Zephyr
Active Member
While I am all for preserving good to exceptional historical designs, I am generally not in favour of creating what amounts to a copy of that design, as we plunge into the twenty-first century. You need to pick-and-choose when to exhume this style in this manner, but let me suggest the following exceptions.
If this building were on a block or in a district where a historical design of some sort predominates, and/or some famous, well respected, work from the past happens to reside nearby, maybe I would have to give this effort a pass. That pass would be rooted in either contextual respect and/or homage to a great work - both of which are normally ego-deflating reasons for most other architects, even if it is not for Mr. Stern. Can you make a case for any of that here? If your case is strong enough, I shall gladly back down.
Otherwise, in my opinion, this design is just too safe, and that means too predictable, however well executed that design might be. With few exceptions, this kind of thing often ends up contributing to the dull edge of skyscraper development, which Toronto does not seem to mind. The label substituted for "dull edge" by Torontonians is "conservative," no doubt less connotative, but also a bit self-congratulatory in a peculiar way. In the meantime we must also recognize that well-executed buildings, with the proper historical pedigree, are being demolished on a regular basis, and this includes not only art deco, but several other styles as well. Respect the past while pushing the envelope; or destroy the legitimate past and live, for the most part, in the faux-past or slightly behind that dreadful "bleeding edge". I prefer the former approach for Toronto because I believe that the net result is honest, good to great architecture, that does not take a backseat to any other city. I also understand that the so-called conservative approach, is more likely to be on top in the near term.
If this building were on a block or in a district where a historical design of some sort predominates, and/or some famous, well respected, work from the past happens to reside nearby, maybe I would have to give this effort a pass. That pass would be rooted in either contextual respect and/or homage to a great work - both of which are normally ego-deflating reasons for most other architects, even if it is not for Mr. Stern. Can you make a case for any of that here? If your case is strong enough, I shall gladly back down.
Otherwise, in my opinion, this design is just too safe, and that means too predictable, however well executed that design might be. With few exceptions, this kind of thing often ends up contributing to the dull edge of skyscraper development, which Toronto does not seem to mind. The label substituted for "dull edge" by Torontonians is "conservative," no doubt less connotative, but also a bit self-congratulatory in a peculiar way. In the meantime we must also recognize that well-executed buildings, with the proper historical pedigree, are being demolished on a regular basis, and this includes not only art deco, but several other styles as well. Respect the past while pushing the envelope; or destroy the legitimate past and live, for the most part, in the faux-past or slightly behind that dreadful "bleeding edge". I prefer the former approach for Toronto because I believe that the net result is honest, good to great architecture, that does not take a backseat to any other city. I also understand that the so-called conservative approach, is more likely to be on top in the near term.