MetroMan
Senior Member
Had they been on the south side, I'm sure the AGO would have buried the wires themselves as part of the makeover.
I am not sure how long this current Chinatown is going to last - there is a significant number of stores closed between AGO and Spadina.
There is absolutely no connection between the Spadina Expressway and a vision for a plaza in front of the AGO......we need more public spaces, I don't think Jane Jacobs would disapprove of a public plaza here;the site north of the AGO would be ideal, imo.....I'm with Fiendish on this one...
I don't think it's the row of Victorian houses on the north side that are the problem - their architecture is beautiful and charming, and they contrast wonderfully with the new AGO. That strip will be an asset once more interesting retail settles in - just think of the one on King street that everybody loves here, across from the future Festival Tower/Lightbox project. In my opinion the real ugliness lies to the west of the AGO, but I wouldn't advocate demolition. The AGO's influence, combined with the decline of Chinatown, will likely take care of that through regular market forces.
Finally...those seemingly high-class tourists and visitors who're plum disgusted by the hemmed-in grittiness/grottiness around AGO? Just view them as pompous pricks. Look: this is Gehry's Toronto, still as sloppily slovenly delightfully gefilte as it comes, long after Spadina's Jewish retail largely fled for parts beyond...
I think the AGO will achieve the necessary fame/notoriety... precisely because it has had a loving make-over by a world-famous local boy... and it sits in a "suprising", less than grand neighourhood without "attention! major attraction" type warning or context.
Most "famous" iconic structures disappoint in person (not the Taj) because of their inflated advanced PR. Imagine finding the new AGO after dim sum...
I think the reason I disagree is because part of what makes Toronto interesting to the eye is that it is scattered and messy. Something new and important will be right beside something old and maybe dirty. Although each building that is like that by itself seems bad, it creates an overall effect that is interesting and inspiring to me. I grew up in this city and that look is what I have come to associate with it.
If we just steamroll all the older buildings that aren't new and flashy and push all the tenants out then i fear Toronto could end up looking very stale.
If you do it once then you set a precedent to do it over and over.
Finally...those seemingly high-class tourists and visitors who're plum disgusted by the hemmed-in grittiness/grottiness around AGO? Just view them as pompous pricks. Look: this is Gehry's Toronto, still as sloppily slovenly delightfully gefilte as it comes, long after Spadina's Jewish retail largely fled for parts beyond...
Where do you draw the line? Do those asphalt patches and gum stains add to your nostalgia too? How about graffiti and postering? Would this be acceptable to you along University Avenue and Queen's Park, or at the Distillery? Not all of Toronto is 'scattered and messy', and some better maintained areas of the city still manage to preserve their character and sense of place.
Adma said:Finally...those seemingly high-class tourists and visitors who're plum disgusted by the hemmed-in grittiness/grottiness around AGO? Just view them as pompous pricks. Look: this is Gehry's Toronto, still as sloppily slovenly delightfully gefilte as it comes, long after Spadina's Jewish retail largely fled for parts beyond...
can someone explain to me why we need a public square across the street from the AGO when Grange Park is ripe for the picking? Is it necessary to have two large public spaces on either side of the AGO?
Some people still don't get it. The AGO is a destination. It will be visited by people from around the world. Most of these people aren't high-class tourists (They have Greek islands and Provencal beaches to spend their dough on), but rather working and middle class folk. They will be the ones telling their friends about the time they spent in the city, and word of mouth does help. There's nothing wrong with a city being gritty, but come on, this will be one of the city's major tourist destination. Let's at least give its surroundings, and the people who WANT to spend their hard earned money in Toronto something they deserve. If they want grit send them to Kensington.
Here's a question: can you show me another top quality tourist destination anywhere that exists within such ratty surroundings? Off the top of my head, I'm having trouble. Now I'm not saying tear everything down, but that stretch of Dundas needs to be spruced up a bit. It would be a shame to keep things the way they are, in the presence of such a building.