Toronto scraps museum project, plans to raze site instead

[Tewder]

Here is the problem. It's fine for an "elite-ish" body to make the decision to say Canada Malting is worthy of protection so on and so forth. Notwithstanding that, someone has to hit the turnstyles and make the building viable and stop it from crumbling, which is by necessity a function of popular opinion.

Why are you assuming that the noble unwashed masses will keep away? As has already been argued power plants, mills, warehouses and industrial buildings of all types have already been revitalized and adapted for all kinds of uses all over, including Toronto for that matter. From the Wychwood Barns to the Leon's Roundhouse both public and private initiatives have proven successful in breathing new life into historic buildings for the benefit of all.

The dozen or so Torontonians who might actually care about the Silos won't put enough money into the place themselves, so it is stupid to pretend as though the utter lack of public interest in the Malting Silos is irrelevant. Someone has to pay for this, and it won't be you or Tewder.

[...]

At the end of the day, what is the dream situation here for heritage fetishists? This just feeds more people's "in Europe..." complex and gives them space to vent about culturally backwards North Americans. Never mind that most of those Forts and Churches in Europe are funded by tourist revenues.

I wouldn't paint all North Americans with the same brush. There are many communities this side of the pond that value their history and heritage...

What's more, it isn't necessarily about 'me' paying for these things so much as 'we'. Much of all that there culture in Europe is sponsored by tax payers which is where the issue does become politicized, and which is where I feel that Toronto falls down in its responsibilities.

 

[adma]

Why are you assuming that the noble unwashed masses will keep away? As has already been argued power plants, mills, warehouses and industrial buildings of all types have already been revitalized and adapted for all kinds of uses all over, including Toronto for that matter. From the Wychwood Barns to the Leon's Roundhouse both public and private initiatives have proven successful in breathing new life into historic buildings for the benefit of all.

Why does Whoaccio assume? Because he habitually assumes that that weasel-wordy entity known as "people" or "the public" is, or ought to be, as angry as he is. Like, re his...

Most people who look at the Silos come to one unavoidable conclusion, "I don't want to pay to visit that."

Actually, by this measure, most people who look at Casa Loma (and the costs involved in visiting) would probably come to the same "unavoidable conclusion". Heck, I'd even argue likewise for the much less overpriced-tourist-trappy Spadina House across the way. They'd gladly visit; but, paying is another matter (that's why they'd rather freeload off Doors Open). Face it; "most people" are cheap. They just aren't ultra-militant about it; otherwise, the city'd be run on threadbare Doug Holyday principles or something. Instead, to reflect back on Whoaccio, this situation prevails. And, I'm sorry, but "most people" aren't as beet-red angry about it as Whoaccio is.

Personally, I think that most people don't come to one conclusion or another re Canada Malting; and on the whole, a fairly significant mass of them would probably find the feelgood heritage/urban-aesthetic-object/adaptive-reusable argument sexier than the "ugly eyesore which nobody likes" argument--and yes, if it were at the very least made safe and into a Doors Open attraction, they probably *would* (through tax dollars going into supporting Doors Open, or whatever) "pay to visit it". It'd be no more ugly, horrific, or uninteresting than the Don Jail, if you get my drift.

It isn't just a "dozen or so Torontonians who might actually care about the Silos", any more than it's just a "dozen or so Torontonians who might actually care about" Casa Loma, Spadina House, etc. And that's not an argument that Canada Malting is of absolute equal importance or as dumb-easy a tourist draw, either...

 

[dt_toronto_geek]

I can't recall if this has been brought up, but aside from the silos and buildings crumbling these buildings are loaded with grain dust and asbestos which would require a complete cleanup before any restoration could begin. Another unfortunate (and expensive) hurdle to be overcome if anything is to come of the site.

 

[Whoaccio]

Why are you assuming that the noble unwashed masses will keep away? As has already been argued power plants, mills, warehouses and industrial buildings of all types have already been revitalized and adapted for all kinds of uses all over, including Toronto for that matter. From the Wychwood Barns to the Leon's Roundhouse both public and private initiatives have proven successful in breathing new life into historic buildings for the benefit of all.

That is asinine. The differences between, say, the Wychwood Barns and the Malting Silos have been pointed out enough. The long short of it, old warehouses/factories are easy to convert into uses that yuppies will pay a premium to enjoy due to features which are perceived by many to be pleasant, like high ceilings and large floor plates. Windowless discs 6m in diameter with asbestos insulation, I'm sure you can imagine, don't exactly inspire yuppies.

I assume the "unwashed masses" (really, I've been quite clear the only people who matter for this are yuppies with highly disposable incomes and not NASCAR dad. but whatever) will keep away because after a few decades of major real estate expansion, the best proposal has been a music museum that most people thought was a joke. If people thought they were going to get a return on this, something would have happened over the past decades. The QuakerSquare conversion, which adma referenced earlier, was so unpopular with Hilton clients it's been pawned off to the University which is forcing students to live there. There are some very fundamental problems with this site which prevent succesful reuses. Those limitations exist no matter how much you ignore them.

Why does Whoaccio assume? Because he habitually assumes that that weasel-wordy entity known as "people" or "the public" is, or ought to be, as angry as he is. Like, re his...

I'm not angry, I'm smug. Unless something really zany happens, the silos will be demolished and something better will replace them. That you have to resort to visibly ridiculous arguments (hint, "people" isn't a weasel-word, it is one of the most frequently used words in the language with fairly clear connotations) or like claiming stereotypically fringe groups like urban-explorers are somehow representative just makes me more smug. It is like arguing with a creationist, it just makes you feel warm and fuzzy on the inside.

Actually, by this measure, most people who look at Casa Loma (and the costs involved in visiting) would probably come to the same "unavoidable conclusion". Heck, I'd even argue likewise for the much less overpriced-tourist-trappy Spadina House across the way. They'd gladly visit; but, paying is another matter (that's why they'd rather freeload off Doors Open). Face it; "most people" are cheap. They just aren't ultra-militant about it; otherwise, the city'd be run on threadbare Doug Holyday principles or something. Instead, to reflect back on Whoaccio, this situation prevails. And, I'm sorry, but "most people" aren't as beet-red angry about it as Whoaccio is.

Okay, let me get this strait. People like free things, because "most people are cheap." Fair enough, who doesn't like free stuff? So, if things were free, people would visit it no matter what. So, rather than address my original point (nobody will pay to visit....), you simply made the statement that if everything was free, there would be near unlimited demand, which is neither original nor relevant. When do you think you will get your Nobel Prize for the seriously inventive idea that if you make something free, demand will rise? Groundbreaking work there. For future study, you might want to consider the impact on demand for heritage if we start paying people to visit abandoned warehouses.

Let me clarify my earlier point so that art school graduates can understand. Generally, things cost money, yes? Generally, those costs are met by gate revenue. If there is no gate revenue, costs can't be payed. If costs can't be payed, things deteriorate. If things deteriorate, eventually they dissappear. If nobody is willing to pay to visit, say, a music museum in the Malting Silos, nobody will want to invest in it now will they? And what happens when nobody invests? The Malting Silos fall apart and eventually demolished. You can see that people being unwilling to pay to visit the Malting Silos is a key reason why they are about to be euthanized, yes?

Personally, I think that most people don't come to one conclusion or another re Canada Malting;

If they don't have an opinion, it means they don't care. That has sort of been my point from the get go, no one cares about the Silos hence why they are crumbling hence why they will be demolished. You just take anything which could imply heritage preservation is subservient to minor details like structural engineering or economics as an affront to some ridiculously unidimensional world view.

 

[adma]

Oh, that Whoaccio. Forever the 1993/97/2000 Reform/Alliance candidate with 13% of the vote, sneering at the NDPer with 4% of the vote, while conveniently disregarding the Liberal with 55% of the vote...

 

[Tewder]

That is asinine. The differences between, say, the Wychwood Barns and the Malting Silos have been pointed out enough.

Is it though? It's a little cavalier after the fact to claim that certain cherry-picked examples of adaptive reuse were always 'obvious' and were clearly destined successes from the inception. Keep it in mind that it is always far easier and less expensive to wreck and rebuild...

The long short of it, old warehouses/factories are easy to convert into uses that yuppies will pay a premium to enjoy due to features which are perceived by many to be pleasant, like high ceilings and large floor plates. Windowless discs 6m in diameter with asbestos insulation, I'm sure you can imagine, don't exactly inspire yuppies.

[...]

I assume the "unwashed masses" (really, I've been quite clear the only people who matter for this are yuppies with highly disposable incomes and not NASCAR dad. but whatever) will keep away because after a few decades of major real estate expansion, the best proposal has been a music museum that most people thought was a joke.

Perhaps it was the idea of the music museum that was the joke and not necessarily the silo concept for it?

NASCAR as a passtime doesn't exactly come cheap either, by the way. It's all a matter of how you want to prioritize your spending and where you want to spend it. To work with the stereotype as you portray it, however, I really don't see "NASCAR Dad" being all too concerned about the built form or heritage to begin with so what's your point? We as a society/community shouldn't care about our history? We shouldn't care about the heritage of the built form whatsoever and that all is completely fair game for the wrecking ball?? Heck, why should we even care about issues of urban beautification/aesthetics or streetscaping/planning of public spaces at all for that matter if "NASCAR Dad" doesn't appprove?

I'm not angry, I'm smug. Unless something really zany happens, the silos will be demolished and something better will replace them. That you have to resort to visibly ridiculous arguments (hint, "people" isn't a weasel-word, it is one of the most frequently used words in the language with fairly clear connotations) or like claiming stereotypically fringe groups like urban-explorers are somehow representative just makes me more smug. It is like arguing with a creationist, it just makes you feel warm and fuzzy on the inside.

...okay, I like arguing with creationists too but that's another point.

These sorts of things are not just for the benefit of fringe groups. They are a part of the unique landscape that we share around us and an expression of the experience that joins us. I know this all sounds a little wishy washy for the phlegmatic among you but if we don't have passion about this then yes we may as well just wreck away indiscriminately as Whoaccio would suggest.

Private initiatives will no doubt play their part, and do, where the business model fits and a profit can be made, and not just on yuppies but on anybody who will enjoy the experience of dining in an old mill; or on any tradeshow organizers that will be lured by the added appeal of a sexy heritage venue like the Carlu or the restored Automotive building; or on neighbourhood/city residents who are happy to see the familiar buildings of their community revived with purpose... but:

Public initiatives should also play their part, and even more so perhaps when less apparant uses or more expensive/challenging opportunities are presented. We as taxpayers should be funding the heritage initiatives that will benefit the whole community - and I'm actually a fairly fiscally conservative person to be making this point!! - including 'NASCAR Dad' or his kids at the very least. There are a lot of cuts to spending I'd rather see and advocate for than those on heritage and history. Again, it's all about prioritization which brings me back full circle to the very original point I asserted that Torontonians in general (sorry Adma), have not yet made it a collectively politicized priority because they do not necessarily perceive the benefit. We should work to changin this, in my opinion.

 

[adma]

Again, it's all about prioritization which brings me back full circle to the very original point I asserted that Torontonians in general (sorry Adma), have not yet made it a collectively politicized priority because they do not necessarily perceive the benefit. We should work to changin this, in my opinion.

But to reiterate, it works both ways: just because saving it is not high priority among "Torontonians in general", doesn't mean they're predisposed to condemning it altogether a la "they shouldn't have bothered". Indeed, may I assume that the "Torontonians in general" viewpoint had hitherto been that Canada Malting was already "saved", or at least earmarked--and that's through its enduring symbiotic presence amidst the existing Harbourfront ensemble. And I do mean symbiotic: with its trees and forebuildings as well as the adjacency of the Harbourfront School and Ireland Park, Canada Malting's a far cry from the mired-in-a-sea-of-rubble situation of Victory Soya Mills. It begs engagement and a sort of aesthetic contemplation--in the end, those who still actively condemn it as an ugly eyesore (aside from its present state of repair) are little different from those who condemn taxpayer-funded "modern art" of all sorts.

My feeling is, "Torontonians in general" are more likely to read the piece which started this thread with sadness, rather than in the spirit of condemning a boondoggle which "nobody" likes. (Comment threads on newspaper websites are another matter--we already know that cranks run that particular asylum.)

Oh, and if we may return to the Akron example: consider that it may not be so much a problem of what it is, as where it is, and when it happened. Remember: this isn't Toronto. This is Akron. Rust Belt America, a la Buffalo, Detroit, Flint, etc. The subject of the Pretenders' "My City Was Gone", lest we forget (and let us forget its Limbaugh co-option). Thanks to deindustrialization, suburbanization, and all that plagued inner-citydom in the US at this time, Akron was already on the skids in the 70s. Against this tableau, Quaker Square was a well-meaning but ultimately doomed and desperate gimmick, no different from the many overwrought inner-city malls and festival marketplaces and RenCens and AutoWorlds. Don't blame the concept (though yes, you can blame the execution in some ways--they tried, but hey, it was the 70s), blame extenuating urban conditions--but it could and probably would've worked better in Toronto, much as the Eaton Centre and other such things work better here: unlike Akron, our urbanity is healthier at large, so something like this would gain from the symbiosis. And if it were to "fail", it wouldn't be a Flint-esque epic fail; it'd be more like how Queen's Quay Terminal (our purest Rouse-style "festival marketplace") faltered once its 1983-era novelty wore off. Yet, adapted over time, QQT is still there. (Condos and offices help; a freestanding touristy "pavilion" a la Rouse wouldn't have fared as well.)

 

[MatrixElement]

Night Pictures, September 23

We could always turn it into a haunted house and charge admission at Halloween. It's already quite surreal and spooky there at night:

http://www.flickr.com/photos/41002894@N07/3952122536/

http://www.flickr.com/photos/41002894@N07/3952122694/

http://www.flickr.com/photos/41002894@N07/3952122822/

 

[Urban Shocker]

Their decrepitude is precisely wherein lies their charm and their primary value - as markers of the ravages of time and the aging process. Fixer-uppers? Not so much, I think. Let them be.

Fixer-uppers might have been the more extensive and centrally located Maple Leaf Mills silos ( between Spadina and Maple Leaf quays ), demolished in 1983. But time and tide wait for no disused hulk ( just ask poor old Rack House 'M' ... ) and their Akron moment came and went just as the Terminal Warehouse caught that wave.

 

[Tewder]

Their decrepitude is precisely wherein lies their charm and their primary value - as markers of the ravages of time and the aging process. Fixer-uppers? Not so much, I think. Let them be..

Agreed, and these are the same reasons by the way that I consistently refuse any personal nip and tuck.

I like the towers as heritage form or simply as industrial urban art form and as Adma says would like to see them adapted into their location.

 

[adma]

Though there is still presently a genuine "safety factor" involved in simply leaving them be--at what point does "leaving them be" become a hazardous conceit?

Fixer-uppers might have been the more extensive and centrally located Maple Leaf Mills silos ( between Spadina and Maple Leaf quays ), demolished in 1983. But time and tide wait for no disused hulk ( just ask poor old Rack House 'M' ... ) and their Akron moment came and went just as the Terminal Warehouse caught that wave.

True, I was thinking of that--if anything in Toronto most monumentally embodied the Corbusian grain-silo vision, it was Maple Leaf Mills. But it also had a humongous Chinese Wall effect relative to the plans for extending Queen's Quay, etc, so it was written off early, with regrets--even if it had its highlighted final-decade moment in the sun as Harbourfront made creative lemonade out of its deindustrializing lemons.

Ah, imagine if photobloggers and urban explorationists existed in the early 80s...

 

[dt_toronto_geek]

When I photographed the area in mid-summer 2008 there were dozens upon dozens of caution/warning signs posted all around the site, lots of rusted fencing and if memory serves the east side along the slip has been completely fenced off for 8-10 years for safety reasons. This August I noted that more fencing has been put up in front of the rusting fence behind and access around the silos and warehouses has become even more limited. Left as is, these may not see the middle of the next decade.

 

[Towered]

Ah, imagine if photobloggers and urban explorationists existed in the early 80s...

Do you or anyone else remember the ruins of what I think was a (roller?)skating rink on Queens Quay in the early 80's? I just remember being fascinated by this crumpled hulk of bricks and twisted girders just lying there for years, collapsed from a fire apparently...

 

[junctionist]

Back in the 80s, there were still so many of those century old factories either abandoned or on their last breaths. It's really too bad that urban exploration and photoblogging didn't take off then. The "survivors" one sees today (including the ones being demolished) are mostly the facilities that were better off and fully modernized/sterilized.

 

[adma]

Back in the 80s, there were still so many of those century old factories either abandoned or on their last breaths. It's really too bad that urban exploration and photoblogging didn't take off then.

Although the spirit which spawned the same was there in utero, as part of early Harbourfront making lemonade out of a federal lemon (historical plaques, etc--and of course, the will to install a roller rink inside one of those big hulks; a decade later, it would have been a rave spot par excellence))