[adma]

I can accept the loss of the Temple building as a simple matter of economics (and facadisms were not in vogue in 1970). Had Toronto decided to focus its new office towers elsewhere, we would have a lot more of it left (unlike say, Montreal). But when it's replaced with something equally as good, it tends to dull the pain. We lament over the Temple Building, because while Queen-Bay Centre is an improvement in terms of income for its owner, it's not an improvement from an architectural point of view.

We don't lament so much for Carrère and Hastings Bank of Toronto building, because we got Mies's TD Centre in return.

But also, the Bank of Toronto fell a critical few years earlier--by 1970, the forces on behalf of something like the Temple Building were well underway, with the first reformers on City Council, etc. (And also, the Temple wasn't so Mammonish "single-purpose" as the Bank of Toronto--thus my wouldbe-proto-401-Richmond point.)

 

[Urban Shocker]

No doubt I'm in a minority, given all the Victoriana Wraiths lurking hereabouts, but I'm no more saddened that the Temple bit the dust than I am that the Board of Trade and the Beard buildings also did so. They're mostly interesting to me, heritage-wise, as examples of early metal-framed buildings ( our first skyscrapers, really ... ), slathered in brick and stone to disguise how they were structurally supported - but that means that the essence of those bulky Gormenghast office buildings is that they retarded the advent of true Modernism, so ... Ding Dong The Witch Is Dead!.

There!

 

[freshcutgrass]

But also, the Bank of Toronto fell a critical few years earlier--by 1970, the forces on behalf of something like the Temple Building were well underway, with the first reformers on City Council

But by the time those reformers were in control of city council, we still lost Chapman and Oxley's Toronto Star Building, so I wouldn't put a lot of emphasis on that. Old City Hall was saved, because it was a civic building, technically owned by those protesting. And politicians don't have a monetary interest to worry about. Private property is a different ball of wax.

They're mostly interesting to me, heritage-wise, as examples of early metal-framed buildings

The Temple Building was one of the last buildings to use a cast-iron frame, as steel frames were already being used for ten years. It wasn't exactly cutting edge.

What I mourn the most, are really nice structures that were needlessly demolished for no reason other than blatant indifference, like Chorley Park or the original Trinity College.

 

[Urban Shocker]

They built a replica of Trinity though - the south front of the present building is almost exactly a copy.

Chorley? Ugh! I'm with Ladies Mile on that one.

 

[k10ery]

They're mostly interesting to me, heritage-wise, as examples of early metal-framed buildings ( our first skyscrapers, really ... ), slathered in brick and stone to disguise how they were structurally supported - but that means that the essence of those bulky Gormenghast office buildings is that they retarded the advent of true Modernism, so ... Ding Dong The Witch Is Dead!.

There!

If the historicism of 1890s neo-romanesque is so terrible, how come you think 1840s neo-classical is so awesome? they may not be innovative buildings but they give context and diversity and occasionally great beauty to our city. So you'll have to put up with a few Victorian carbuncles along with the newer ones.

But yeah, Chorley Park is over the top.

 

[freshcutgrass]

But yeah, Chorley Park is over the top.

Which is why it would have made a great home for a Russian billionaire. Oh well, there's always Casa Loma....it deserves to be a private home again. No wait...a Playboy Club (where it's always the 1970's).

 

[freshcutgrass]

how come you think 1840s neo-classical is so awesome?

Because 10 Toronto Street is what 10 Downing would like to be (which is why Conrad Black called it home).

Which reminds me of another building I would have liked to see in the flesh...it's old next door neighbour...the Masonic Hall. Impressive building for 1850's Toronto.

 

[a0th]

To you and brockm...yes, it is architectural sacrilege. And message-board-posting amateurs like you were factored out of the equation more than half a decade ago. Sorry.

lol

 

[Urban Shocker]

If the historicism of 1890s neo-romanesque is so terrible, how come you think 1840s neo-classical is so awesome?

Because it is based on a sense of proportion and harmony that's a direct continuation of design values that had evolved from the Renaissance, whereas what the Victorians replaced it with is too often clunky, inelegant, and built for a commercial nouveau riche culture with a different set of values. The means to go directly to a light, structurally-based Modernism existed after the eclipse of Classicism, because people like Paxton showed them the way in the 1840s, but they ( and he! ) chose not to go there, or more likely didn't see that they could go there. Instead, we got eclecticism, "character", Mock Goth monstrosities, competing styles, and a determination to disguise cast iron and steel supporting systems behind massive stoneworks as if the masonry was supporting the towers. They're quirky curiosities to us now, these hefty late Victorian buildings, and I don't suggest that we should tear down any of the survivors, but I don't see any of it as representing a golden age of architecture. Especially since, in Toronto as elsewhere, some fine Georgian buildings died to make way for these later Victorian hulks.

 

[Mississauga Slim]

Wasn't it Frank Lloyd Wright who described Toronto City Hall as a "Romanesque abortion?"

 

[freshcutgrass]

Wasn't it Frank Lloyd Wright who described Toronto City Hall as a "Romanesque abortion?"

Well, he also had this to say about new City Hall..." You've got a headmarker for a grave and future generations will look at it and say: 'This marks the spot where Totonto fell."

Just goes to show even geniuses can be wrong.

 

[Mississauga Slim]

Well, he also had this to say about new City Hall..." You've got a headmarker for a grave and future generations will look at it and say: 'This marks the spot where Totonto fell."

Just goes to show even geniuses can be wrong.

I thought he was saying that about the proposal that got rejected, not the one that got built.

 

[adma]

Nope; about Revell's.

 

[k10ery]

Because it is based on a sense of proportion and harmony that's a direct continuation of design values that had evolved from the Renaissance, whereas what the Victorians replaced it with is too often clunky, inelegant, and built for a commercial nouveau riche culture with a different set of values. The means to go directly to a light, structurally-based Modernism existed after the eclipse of Classicism, because people like Paxton showed them the way in the 1840s, but they ( and he! ) chose not to go there, or more likely didn't see that they could go there. Instead, we got eclecticism, "character", Mock Goth monstrosities, competing styles, and a determination to disguise cast iron and steel supporting systems behind massive stoneworks as if the masonry was supporting the towers. They're quirky curiosities to us now, these hefty late Victorian buildings, and I don't suggest that we should tear down any of the survivors, but I don't see any of it as representing a golden age of architecture. Especially since, in Toronto as elsewhere, some fine Georgian buildings died to make way for these later Victorian hulks.

Relax. That battle was fought and won by the good guys a long time ago. Save your prose to make fun of the Trump Tower or something.

Anyway, even a second Empire building can have proportion and harmony and simplicity and symmetry, and show us its Renaissance roots.

(So there.)

 

[adma]

Though all this talk about the superficialities of "style" (or lack thereof) veers away from my earlier stated fascination w/the Temple Building, which actually has more in common with where a lot of core preservation sentiment is today--that is, buildings less as pretty envelopes and more as living, breathing entities, as cherishable hives of activity. 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...