone who lived at 325 Gerrard Street East, the interior of that building is absolutely terrible.
There is cockroach and mice infestations in many units, not to mention the amount of security issues due to the design of the building. People who live in that building went through a lot of scary traumatic experiences such as encountering drug dealers, gang members always leaving the door entry and exit ways open. They should definitely demolish that building, it is literally decaying inside. This will definitely not go down well with the residents if they do come to know about this... People who never lived in any of these regent park buildings always comment about wanting to keep one building but if they lived in them, their tune will change.
 
I know it's not entirely comparable, but HK's Kowloon Walled City had way more significance but was still torn down. Mind you, it was an engineering/ safety nightmare with no code or structural supervision and questionable repair & maintenance. The Regent Park buildings could very well be in a similar state of disrepair that make it completely inefficient to preserve.
 
IMO, there's nothing wrong with keeping an element of the OG Regent Park; at this point, the whole raft of issues about the physical and programmatic space that it faced have largely been defanged, and what we have left is relatively harmless.

I think there's interesting opportunities to reinterpret a building like this, as long as the changes can fix the remaining issues this building faces.
 
Last edited:
You must log in or register to post here.

Back
Top