A
ahsun
Guest
Nothing, didn't say there was anything wrong. Chill.
|
|
|
You are using an out of date browser. It may not display this or other websites correctly.
You should upgrade or use an alternative browser.
You should upgrade or use an alternative browser.
Nothing, didn't say there was anything wrong. Chill.
M
marksimpson7843
Guest
It is not facadism - everything above the 3rd floor is a replication with higher floor to ceiling heights.
A
adma
Guest
Searching around Omnitectural Forum a bit, I think the site's 9/11 section might have been the REAL reason the guy might have rambled on to Libeskind et al.
www.omnitecturalforum.com...intro.html
Words fail.
www.omnitecturalforum.com...intro.html
Words fail.
W
wyliepoon
Guest
Hey! I remember the Omnitectural guy at the Doors Open forum! For a while after the forum I wanted to visit his site, but I kept forgetting the address.
Back to the Concourse. It's certainly one of Toronto's hidden architectural gems. Not a lot of people know about it, including many architecture buffs in Toronto. It would certainly be a landmark building if it were placed in a more prominent location (like on Yonge) or if it were built taller with setbacks (New York-style skyscraper setbacks would make it an instant hit!).
Concourse is definitely worth the save. In a city that's swamped with postwar buildings, while still full of E.J. Lennox-styled Victorian and Romanesque buildings, buildings like the Concourse is hard to find. The Concourse is a rare art-deco building in Toronto, and being a highrise, it's almost one-of-a-kind.
Back to the Concourse. It's certainly one of Toronto's hidden architectural gems. Not a lot of people know about it, including many architecture buffs in Toronto. It would certainly be a landmark building if it were placed in a more prominent location (like on Yonge) or if it were built taller with setbacks (New York-style skyscraper setbacks would make it an instant hit!).
Concourse is definitely worth the save. In a city that's swamped with postwar buildings, while still full of E.J. Lennox-styled Victorian and Romanesque buildings, buildings like the Concourse is hard to find. The Concourse is a rare art-deco building in Toronto, and being a highrise, it's almost one-of-a-kind.
G
ganjavih
Guest
"The Concourse is a rare art-deco building in Toronto, and being a highrise, it's almost one-of-a-kind."
It is a one-of-a-kind. It's the only deco building we have in that style.
It is a one-of-a-kind. It's the only deco building we have in that style.
M
marksimpson7843
Guest
The city boasts a number of highrise art-deco "boxes".
U
unimaginative2
Guest
The Canada Permanent and Victory (is that right?) buildings are quite similar in style. Still, the point is well made that art deco skyscrapers like that are hard to find in Toronto.
A
adma
Guest
OK, off the top of my head, varying-strains-of Toronto Art Deco high-rise roll call.
Concourse, of course.
The Sterling Tower at Richmond & Bay--whose heroic resurrection gives the lie to anyone who claims that less-than-class-A in the downtown = obsolescence. (That's as idiotic as dismissing an old Edwardian beauty because it hasn't the bells & whistles of a contemporary Markham McMansion.)
Canada Permanent at Adelaide & Bay.
Victory Building, Richmond nr Bay.
Bank of Commerce--maybe more Byzanto-Romanesque, but the form of the tower and abstractness of much of the detail is clearly of its age.
Bank of Nova Scotia: postwar, but conceived prewar, and "reads" as such despite the more planar, rectilinear detail.
Balfour Bldg (Spadina & Adelaide): the Deco-est of the Ben Brown warehouses.
Toronto Western Hospital (or whatever you can make of it behind all of the additions).
Eatons College/Toronto Hydro, College/Carlton & Yonge. (I guess they might be called "highrise", even if they're no higher than MLG nearby.)
Ontario Hydro, University & College.
So there's a representative sample, perhaps incomplete. Perhaps one may even argue that the mid-late 50s Imperial Oil bldg on St. Clair is a sort of super-late Deco.
So, if you want to split hairs, the Concourse isn't *unique* as Toronto Deco. And next to extravaganzas like Buffalo City Hall or Detroit's Guardian and Fisher Bldgs, it's pretty picayune stuff.
However, to use that excuse for its being expendable is almost as idiotic as the "it isn't as old and/or magnificent as Notre Dame or the Parthenon" argument. Thus, before judging the merit of the Concourse, you have to have some comprehension of the heritage/preservationist community state of the art, and of why, for what it's worth, this building's taken on something of a "holy" reputation. Otherwise, you risk looking terribly callow and naive...
Concourse, of course.
The Sterling Tower at Richmond & Bay--whose heroic resurrection gives the lie to anyone who claims that less-than-class-A in the downtown = obsolescence. (That's as idiotic as dismissing an old Edwardian beauty because it hasn't the bells & whistles of a contemporary Markham McMansion.)
Canada Permanent at Adelaide & Bay.
Victory Building, Richmond nr Bay.
Bank of Commerce--maybe more Byzanto-Romanesque, but the form of the tower and abstractness of much of the detail is clearly of its age.
Bank of Nova Scotia: postwar, but conceived prewar, and "reads" as such despite the more planar, rectilinear detail.
Balfour Bldg (Spadina & Adelaide): the Deco-est of the Ben Brown warehouses.
Toronto Western Hospital (or whatever you can make of it behind all of the additions).
Eatons College/Toronto Hydro, College/Carlton & Yonge. (I guess they might be called "highrise", even if they're no higher than MLG nearby.)
Ontario Hydro, University & College.
So there's a representative sample, perhaps incomplete. Perhaps one may even argue that the mid-late 50s Imperial Oil bldg on St. Clair is a sort of super-late Deco.
So, if you want to split hairs, the Concourse isn't *unique* as Toronto Deco. And next to extravaganzas like Buffalo City Hall or Detroit's Guardian and Fisher Bldgs, it's pretty picayune stuff.
However, to use that excuse for its being expendable is almost as idiotic as the "it isn't as old and/or magnificent as Notre Dame or the Parthenon" argument. Thus, before judging the merit of the Concourse, you have to have some comprehension of the heritage/preservationist community state of the art, and of why, for what it's worth, this building's taken on something of a "holy" reputation. Otherwise, you risk looking terribly callow and naive...
B
Brandenburg13
Guest
The art deco elements of the Concourse building were designed by J.E.H. Macdonald and they still want to tear it down? Is nothing sacred?
M
MrOttawa
Guest
Can we get some pics of thes beauties ?
G
ganjavih
Guest
A
andreapalladio
Guest
The art deco elements of the Concourse building were designed by J.E.H. Macdonald and they still want to tear it down? Is nothing sacred?
That's why they specifically plan to save those mosaics.
A
adma
Guest
And so, it's a tedious, circular argument. And like, duh, to both camps. Significant Art Deco work, JEH Macdonald et al? Duh. Less-than-class-A, less-than-perfect-condition, "heritage elements" (or reasonable facsimiles thereof) to be saved in rebuilding anyway et al? Duh. Ho-hum. Get me out of this deadlock, fast. You all are reiterating the same old banalities, and you're going nowhere.
You see, there's also the matter of context, as to who's doing what, why, whatever. Maybe it takes a bit of reasonably detatched armchair legal/political/cultural science to see (and interpret) this bigger picture. And a bit of the art of "knowing thy enemy".
Thus, it's useful to anticipate just how one might--fairly, or unfairly--choose to blow holes through the arguments for the Concourse's cherishable uniqueness. (Whether by bringing up other Art Deco examples in town or elsewhere, or citing the building's condition and/or compromised integrity.)
And it's also useful to know who the players involved are. After all, there's a more complicated and sophisticated spin-game being played than might have been the case a few decades ago, and it's a reason for the project's approval. You see, it isn't just that they're doing a "horrible" thing. It's that they're doing it splendidly--that is, with a magnificently, creatively packaged overall "heritage strategy" (courtesy E.R.A.) that seeks to make it look *more*, not less conscientious than what's prevailed before (including the restoration of 111 Richmond, etc). It's a Trojan Horse tactic.
Paradoxically, the fundamentals of the E.R.A. heritage package can be adapted to a straight Concourse restoration, if necessary--but nobody's saying that. After all, who commissioned E.R.A.? It's presumptious and naive to assume that E.R.A. would mutiny on so-called "principle": just like fecal matter, deals with the devil happen.
If you want a preview of what such E.R.A./WZMH devil-dealing monkey business can lead to, look at the new BMO/Maritime Life array at Yonge & Queen. Good or bad, it speaks for itself.
But keep this portentous (and for the pro-Concourse folk, hopeful?) point in mind: Maritime Life was all but born and finished within the time that the Concourse scheme's been lying around, dormant, waiting for a prick in the economy or some such reason to kick into high gear. It's already been half a decade, at least--and at what point is "too long"?
You see, there's also the matter of context, as to who's doing what, why, whatever. Maybe it takes a bit of reasonably detatched armchair legal/political/cultural science to see (and interpret) this bigger picture. And a bit of the art of "knowing thy enemy".
Thus, it's useful to anticipate just how one might--fairly, or unfairly--choose to blow holes through the arguments for the Concourse's cherishable uniqueness. (Whether by bringing up other Art Deco examples in town or elsewhere, or citing the building's condition and/or compromised integrity.)
And it's also useful to know who the players involved are. After all, there's a more complicated and sophisticated spin-game being played than might have been the case a few decades ago, and it's a reason for the project's approval. You see, it isn't just that they're doing a "horrible" thing. It's that they're doing it splendidly--that is, with a magnificently, creatively packaged overall "heritage strategy" (courtesy E.R.A.) that seeks to make it look *more*, not less conscientious than what's prevailed before (including the restoration of 111 Richmond, etc). It's a Trojan Horse tactic.
Paradoxically, the fundamentals of the E.R.A. heritage package can be adapted to a straight Concourse restoration, if necessary--but nobody's saying that. After all, who commissioned E.R.A.? It's presumptious and naive to assume that E.R.A. would mutiny on so-called "principle": just like fecal matter, deals with the devil happen.
If you want a preview of what such E.R.A./WZMH devil-dealing monkey business can lead to, look at the new BMO/Maritime Life array at Yonge & Queen. Good or bad, it speaks for itself.
But keep this portentous (and for the pro-Concourse folk, hopeful?) point in mind: Maritime Life was all but born and finished within the time that the Concourse scheme's been lying around, dormant, waiting for a prick in the economy or some such reason to kick into high gear. It's already been half a decade, at least--and at what point is "too long"?