Tewder
Senior Member
There is definitely more innovation and ambition in the US with respect to skyscrapers, in NYC and Chicago at least.
|
|
|
- Thread starter greenleaf
- Start date
ganjavih
Senior Member
One of the oddest posts I've seen on UT.
taal
Senior Member
Not really ...
A lot of people I've talked to have the same impression - compared to even Minneapolis many will say NYC doesn't have much in terms of architecture less "older" buildings ... it's completely from the truth but it's a common notion.
Also, for one a bit more familiar, I'd reckon, given the size of NYC it's not as impressive as one might think in terms of architecture - I find Chicago is more interesting in terms of that.
A lot of people I've talked to have the same impression - compared to even Minneapolis many will say NYC doesn't have much in terms of architecture less "older" buildings ... it's completely from the truth but it's a common notion.
Also, for one a bit more familiar, I'd reckon, given the size of NYC it's not as impressive as one might think in terms of architecture - I find Chicago is more interesting in terms of that.
Ladies Mile
Active Member
I disagree. I suppose it was true back in the 1880s. It hasn't been for a long time--not since we built the Royal York Hotel, in fact.
Most stuff in New York is pretty mediocre; Chicago is marginally better but not by much. Sullivan and Wright etc. aside, I'm not that impressed by the older buildings either. Grand Central is bigger than Union Station--is it better? Perhaps not. It's currently in better shape. Guess what--New York has more money to throw at that kind of thing.
I am surprised by the general consensus that it is otherwise.
Tewder
Senior Member
Fair enough if you feel that NYC and Chicago are bland, but tell me please where are the great innovations in skyscraper design in Toronto, Montreal or Vancouver??
Also, I don't think it is right to dismiss the 'old stuff' when looking at skyscraper innovation as it's all part of the evolution of the form, one which barely even spans 100 years yet. Accordingly, to dismiss New York as bland is to overlook how important the skyscraper was to New York and vice versa, and how the city itself has informed the form itself (set-backs etc).
Also, I don't think it is right to dismiss the 'old stuff' when looking at skyscraper innovation as it's all part of the evolution of the form, one which barely even spans 100 years yet. Accordingly, to dismiss New York as bland is to overlook how important the skyscraper was to New York and vice versa, and how the city itself has informed the form itself (set-backs etc).
Ladies Mile
Active Member
I don't know that our cities are any more innovative, simply that whatever innovations occurred in New York and Chicago also occurred here, simply scaled back as one would expect in smaller cities.
I would argue that on a building by building basis we did far better than New York.
Setbacks are an amusing anachronism and are not relevant to modern skyscraper development. Nor did they stimulate, ipso facto, superior architecture.
I would argue that on a building by building basis we did far better than New York.
Setbacks are an amusing anachronism and are not relevant to modern skyscraper development. Nor did they stimulate, ipso facto, superior architecture.
Tewder
Senior Member
You're sort of assuming that these 'better' buildings were built in Toronto first - hence the term innovation - and aped in other cities. This just doesn't appear to be the case and in fact quite the opposite for the most part. We have some gorgeous buildings, obviously, but none that seem iconic as seminal works of design in the form.
As for set-backs I don't think they are as quaintly anachronistic as you imply, look at BCE Place in Toronto for example.
As for set-backs I don't think they are as quaintly anachronistic as you imply, look at BCE Place in Toronto for example.
Hipster Duck
Senior Member
double post.
Last edited:
Hipster Duck
Senior Member
Not only did cities like New York and Chicago produce more elaborate, dignified examples of skyscraper architecture than any city in Canada, even middling, provincial places did.
Look at this postcard from Oklahoma City. What section of Bay or Yonge Street has three pre-war towers of this magnitude lined up in a row?
Here's a shot of art deco skyscrapers in downtown Tulsa, Oklahoma. Tulsa had a population of 130,000 in 1930 - Toronto was at least five times as big.
As for being more architecturally significant than New York or Chicago?
Compare
with
Last edited:
Therion
Senior Member
Wow that last picture is incredible. I can see where the idea of Gotham City came from. I do think that size-wise, Toronto is just now catching up to having a decent downtown core of high-rises. And any comparison with New York or Chicago is plain silly. They are both way ahead of us.
Ladies Mile
Active Member
I think you are confusing quantity with quality.
The buildings in Oklahoma City don't impress me. The ones in Tulsa are no great shakes either (and the one in the back is a 1980s imitation of a much smaller building). I think many of the New York and Chicago buildings in those photographs are only superficially impressive (I can't agree that the Wrigley Building or the Chicago Tribune are anything other than embarrassments).
We certainly had as good or better.
I admit to being a Miesian in regards to architecture: "I don't want to be new, I want to be good." We are probably the most Miesian city in North America both in terms of the style he helped create and our adherence to it.
The buildings in Oklahoma City don't impress me. The ones in Tulsa are no great shakes either (and the one in the back is a 1980s imitation of a much smaller building). I think many of the New York and Chicago buildings in those photographs are only superficially impressive (I can't agree that the Wrigley Building or the Chicago Tribune are anything other than embarrassments).
We certainly had as good or better.
I admit to being a Miesian in regards to architecture: "I don't want to be new, I want to be good." We are probably the most Miesian city in North America both in terms of the style he helped create and our adherence to it.
Hipster Duck
Senior Member
Because we were talking about pre-war skyscraper architecture, I expect you to demonstrate how the period skyscraper architecture of Toronto is demonstrably "better" than what was to be found in American cities, especially in Chicago or New York. How, for example, is the Tribune tower an "embarassment" in a way that, say, CCN or the Whitney block is not?
As for our adherence to Miesianism, he built one [phenomenal] complex here, and that was his legacy. This is quite a bit different from Chicago where he actually lived and practiced and upon which he bestowed a dozen or so buildings.
As for our adherence to Miesianism, he built one [phenomenal] complex here, and that was his legacy. This is quite a bit different from Chicago where he actually lived and practiced and upon which he bestowed a dozen or so buildings.
Ladies Mile
Active Member
The Tribune Tower is the Casa Loma of historicist skyscrapers--berserk fantasy larded with imperialist subtext.
CCN is more in tune with Union Station--something measured, sonorous, sedate but grand.
Mies built more in Chicago, but they dropped his aesthetic in favor of the same wall-eyed PoMo nonsense every American city threw up (pun intended) in the 1980s and afterward. We have a handful of these honkers too, but the general style is something still clean, tech-friendly and function-oriented.
CCN is more in tune with Union Station--something measured, sonorous, sedate but grand.
Mies built more in Chicago, but they dropped his aesthetic in favor of the same wall-eyed PoMo nonsense every American city threw up (pun intended) in the 1980s and afterward. We have a handful of these honkers too, but the general style is something still clean, tech-friendly and function-oriented.
Tewder
Senior Member
The cities in question have more of both than Toronto. There are great buildings here and clunkers elsewhere to be sure, and we can cherry-pick examples of all the above, but with a little objective perspective we understand that the skyscraper is the quintessential American form and finds its ultimate expression(s) there, warts and all.
Toronto has some wonderful buildings and our best are second to none but nor are they necessarily first among others. I'd love to see one go up though!!
That you love TD Centre and boxy commy blocks is fine, but subjective. There is no objective basis to claim that these are inherently 'better' than other styles of scrapers and to persist in arguing so is to lose credibility. Beauty and innovation are found in many forms, and one day we may even be able to see it in pomo... and ultimately even Mies is 'of his time' after all.
Last edited:
Urban Shocker
Doyenne
You miss the point. Ladies Mile states objectively that Toronto has kept the faith because it suits us, whereas others have strayed. That's all.