I certainly don't mean to write-off entire styles of architecture, and I agree that modern and post-modern styles when executed well can be fantastic. What I bristle at however is a notion that seems to prevail in some architecture circles that we aren't "allowed" to build in these classic styles any more despite their obvious appeal because would be derivative, phoney or backwards looking.

You're right nobody's taste can claim to speak for everyone, but ultimately I think people reveal their preference with their feet and wallets. Boston brownstones, New York's upper east side and meatpacking districts, Paris's latin quarter, all among the most desirable places to live in their cities (and indeed the world). The fact that there is little to no construction in these styles to satisfy the obviously massive demand baffles me. When people visit London, it's not to see the Shard, and no one plans a trip to Paris to see La Defense.

I agree with much of this comment, but I think that the Shard is a great landmark of our time and will remain so. I'll want to see it the next time I'm in London.

I don't have anything against Modernism. It doesn't have to be cold, sterile, and depressing. That's not fair at all to the style. There are so many shapes, colours, textures, patterns, and materials that can be used. The mind can be just as positively stimulated by a Modernist building as by an earlier style.

At the same time, the notion that we can no longer enjoy earlier styles of architecture by using them for new buildings is strange and untenable in my opinion. All things considered, we are a more advanced society today than 500 years ago. To think that we can't build something today that Western societies could build 500 years ago is unsupported by 500 years of Western technological innovation and progress.

I look forward to a time when computer design, 3D printing, laser cutting, and robotics are used to build buildings just as ornate as the standard before Modernism and done with modern economics in mind. Until then, it won't hurt anyone to hire some artists to design some carved stone panels and mosaics on buildings like this one.
 
I agree with much of this comment, but I think that the Shard is a great landmark of our time and will remain so. I'll want to see it the next time I'm in London.

I don't have anything against Modernism. It doesn't have to be cold, sterile, and depressing. That's not fair at all to the style. There are so many shapes, colours, textures, patterns, and materials that can be used. The mind can be just as positively stimulated by a Modernist building as by an earlier style.

At the same time, the notion that we can no longer enjoy earlier styles of architecture by using them for new buildings is strange and untenable in my opinion. All things considered, we are a more advanced society today than 500 years ago. To think that we can't build something today that Western societies could build 500 years ago is unsupported by 500 years of Western technological innovation and progress.

I look forward to a time when computer design, 3D printing, laser cutting, and robotics are used to build buildings just as ornate as the standard before Modernism and done with modern economics in mind. Until then, it won't hurt anyone to hire some artists to design some carved stone panels and mosaics on buildings like this one.
I don't think desperateAmbassador is wrong in saying there's a general fatigue when it comes to bland, neo-modernist buildings that have dominated the Toronto landscape for the past twenty years though. The reaction to this project's render seems to support the argument too, there's over a full page of similar sentiments; something you don't really see for a lot of typical Toronto proposals.

I do agree that I sense there is an growing undercurrent of dissatisfaction that feels that much of contemporary mainstream modernism has increasingly become overextended, reliant on overplayed tropes, constantly at the mercy of assembly manufacturers*, and for its more fervent deriders- even anti-urban? It's not dissimilar to the dissatisfaction that led to the rise of modernism itself, and I don't know how to truly describe it- that contemporary mainstream modernism is exhausted, satisfying neither believers of modernism or those who reject it?

I think that while it's not necessary to ape previous designs, future modernisms must attempt to break once more through beyond the artificial amnesia created by the mid-century modernist ideologues, and be capable of referencing the rich repertoire of untouchable architectural technologies, languages, and materialities if it wants to survive. Those who do reference the past and its vernacular, i.e. Peter Barber, have been capable of creating wonderful buildings that are neither derivative, nor bland. Fukuyama's End of History has been massively challenged in the last few years or so; architecture has eternity ahead of it- it's foolhardy to believe that modernism will be the final word.

(Conversely, I do ironically think that contemporary landscape architecture is coming into its prime, as the movement towards reclaiming space from cars and rejuvenating urban landscapes is increasing in strength (both undercurrents that have finally burst into public discourse). Perhaps its inherent strength is that it must always be contextual in order to be successful, and it can never truly be single-handedly heroic?)

*Not to mention their overextended, energy-intensive supply chains.
 
Last edited:
The debate between modern and ā€œtraditionalā€ is often based on poor information. Architecture before 1920 wasnā€™t one thing (!), nor was it always ornate. Likewise, the problems with contemporary buildings arenā€™t about ā€œmodernismā€ as an ideology. Itā€™s not that simple.

A quick response to @formerTorontonian: The piece I posted above responds specifically to Sussman and Hollander, whose work is trash. The central ideas of modern architecture in Europe date back to at least the 1880s and have a range of influences and sources.
 
What I bristle at however is a notion that seems to prevail in some architecture circles that we aren't "allowed" to build in these classic styles any more despite their obvious appeal because would be derivative, phoney or backwards looking.

You're right nobody's taste can claim to speak for everyone, but ultimately I think people reveal their preference with their feet and wallets. Boston brownstones, New York's upper east side and meatpacking districts, Paris's latin quarter, all among the most desirable places to live in their cities (and indeed the world). The fact that there is little to no construction in these styles to satisfy the obviously massive demand baffles me. When people visit London, it's not to see the Shard, and no one plans a trip to Paris to see La Defense.

This.

There's a tendency to insist that only one type of architecture is acceptable and even go as far as to dictate that buildings must be tall & skinny. If we only build to satisfy the preferences of one segment of the population we have failed. The reality is that people have different taste and it doesn't hold that one is always better than the other. Besides, it's absurd to assume that just because something is new, current, or trendy that it is superior to what came before. People are quick to throw things in the trash just because it's old.
 
Last edited:
The debate between modern and ā€œtraditionalā€ is often based on poor information.
Unpack this statement please. Explain the differentiation between 'modern' and 'traditional'.

Architecture before 1920 wasnā€™t one thing (!), nor was it always ornate.

Likewise, the problems with contemporary buildings arenā€™t about ā€œmodernismā€ as an ideology. Itā€™s not that simple.
Explain this please. Is it really just an issue about ornamentation? What's the problem with mainstream contemporary architecture that we see around us today?

The central ideas of modern architecture in Europe date back to at least the 1880s and have a range of influences and sources.
Again, a 'modern' avant-garde building of the 19th century (which themselves were incredibly regional and diverse) is hardly comparable to a new mainstream contemporary modernist structure today- which is what people have focused on as a point of contention. Are we comparing the Roman Empire of Augustus to the Late Roman Empire?
 
Last edited:
@jje1000, Iā€™m reluctant to take this thread so far sideways. But a few thoughts:

1) ā€œtraditionalā€ on its own is a meaningless term. Using it without more specificity doesnā€™t get us anywhere.

2) The best critique of contemporary neo-modernism is that large buildings donā€™t address the street well. The key ingredients of variety, texture, rhythm are missing. In the period of high modernism, this was sometimes a product of aesthetics and ideology. Take Mies and TD Centre.

But often (including at TD Centre) the large scale and monolithic feeling of high modernist buildings was produced by larger economic and cultural factors.There are many people in the forum who can speak to how commercial, technical and regulatory constraints influence the design of ground floors right now.

For me the bottom line is: we should work towards architecture and urban design that makes good streets above all. This can be accomplished with historicist detailing, or without it. Stylistic variety is good.

Case in point: I like this building design, on the whole. But its ground floor appears to be double height and almost completely glazed with very little articulation. This is backwards. If youā€™re going to have masonry and lots of detail anywhere, put it on the ground floor.
 
Case in point: I like this building design, on the whole. But its ground floor appears to be double height and almost completely glazed with very little articulation. This is backwards. If youā€™re going to have masonry and lots of detail anywhere, put it on the ground floor.
Something I like the idea of, is forcing developers to post renderings of the building from various street level positions. Most importantly, a rendering of what it is like to look at the building from the sidewalk 6 ft away from the wall. Most renderings show buildings from a location in which they can never be viewed, and it seems to fuel the street level problem that we have. This building is definitely not the worst offender in any way, but it's such a shame for a great looking tower to fumble the ball where it's most important.
 
@jje10001) ā€œtraditionalā€ on its own is a meaningless term. Using it without more specificity doesnā€™t get us anywhere.
Yes, and "traditional" is a term that should be broken down into several gradations which include technology and planning- or better yet, totally discarded alongside the "modern-traditional" binary as a ideological hangover from the mid-century proponents of the International style. As noted, there are viewpoints that most of industrial-era Paris is 'not traditional'', nor are the products of the late 19th century C 'modern' movements.

At its core, modern architecture does not preclude a specific style (Art Deco can be considered 'modern'), and yet I still see complaints (not from you) about 'pastiche' or 'ahistoricity' levied against new large-scale buildings that deviate from this mid-century ideological stranglehold. By these metrics, even the most twee pile Stern puts up is arguably just as technologically modern and functional as whatever contemporary modernism is heralded as the avant-garde.

For me the bottom line is: we should work towards architecture and urban design that makes good streets above all. This can be accomplished with historicist detailing, or without it. Stylistic variety is good.
So ultimately it shouldn't matter whatever style or detail architects apply to their buildings, as long as it works best for the street and place. 'Pastiche', 'zeitgeist', or 'ahistoricity'- should these be relegated to the dustbins of architectural terminology?


Something I like the idea of, is forcing developers to post renderings of the building from various street level positions. Most importantly, a rendering of what it is like to look at the building from the sidewalk 6 ft away from the wall. Most renderings show buildings from a location in which they can never be viewed, and it seems to fuel the street level problem that we have. This building is definitely not the worst offender in any way, but it's such a shame for a great looking tower to fumble the ball where it's most important.
TBH, this seems like a glamour shot designed to provoke a good initial reaction from the city, and the precursor of future marketing material (which the public is even less discerning of); most planning documents do sometimes include additional, less-flashy views from the street and from other angles.

Perhaps this is where the city could standardize the views required for submission; maybe in the future, submissions could demand a full 3d model of the building + the local context, as the architectural field is rapidly moving towards real-time, explorable visualization.
 
Last edited:
Application into the AIC:

1639811943359.png


 
Re: The semantics of Modern vs Traditional.

The Reliance Building in Chicago is technically the first building clad in curtainwall. While not modernist, Id consider it very modern in this regard.

Re: 101 Spadina

It will be just shy of the height of the Palmolive Building in Chicago [roof height]. In some ways it could be considered Palmolive's postmodern cousin without the spire.
 

Back
Top