[Urban Shocker]

Judging from the Modernist era, I find that the practice of wiping sites to blank slates for the contemporary was misguided and overrated; architects gained too broad a canvas and often struggled to know what to do with some spaces, which ended up floating in an urban sea without historical bearings and relationships to form with the traditional fabric of the city.

It isn't a specifically Modernist thing - the Georgians, in England, demolished entire villages and moved their occupants elsewhere in order to build stately Palladian country houses ( Stowe, for instance ... ), and we're seeing significant local Modernist buildings ( the Bata, for instance ... ) demolished for a cultural site nowadays. I suppose, in both those instances and Revell's City Hall, we traded up.

 

[junctionist]

It isn't a specifically Modernist thing - the Georgians, in England, demolished entire villages and moved their occupants elsewhere in order to build stately Palladian country houses ( Stowe, for instance ... ), and we're seeing significant local Modernist buildings ( the Bata, for instance ... ) demolished for a cultural site nowadays. I suppose, in both those instances and Revell's City Hall, we traded up.

In terms of the Registry Building, it became parking garage ramps, which strikes me as trading down to the point of getting ripped off. But why trade up when you can keep the great historical works and enhance your collection of buildings?

 

[Urban Shocker]

Charles S. Cobb's finest hour, to be sure, but I can see why Revell wouldn't want a rote Beaux-Arts composition like that crowding out his greater composition for the Square and the City Hall.

 

[TrickyRicky]

Actually I kind of like that Registry building better how it is in the construction picture. They should have left it right there half demolished infront of the pit like some kind of acropolis or roman forum...now that would have been awesome.

 

[vatche]

Actually I kind of like that Registry building better how it is in the construction picture. They should have left it right there half demolished infront of the pit like some kind of acropolis or roman forum...now that would have been awesome.

It does have that look doesn't it?? I thought the same thing when I first saw it.

 

[adma]

Probably would have come off kitschy instead. (A contemporary case-in-point comparison point: the Normal School facade in the Ryerson campus--though at least they subsequently made nicely PoMo use of it as a underground-gym-facility entry.)

And back to...

I can understand the mentality as well, but if we're going to appraise the end result today, then there's no reason to adopt a 1964 mentality. We can understand what happened, but we don't have to endorse it. An appraisal today is (if inadvertently) an expression of our values and what we'd want to do if we could gain a similar opportunity. I'd love to see another square today, a square that commemorates a significant figure or event with a grand monument, designed for events, socialization, and leisure, surrounded by historic and contemporary buildings integrated and embraced by its plan, and animated 24 hours a day. Maybe we could revitalize a downtown east end area this way. Judging from the Modernist era, I find that the practice of wiping sites to blank slates for the contemporary was misguided and overrated; architects gained too broad a canvas and often struggled to know what to do with some spaces, which ended up floating in an urban sea without historical bearings and relationships to form with the traditional fabric of the city.

Except that unlike freshcutgrass or US, I'm stopping short of playing a retroactive "endorsement" game. Rather, I'm treating that 1964 moment as "historical" in its own right, i.e. as removed from the present as if it were 1864 or 1764, and explaining why it's folly to overimpose our present-day values in trying to "comprehend" the increasingly un-recent past. But also, by extension, why it's folly to over-lionize said increasingly un-recent past. I mean: sure, there are those Rem Koolhaas types who'd apparently like to return to the days when Great Architects could boldly sacrifice an humdrum old crock like the Registry Office; but realistically, they're working against pro-old-crock arguments that have gone from the "pretty buildings" alibi of the 60s/70s to more comprehensive social or green/embodied-energy concerns.

Though I can also comprehend the fears of pro-moderns like Koolhaas; that is, the urge to over-lament the Registry Office loss as if it were yesterday can easily collapse or feed into a hyperactive "revenge desecration" urge, particularly among hyperactive anti-moderns and overzealous New Urbanist types. (Sort of like the problem faced by the Boston Government Center, City Hall and all, i.e. the perceived aesthetic sins of all that Brutalism are magnified once the anti's conveniently whip out the old photos of Scollay Square: "see? this is what it replaced", bla bla bla.)

 

[MetroMan]

Besides the elements of the revitalization of the square included in the competition, some other improvements are being considered while others are already approved:

-- Modifying the ramp to the rooftop garden to include steps. This will come as a relief to those who agree that the slope is too high for a casual walk. (Proposed)
-- Deep cleaning and patching up of City Hall's concrete walls (Approved)
-- Renovation of the Freedom Arches including rebuilding the lights with programmable coloured LEDs (Approved)
-- Removal of wire fences from the base of the Freedom Arches (Approved)
-- Cladding the base and lower part of the arches in stainless steel to make it slippery to climb is the leading idea (Proposed)
-- Floor lighting. Replacing some concrete blocks with translucent blocks that light up. The square is dark at night and this is one of the recommended solutions (Proposed)
-- As part of the above, Ford and several other councillors are said to be irritated about the homeless situation in the square. They want to make it unpleasant to sleep in NPS. Bright lights, less hidden nooks, rough stone benches and more programming to keep the square constantly active are some of the ideas (Proposed)
-- Removal of the Sheraton bridge. Like the rest of the walkways, it needs extensive servicing and neither the Sheraton nor the City want to put up the nearly $1M it will take to keep it from falling apart. Then again, it will cost about half that much to take it down. The City will spend millions to service and reinvent the walkways but the Sheraton bridge is in limbo (Inevitable, unless somebody pays to fix it)
-- Installation of matching floor tiles around the Old City Hall block (Proposed)
-- An electronic info kiosk inside the parking garage elevator building. This was meant to become a front desk for tourist information but this element was dropped from the plans due to cost. It may still become a tourist info booth, but automated (Proposed)
-- Free WiFi in the square (Proposed)
-- Permanent electrical infrastructure for Christmas tree and Cavalcade of lights. When the Queen Street forecourt and Western edge are rebuilt, every tree will have an electrical outlet (Approved)
-- Reopening the rooftop lookout year round (Proposed)

 

[Urban Shocker]

Judging from the Modernist era, I find that the practice of wiping sites to blank slates for the contemporary was misguided and overrated; architects gained too broad a canvas and often struggled to know what to do with some spaces, which ended up floating in an urban sea without historical bearings and relationships to form with the traditional fabric of the city.

If true, I don't see it as much different from the vast beaux-arts, neo-Classically styled plan that gave us the Registry Building in the first place, which would have required plenty of demolition - John Lyle's 1911 plan for running a wide street ( Federal Avenue ) north from Front to Queen, located between York and Bay; creating large open spaces such as a parade ground north of the Armories at the corner of University and Dundas, and a large formal garden to the east of that running across to Bay; with a large public building at the head of Federal Avenue flanked by the Registry Building and a matching building to the east; and later plans for diagonal streets and circuses such as the proposed Vimy Circle. By that measure, the Registry Building fits your description of a structure "which ended up floating in an urban sea without historical bearings" since, other than the Graphic Arts Building, not much of it was ever built whereas the entirety of Revell's plan was.

 

[Torontovibe]

Probably would have come off kitschy instead. (A contemporary case-in-point comparison point: the Normal School facade in the Ryerson campus--though at least they subsequently made nicely PoMo use of it as a underground-gym-facility entry.)

And back to...



Except that unlike freshcutgrass or US, I'm stopping short of playing a retroactive "endorsement" game. Rather, I'm treating that 1964 moment as "historical" in its own right, i.e. as removed from the present as if it were 1864 or 1764, and explaining why it's folly to overimpose our present-day values in trying to "comprehend" the increasingly un-recent past. But also, by extension, why it's folly to over-lionize said increasingly un-recent past. I mean: sure, there are those Rem Koolhaas types who'd apparently like to return to the days when Great Architects could boldly sacrifice an humdrum old crock like the Registry Office; but realistically, they're working against pro-old-crock arguments that have gone from the "pretty buildings" alibi of the 60s/70s to more comprehensive social or green/embodied-energy concerns.

Though I can also comprehend the fears of pro-moderns like Koolhaas; that is, the urge to over-lament the Registry Office loss as if it were yesterday can easily collapse or feed into a hyperactive "revenge desecration" urge, particularly among hyperactive anti-moderns and overzealous New Urbanist types. (Sort of like the problem faced by the Boston Government Center, City Hall and all, i.e. the perceived aesthetic sins of all that Brutalism are magnified once the anti's conveniently whip out the old photos of Scollay Square: "see? this is what it replaced", bla bla bla.)

Hey, that's great news, I didn't realize all that other stuff was happening. I'm so glad to hear that the arches will be renovated and the protective nets removed. I hope they permanently open the rooftop look-out to the general public. All around it's great news for the square and Toronto.

 

[AlvinofDiaspar]

From the Post:

http://news.nationalpost.com/2012/05/24/price-jumps-for-nathan-phillips-square-renovation/

AoD

 

[AlvinofDiaspar]

And presentation to the May 24 Government Management Committeee Meeting:

http://www.toronto.ca/legdocs/mmis/2012/gm/bgrd/backgroundfile-47367.pdf

AoD

 

[MetroMan]

For lighting the square, they settled on lit benches with LEDs below. It seems like such a small part of the overall project but consistent and high quality street furniture (benches, garbage receptacles, signage) is going to make a big difference.

 

[rdaner]

Taken on 26 May 2012 from the Observation Deck at City Hall during Doors Open.

 

[freshcutgrass]

That is, if we had to do it all over again (the demolition, I mean), we probably wouldn't, and shouldn't.

And that's the downside of this architectural political correctness these days (assuming we would attempt anything as bold today)....taking away the possibility of sacrificing for greatness. Not that the Registry Building was a big sacrifice....just another dull, oppressive civic building completely inappropriate for the New City Hall site. It had to go.

I somehow doubt Eric Arthur would have approved (of the building, not the demolition), either. At least in 1964.

I'm sure he shed as many tears as Mies did when they demolished Carrère and Hastings pile.

 

[adma]

And that's the downside of this architectural political correctness these days (assuming we would attempt anything as bold today)....taking away the possibility of sacrificing for greatness. Not that the Registry Building was a big sacrifice....just another dull, oppressive civic building completely inappropriate for the New City Hall site. It had to go.

Though keep in mind, as I said, that the pro-Registry alibi these days would go beyond the "pretty buildings" rubric that defined preservation in the 70s--IOW demolishing something that big and old and massive and showy these days would be a little like rescinding blue-box and green-bin programmes. And likewise, "sacrificing for greatness" practically carries a coolcanadian-stumping-for-casinos naivety about it. Put it this way: it all happened when it "could" and "had to" happen. And the fact that these days, such sacrifices-for-greatness are more likely to happen in Asian boomburgs might as well be its own best critique.

We don't negate the great monuments of centuries past for the slave labour used to create them, either.

I'm sure he shed as many tears as Mies did when they demolished Carrère and Hastings pile.

However, unlike Mies, Eric Arthur was active as a historian and preservationist--remember: this all happened when "No Mean City" came out. But as per my point, our rose-coloured present-day perspective conveniently forgets that even into the 60s, Arthur wasn't exactly hep to Victorian eclecticism or Beaux-Arts pomp. Among "city-builders" at the time, few were. The Registry Office was a contemporary of Gropius' Faguswerke; enough said. Why fetishize the reactionary?

Today, it's all "historical". (The circumstances in which everything happened, of course.)