dt_toronto_geek
Superstar
Whyte makes some interesting points but I don't agree that new City Hall is one of Toronto's best loved buildings.
|
|
|
- Thread starter unimaginative2
- Start date
adma
Superstar
Funny, if we have to abide by a rough pecking order here, I can't say Waterloo's M+C is any "greater" than Jorgenson or Ross. If we want to be overwhelmingly architectural judgmental here, to me, it seems routine--watered-down, blandly institutional Corbusiana. True to its function, it's nerdy-penholder Dork Brutalism. Oh, I'm still willing to defend it--but in the same "let's be fair, here" way I'm willing to defend Jorgenson or Ross. Which are probably only more "unfortunate" for their "immediacy" relative to UT's hinterland, i.e. w/Waterloo, it's a case of the grass being greener on the other side.
Now, if you truly want the creme de la creme of University Brutalism that'll make Jorgenson burp, a better choice would be the Sert and Andrews buildings at Guelph. Or of course, Andrews at Scarberia. (And let's face it; even Ron Thom at Trent kinda qualifies.)
And face it; it *is* Brutalism. And Brutalist appreciation remains the arcane Wyatting of architectural appreciation. (And as I've said before, perhaps you can only really find a way of digging Jorgenson if you dig Soft Machine as well.)
Er...how? Why? Is this another "let's all hate the NPS walkway" issue?
H
Hydrogen
Guest
Thanks for posting those links, phunky.
As maligned as brutalism can be, there are some stunning buildings of that style.
As for concrete, it is not an issue that it is used, but how its used, as well. Some easy ones for appreciation that come to mind are Louis Kahn's Salk Institute and Parliament buildings in Bangladesh.
As maligned as brutalism can be, there are some stunning buildings of that style.
As for concrete, it is not an issue that it is used, but how its used, as well. Some easy ones for appreciation that come to mind are Louis Kahn's Salk Institute and Parliament buildings in Bangladesh.
AndreaPalladio
Senior Member
Niether of which are brutalist buildings.
H
Hydrogen
Guest
^But are largely concrete. I shifted my emphasis from brutalism to concrete.
AndreaPalladio
Senior Member
Sorry, I was looking at the context of the whole thread.
Concrete can be just as beautifully executed as any other material. Obviously, it costs more to finish it finely, but everything costs more the fancier it gets.
Concrete can be just as beautifully executed as any other material. Obviously, it costs more to finish it finely, but everything costs more the fancier it gets.
canrocks
New Member
The University of Guelph campus is swimming in brutalism. I had a like/hate relationship with it during my time there. The library is fairly good (the 5th and 6th floors are a treat), the University Centre is alright, I guess, but Macnaughton and Mackinnon are pretty bland and not innovative at all (although Mackinnon has a nice courtyard type thing that would be nice if there were people around during the summer and they could open the sliding door-windows). The worst, though, is South Residence. Although the building is quite functional, and sunlight has been well-harnessed despite the lack of windows, it's separated from campus by a sea of parking, and the idea of having 1800 people in one building is misguided. Last Year, the Norwalk virus spread through that place like wildfire; it even got national news coverage. It's an extremely confusing place to navigate, and not all that inviting.
dt_toronto_geek
Superstar
No. City Hall is a fine structure but I have never thought of it as one of the city's best loved buildings.
adma
Superstar
But they, too, like I said about Ron Thom's Trent U, "kinda qualify". And IMO if they aren't Brutalist, stuff like the LBJ Library is even less so; too much of that Lincoln Center-esque residual New Formalist blandness...
junctionist
Senior Member
Yes, I do. Note to self: get more sleep.
adma
Superstar
Then, in that case...what *would* rank as among the city's best loved buildings? Aside from anything dating from before 1950 or after 2000, give or take a supersize swizzle stick or whalebone galleria or such.
I can only see City Hall falling short of "best loved" among those who were born long after its initial novelty (let's say, closer to the Peace Garden dedication than to the building's own opening) and whose dominant impression is of its being "shopworn", "tired", "dated" et al--i.e. they can't directly identify with it as being part of "their" history. (Perhaps subliminally compounded by the fact that aside from ice skating, whatever civic centrality NPS was intended to have was usurped by the Yonge/Queen/PATH retail domain...such is the Yes Logo age...)
dt_toronto_geek
Superstar
I like new City Hall very much but I think there are buildings that Torontonians have more affection for. Off hand I think of the CN tower, Skydome, Eaton's Centre, CHUM CITY building, Roy Thompson Hall, The ROM, Maple Leaf Gardens, Elgin Wintergarden, Science Centre etc. Just my opinion.
H
Hydrogen
Guest
Not a problem. I've never seen the Bangladesh Parliament buildings in person, but the Salk Institute is quite beautiful - almost serene - so I take your point.
At the same time, adma raises a good point as well: what is the line between brutalism and something other than brutalism?
scarberiankhatru
Senior Member
And what if a building only has a brutal addition/renovation, cf. the Basilian building at SMC?
adma
Superstar
Yes, and if your opinion reflects any truth, it's the sad decline of civic literacy out there. (Interesting how you don't mention Old City Hall either, or Queen's Park.) You might as well be saying that Torontonians have more affection for "Mamma Mia" than Michael Ondaatje--which might be literally true, but...
(and speaking of Ondaatje, interesting, too, that you don't mention the R.C. Harris Plant or the Prince Edward Viaduct, either.)