To see the
revised James and James design ( which was built ) go to Volume 2 and Issue 2. Then click on Page 14, and then click on the downwards arrow - this brings up the option of seeing Plate 1a and Plate 1b.
Here's another view of the Boston building by Shepley, Rutan and Coolidge:
http://www.bc.edu/bc_org/avp/cas/fnart/fa267/19th/shepley_grain1.jpg
Regarding the Board of Trade, while thecharioteer names the parts that make up the whole, I don't think the whole is greater than their sum. Maybe what we're seeing with it
vis-a-vis the Boston Chamber of Commerce is similar to what we see when we look at any number of worthy Modernist buildings that
weren't by Mies - but were built at the same time - compared to buildings that
were designed by him?
Thanks for the fascinating links. I'm glad to see the discussion focussing on the relative merits of the design as opposed to the hoary Ruskinian "Classical vs. Gothic" direction to which I thought you were leading with your refences to Kivas Tully and the original Bank of Montreal building.
It's very difficult for us today, with our Modernist upbringing, which denigrated so much of "Victorian" architecture (particularly Le Corbusier In "Vers une Architecture") as ugly, old-fashioned and out-dated, that any discussion of the relative merits of various 19C buildings becomes almost impossibe (newspaper comments at the time of the original Eaton Centre debate included that the Old City Hall "should be put out of its misery"). Overlaid on top of this is our own ingrown Toronto sense of inferiority, that the work of Richardson, Furness and Sullivan (according to all classic histories of architecture) were the milestones on the way to "modern"architecture. History is written by the winners, and most histories of architecture do not include Toronto.
Similarly, while it's easy to identify the platonic ideals of various building types, starting with "temple" (Parthenon), "cathedral" (Chartres), "villa" (Villa Rotondo), etc., it becomes much more difficult in the 19C when new types of buildings (factories, offices, hotels, train stations) necessitate facades utilizing the symbolic elements of the Classic and Gothic orders.
How does one objectively evauate these buldings? For Eric Arthur to say that the B of T Building was not particularly impressive, implies that he is comparing it an example that
is particulalry impressive. Where and why?
Do we go back to the Vitruvian ideal of archotecture as "firmness, commodity and delight"?
Post-script to the demolition of Old City Hall debate (March 1, 1966, Toronto Telegram):