That's only because of the squalid fetishization of anything that is Victorian and has survived ( versus, say, indifference to the recently demolished DuBois on Charles Street, which was every bit as lived-in and practical a structure but wasn't encrusted with doodads ).
 
Were we to turn back time to 1969/70, we'd be viewing the Temple in much different terms from our present-day perspective--in a way that frames its loss in even more heartbreaking terms. Look: if a Victorial warehouse that by 1969 standards would have been humdrum and dispensable such as 48 Abell could inspire such hoopla in recent times, imagine how a threat to the Temple Building would register today..
Click to expand...

By the time 1969/1970 rolled around in Toronto, people were "the future is here" cock-eyed optimists. City Hall, Science Centre, Ontario Place and moving into swoopy, swing'n Uno Prii apartment buildings made sacrificing victorian Toronto for gleaming modern towers seem like the natural order of things.

Fast-forward to 2012, and we are now a population cynics...of course we make noise about things like 48 Abell.

BTW...where's my f*cking jet-pack or flying car.
 
Urban Shocker said:
That's only because of the squalid fetishization of anything that is Victorian and has survived ( versus, say, indifference to the recently demolished DuBois on Charles Street, which was every bit as lived-in and practical a structure but wasn't encrusted with doodads ).
Click to expand...

No, it's because 48 Abell was an affordable and functional place for artists. Architecture wasn't the main issue.
 
junctionist said:
No, it's because 48 Abell was an affordable and functional place for artists. Architecture wasn't the main issue.
Click to expand...

So was 45 Charles, in its way (wasn't it a nexus for recording studios and the like?)--but yes, you're correct: this isn't a matter of "Victorianism" vs "anti-Victorianism", as I reckon a lot of the "48 Abell demo" and Zeidleristas, being enlightened creative-class and all of that, would more likely be pro-than anti-Macy Dubois in principle. It's really more an accident of location and tenancy and ownership at a particular time--though I do sort of agree with US that 48 Abell's "Victorianism" greased the pole on its behalf, or was at least "used" to that end. (In which case, I wish the same rallying effort was done on behalf of those vast reused wartime warehouses at the foot of Hanna back around Y2K or whenever they were taken down...)
 
It's really more an accident of location and tenancy and ownership at a particular time--though I do sort of agree with US that 48 Abell's "Victorianism" greased the pole on its behalf, or was at least "used" to that end.
Click to expand...

Yea...48 Abell fell strictly within the jurisdiction of the whole "Drake you HO" anti-gentrification movement.

Not that Active 18 really ever had a chance against the condo gold rush that took place in the Queen West Triangle. Remember, 48 Abell was originally to stay. But the developers smelled blood, and the teeth came out and they played their hands at the OMB perfectly. The fact that the City Planning Dept fell asleep at the wheel didn't help. When the smoke cleared, the developers and all the new "Bohemians" won.
 
In the case of both 48 Abell and my hypothesis re the Temple now-vs-1970, it's an element of "social history" (somewhat in tandem with the embodied-energy anti-demo arguments) that's come to the fore--and really; to those of us who've experienced Chicago-style architectural tourism, isn't that part of the awe of the Rookery or Monadnock or what have you? Buildings as more than just textbook photos, as living, breathing, oh-so-tenanted entities? That's surely something which the 401 Richmond cult has played off of--and it's a reason why I'm very qualified about labelling Confederation Life as a survivor, because the shell is all that's left. And it's also why I like to invoke the Ryrie Building at Yonge + Shuter for the loss of its Sam Spade-ian light-court interior on behalf of Context-ual yuppie-ism. Such is architectural conoisseurship in the Doors Open era--whereas our "received narrative" for edifices such as the Temple remains largely doors-closed. Except in cases like various churches and Osgoode Hall, "doors closed" was the normal approach back in the 60s.

Though to try and tie this all back into the *ahem* thread subject, it leads me to wonder if the Temple had survived, it might have become an fascinating component of the "City Hall precinct" (even if it faced away from City Hall)--perhaps, even, housing subsidiary municipal offices, maybe related to culture and all of that. (Or, imagine if the Centre for Social Innovation came about a generation earlier, as a more directly municipally-sponsored entity under Mayor Crombie or Sewell...)
 
Last edited:
Back on topic...
1BccnOjo


The stage is beginning to look like one. This is going to be a great place to sit and people watch.
 
Would it be such a bad thing if we tore down the elevated walkway surrounding the square? I know it's a fundamental element blah, blah - architectural integrity, blah, blah...but it's dingy like the Gardiner and diminishes the sightlines into the square. Basically it kills any sense of expansiveness. From many spots outside the square it prevents you from seeing the square and buildings at the same time.
 
buildup said:
Would it be such a bad thing if we tore down the elevated walkway surrounding the square? I know it's a fundamental element blah, blah - architectural integrity, blah, blah...but it's dingy like the Gardiner and diminishes the sightlines into the square. Basically it kills any sense of expansiveness. From many spots outside the square it prevents you from seeing the square and buildings at the same time.
Click to expand...

+1
 
Yep, generally agreed. Or at least, do something with the elevated walk way so it doesn't just look outdated and unused.
 
but it's dingy like the Gardiner and diminishes the sightlines into the square. Basically it kills any sense of expansiveness. From many spots outside the square it prevents you from seeing the square and buildings at the same time.
Click to expand...

Except that's where you are completely wrong...it serves to define the square, without actually "closing" it in. It's quite ingenious. Having NPS completely open to Bay & Queen would be horrible.


I know it's a fundamental element blah, blah - architectural integrity, blah, blah...
Click to expand...

There's a reason the architectural community/appreciators would consider it sacrilege to remove them, and it's because they are a great element. If they were a stupid mistake to begin with, people wouldn't care.
 
Or at least, do something with the elevated walk way so it doesn't just look outdated and unused.
Click to expand...

I have no clue what you mean by "outdated". We aren't building much in the way of Finnish architectural masterpieces these days, so in that sense I suppose it's "outdated".

And it gets used all the time...especially when it provides an excellent viewing point when there is an event in the square.

Remember, while City Hall/NPS is a very "modern" building, it employs ancient classical Athenian principals. It acts as both square and theatre (this is why people who love classical architecture find themselves subconsciously drawn to City Hall, even though they generally are not fans of "modern" architecture)). That's why the elevated walkways is so ingenious in it's multi-functional purpose. The problem lies in how everything outside of the square was treated, not what is inside (including the elevated walkways).

But I agree that such masterpieces should be fastidiously maintained to their original design. And it is quite embarrassing how the city has messed this up by their changing it and/or letting it fall apart. It's not like these elements are huge or difficult to maintain...they are pretty simple in materials & design.
 
It's always interesting to note each time this subject is raised how passionate the debate is between those who support and oppose the NPS walkways.
 
You must log in or register to post here.

Back
Top