I think in Toronto, preservation isn't just about preserving the particular building in question but more about retaining architectural diversity and texture more generally such that you won't have as many stretches of repetitive, cold, corporate-looking streetscapes. This is of particular concern in the financial district where modern office towers are very tightly packed, but it can apply to other areas with high rates of new development as well. In this case, the brutalist building is unremarkable but likely more interesting than whatever they'd have come up with for the building podium should it be torn down.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Innsertnamehere
NYC has so much more historic building stock that heritage designations are reserved for basically only the true landmarks, arguably as it really should be.
Toronto's heritage regime comparatively has much less to "preserve" as the city is so much newer, so basically everything over 50 years old gets a heritage designation, and that designation only protects the facade of the structure.
Honestly I agree that a more restrained heritage approach only protecting the most significant buildings but with quite strong protections instead (i.e. no facadism) would probably be a better approach overall.
Remember that Toronto was smaller than Buffalo until the late 1940's..
|
Yeah that sounds like it's probably the best approach.