[junctionist]

I would argue otherwise. Toronto may have pockets of nice buildings here and there, but overall our architecture is either boring (plain glass and big box sky-scrapers) or just plain ugly like the UofT Athletic Centre & Grad House residence.

What Toronto is missing is a real section of historic buildings. Most of them have been burned down, and the ones that remain are in dilapidated state. Also, the main problem in Toronto is that there are poor architectural standards and coherence. Many buildings don't fit well with each other, and often there are stark contrasts between old and new, tall and low.

There aren't many buffer zones, and we often see a small building like a church being completed overwhelmed by glass towers (like at University/Bloor). It looks terrible. Some areas work well in the city, but mostly it's generic forgettable architecture. Look at our office skyscrapers.

It seems that our city is bursting with interesting buildings in every neighbourhood. (Have you ever browsed tobuilt.ca? Browse by neighbourhood or style, and I'm sure you'll discover a variety of great buildings around the city.) Whether it's the Beaux-Arts bank or Art Deco apartment in a streetcar suburb, the large Victorian neighbourhoods, the calculated modernism of a bank or school in the 416 suburbs, or some of the many gems of modernism apartment building. GradHouse residence isn't beautiful, but it's anything but boring in it's challenging architectural conventions. To simply slam it as ugly is immature and reflects a very shallow view of architecture as working on a simple "ugly/beautiful" "boring/exciting" dichotomy.

Our landmarks include some brilliant buildings, our office towers are a collection of fine modernism, late modernism and respectable PoMo. There repetitive and uncreative buildings, but realize that these make up the majority of buildings in even the most distinguished cities.

But I definitely agree with your points on the public realm. I think we're less inclined to even notice architectural details when clusters of overhead wires are usually blocking the view.

 

[adma]

A general observation.

It is my opinion that Toronto architecture punches far above its weight: is, in fact, probably the greatest urban ensemble in North America. It is also my opinion that most people, including Toronto natives, are either unaware of this or dismissive of the fact in the face of glittering hyper-projects and desiccated landmarks from elsewhere.

Alas, my argument led to a threadjack in the World Photos forum , so I thought I would start this thread as a way to discuss opinions relating to this topic.

My fear is that we are poised as both a society and an economy to lose our special distillation of Modernism—something rooted in Mies but with its own scale and agenda—in chasing after big budget scaleless wonders like the AGO façade and the Alsop project, neither of which, I submit, is a particularly useful or beautiful structure now let alone 30 years from now.

Do we have a built environment worth defending and developing as a unified approach to space, function, time and art? Or are we destined to become famous for the big foreign thing in the front yard a la Sydney, Australia?

For the sake of urban dialectic, why not both ends of the equation? To overinsist upon said "special distillation of Modernism" and be paranoid about it sounds a little like a stylistic version of Euro-style ethnic-purity paranoia.

Indeed, I'd argue that Toronto's magic is exactly in its disarming capacity to accomodate both at once--disarming, even, to your garden-variety big-hair starchitecture afficionados.

So maybe it isn't so much about the built form, as in the way that we accomodate and use it. AGO and Alsop (and Robert Stern, for that matter) may not be prima donna harbingers of the future, but that doesn't mean they'll be wiped out as "failures" in 30 years, either. They'll just sink in as added parts of the broad urban surprise...

 

[Archivist]

I would be interested in seeing a written definition of the Toronto style, or if you will, our own special distillation of modernism, that would actually be precise enough to distinguish our modernism as it has been practiced in actual buildings, from that occurring elsewhere in the world. I'm not hostile to the effort, but I have never seen anything that has convinced me that it is possible.

I'm more with Adma, my Toronto is big enough for the big hair projects, modernist impulses, and others beside. I don't see how one is threatened by the other in any way. How many big hairs do we have left, anyways? Unless you are counting the Aga Khan, we really only have the L Tower on the books right now. Or are there others I am unaware of? But I'd be interested in hearing more, how the impact of Gehry, Libeskind etc. is being felt on the city, above and beyond the buildings they have worked on.

My take on heritage is that our gains over the past decade (The distillery district, the Carlu, the National Ballet, Joy Oil, Palais Royale, and countless others) have vastly outweighed our recent losses (Walnut Hall, Bata, Union Carbide). My greatest sense of loss is reserved for the huge number of everyday residential buildings (modernist and previous styles) that are being replaced by Chipboard Chateaus out there, all over the city. To me, that's the greatest and most horrible threat to the city - whole neighbourhoods are being replaced under our feet without a whole lot of notice. I don't imagine for a second that most of what is being replaced is significant in any meaning of the word, but those stone things - they hurt my damn eyes.

 

[simply Dan]

To me, that's the greatest and most horrible threat to the city - whole neighbourhoods are being replaced under our feet without a whole lot of notice.

Agreed. It speaks to the whole concept of disposability. Archivist: were you able to check out the Leona Drive Project up in North York?

 

[ProjectEnd]

I would be interested in seeing a written definition of the Toronto style, or if you will, our own special distillation of modernism, that would actually be precise enough to distinguish our modernism as it has been practiced in actual buildings, from that occurring elsewhere in the world. I'm not hostile to the effort, but I have never seen anything that has convinced me that it is possible.

Precisely. I'd enjoy Shocker or the Smilin' Lady's explanation of how Harvard's recently completed NW Science building by SOM is much different than recently completed academic structures by Diamond or, more accurately, KPMB.

http://www.som.com/content.cfm/harvard_university_northwest_science_building

 

[junctionist]

Modernism in truest form was supposed to be international and not local after all. But when we started moving away from the International Style, there is some potential for something more unique to the region in the 1970s.

 

[Archivist]

ProjectEnd, precisely. I was quite struck by this little tower, which strikes me as extremely similar to several handsome buildings that have been built recently in our fair city. Just as with the example you showed, this one strikes me as not substantially distinguishable from multiple projects in our city.

 

[Archivist]

I forgot to answer Dan's question. Yes, I went up to Leona Drive, and greatly enjoyed the show, partially because the houses were not so different from the one I grew up in Ottawa. As I mentioned, there's nothing really remarkable about those houses, and to be honest, in the case of Leona drive if they are building something with a bit more density I am OK with it.

It's more in areas like York Mills where almost every example of modest modernist buildings seems threatened, and whole streets are becoming lined with large and tasteless building, that really makes me cringe.

 

[Tewder]

Amazingly it so happens that the buildings we like represent the Toronto style, as opposed to the dreck that's actually being built all over the damn place.

 

[Urban Shocker]

Toronto Style is defined by the presence of a certain immediately recognizable je ne sais quoi .

 

[Archivist]

So are you dear, but at least you have the added advantage of actually existing.

 

[Urban Shocker]

As do all the buildings!

extremely similar

doesn't count.

 

[Archivist]

Well, US, we've been through this discussion and you've shown yourself incapable of coming up with even a single coherent phrase to indicate what you actually mean. No need to continue a tweedledum.

I'm actually more interested in Ladies Mile, and what she might mean by our special distillation of Modernism, a phrase which intrigues with possibility.

 

[lawsond]

Just flew in from Boston on Porter and not only are my arms tired - ba dum - but I got THE most spectacular view of the whole Toronto "project" now underway.
And after years of fuming about how unimaginative and dull all those boxes are, I noticed from a whole new and interesting perspective, a real coherence to the skyline and some sort of modernist lightness of being about the whole damned thing.
So I guess I had an epiphany of sorts and now must take a nap.

 

[AlvinofDiaspar]

PE:

Precisely. I'd enjoy Shocker or the Smilin' Lady's explanation of how Harvard's recently completed NW Science building by SOM is much different than recently completed academic structures by Diamond or, more accurately, KPMB.

Cost and architectural flourish/finishing? I think it's important to note these factors in the debate.

AoD