Demolition and deconstruction legacies: Toronto’s Honest Ed’s and Mirvish Village
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Purpose Building on the thematic intersection of architectural waste and conservation, the purpose of this paper is to look at the demolition and deconstruction of Honest Ed’s and Mirvish Village – an iconic site in downtown Toronto. In doing so, it examines contradictory site values and tensions inherent in sustainable heritage practices. Design/methodology/approach This article uses a “follow-the-thing” methodology – an approach developed by the cultural geographer Nicky Gregson (Gregson et al., 2009) – to demonstrate how engaging with processes of building demolition and deconstruction can begin to reveal the site’s multiple legacies. Findings Recognizing that materials are not lost, but instead move through and are determined by various physical, spatial and cultural conditions, this piece demonstrates how an attention to the choreography of demolition and deconstruction may deepen our understanding of notions of ownership, responsibility and stewardship. Research limitations/implications Exposing material trajectories and various actors in the chain, this work challenges the save/discard binary which underpins conventional heritage practices and provides insight into new ways of considering the significance of demolition/deconstruction sites as well as broader social and environmental landscapes implicated in its reconfiguration. Originality/value Whereas heritage value is often defined in contrast with perceptions of loss, this piece suggests that engagement with processes of demolition and deconstruction constitutes a form of conservation that simultaneously acknowledges the difficult heritage of these procedures, while also commemorating the site’s ongoing transformation.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame machine prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.019 | 0.018 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.005 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.004 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.008 | 0.000 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".