yyzer
Senior Member
a great and very thoughtful post, adma.....
|
|
|
- Thread starter Ladies Mile
- Start date
Archivist
Senior Member
yes, Adma, a welcome broadening of the horizon. Instead of a "Toronto style", we have a "Toronto mode of appreciation and accommodation". That already strikes me as truer and more interesting than a mere style.
Taking your idea and running with it - think of X. In that condo, we have a clear homage by Toronto's prolific and respected Aa to a cross-town international-style Mies building, which I would propose makes the TD Centre all the more "ours" and roots it more strongly in our city and our appreciation of ourself.
The TD Centre could be anywhere, stylistically, but it's ours, dammit and we're going to build condos that celebrate it. Arguing whether the results are a "Toronto style" that is distinguishable on stylistic grounds from buildings elsewhere seems rather beside the point.
Taking your idea and running with it - think of X. In that condo, we have a clear homage by Toronto's prolific and respected Aa to a cross-town international-style Mies building, which I would propose makes the TD Centre all the more "ours" and roots it more strongly in our city and our appreciation of ourself.
The TD Centre could be anywhere, stylistically, but it's ours, dammit and we're going to build condos that celebrate it. Arguing whether the results are a "Toronto style" that is distinguishable on stylistic grounds from buildings elsewhere seems rather beside the point.
adma
Superstar
Then again, I find X a little more "tribute-acty" and less "indigenous" than such mock-Miesiana would seem in Chicago. Or, in 2009 terms, maybe not.
Another case in point might be the Mayor's Tower Renewal project--if one considers how other, supposedly more "enlightened" jurisdictions might be more inclined t/w showboaty Tower Implosion than Tower Renewal solutions. But here, we see qualities; we see potential; we see reasons to make the constructive most of what we have.
With an assist, of course, from Toronto The Good's repeated strange ability to avoid the worst dystopian urban-decay-hellhole pitfalls of other (North American, especially) metropolii--today's version of the Crombie-era streetcar-saving "The City That Works" rep.
Toronto, I suppose, is like a 40-Year-Old Virgin who fortuitously avoided all manner of STDs along the way.
Another case in point might be the Mayor's Tower Renewal project--if one considers how other, supposedly more "enlightened" jurisdictions might be more inclined t/w showboaty Tower Implosion than Tower Renewal solutions. But here, we see qualities; we see potential; we see reasons to make the constructive most of what we have.
With an assist, of course, from Toronto The Good's repeated strange ability to avoid the worst dystopian urban-decay-hellhole pitfalls of other (North American, especially) metropolii--today's version of the Crombie-era streetcar-saving "The City That Works" rep.
Toronto, I suppose, is like a 40-Year-Old Virgin who fortuitously avoided all manner of STDs along the way.
yyzer
Senior Member
Now that he's done a (great) tribute to Mies...I wonder what Peter Clewes would do with Uno Prii?
An updated Prince Arthur Towers-type building, with its swooping curves, done properly by aA, with modern materials, at about 50 storeys, would be astonishing.....
An updated Prince Arthur Towers-type building, with its swooping curves, done properly by aA, with modern materials, at about 50 storeys, would be astonishing.....
Tewder
Senior Member
I totally agree that the Toronto style evokes a sensibility rather than a pure aesthetic per se.
I'm not sure I agree with Adma about the whole Boston vs Toronto response to the supposedly more 'difficult-to-love' stand-outs of design. The rabble of Toronto usually show themselves just as contemptuous of concrete brutalism as our Beantown counterparts. Lets not forget that we UTers are a fairly rarified bunch and Boston probably has its equivalent circle of archi-geeks who would sell you on all the attributes of their City Hall. Boston is a far older and more established city though. Brutalism in Boston may get somewhat lost in the shadow of Bullfinch but that's sort of like Boxing Day getting lost in the shadow of Christmas.
As for the Toronto Style I do also agree with Adma on the issue of the X tower. No matter how beautiful and welcomed an addition to the skyline it is it remains revisionist modernism, a cliched throw-back even if a well-executed one which it saves it from Cheddington-esque frippery.
Fleshing out my proposed definition and in response to Archivist's thoughts I would add that I don't feel that Spire and 18 Yorkville share the Toronto style either, and not that this makes them bad buildings or unwanted. Not every good building in Toronto will express the Toronto style and not every architect working in Toronto now, no matter how relevant to design in the city, will build in the Toronto style every time. Clewes at Spire is expressing a neo-modern minimalism whereas Clewes at the Distillery elaborates a sensibility where modernism embraces heritage 'roots', the whole combining to create the something 'other' that takes these designs into the rubric of a Toronto style.
As for Hipster Duck, apologies if I stepped on your toes but at the end of the day what we both describe is not at odds.
In response I would suggest we cannot dismiss the notion of a Toronto style just because not every single building in the city conforms. As I say above even the most prolific Toronto designers will explore other styles or be informed by other sensibilities when the context or inspiration dictates.
Also, even if this style exists elsewhere to what degree does it inform design and urban development in the other cities you mention. In Toronto this sensibility is pervasive and profound, I would argue, and isn't simply an issue of one-off in-fill here and there. It is becoming part of our vernacular in the way the Haussman Second Empire style signifies Paris or Bullfinch Boston etc. Other styles exist in those cities of course, and exemplary examples too, but they do not form the overall aesthetic we perceive there.
I'm not sure I agree with Adma about the whole Boston vs Toronto response to the supposedly more 'difficult-to-love' stand-outs of design. The rabble of Toronto usually show themselves just as contemptuous of concrete brutalism as our Beantown counterparts. Lets not forget that we UTers are a fairly rarified bunch and Boston probably has its equivalent circle of archi-geeks who would sell you on all the attributes of their City Hall. Boston is a far older and more established city though. Brutalism in Boston may get somewhat lost in the shadow of Bullfinch but that's sort of like Boxing Day getting lost in the shadow of Christmas.
As for the Toronto Style I do also agree with Adma on the issue of the X tower. No matter how beautiful and welcomed an addition to the skyline it is it remains revisionist modernism, a cliched throw-back even if a well-executed one which it saves it from Cheddington-esque frippery.
Fleshing out my proposed definition and in response to Archivist's thoughts I would add that I don't feel that Spire and 18 Yorkville share the Toronto style either, and not that this makes them bad buildings or unwanted. Not every good building in Toronto will express the Toronto style and not every architect working in Toronto now, no matter how relevant to design in the city, will build in the Toronto style every time. Clewes at Spire is expressing a neo-modern minimalism whereas Clewes at the Distillery elaborates a sensibility where modernism embraces heritage 'roots', the whole combining to create the something 'other' that takes these designs into the rubric of a Toronto style.
As for Hipster Duck, apologies if I stepped on your toes but at the end of the day what we both describe is not at odds.
In response I would suggest we cannot dismiss the notion of a Toronto style just because not every single building in the city conforms. As I say above even the most prolific Toronto designers will explore other styles or be informed by other sensibilities when the context or inspiration dictates.
Also, even if this style exists elsewhere to what degree does it inform design and urban development in the other cities you mention. In Toronto this sensibility is pervasive and profound, I would argue, and isn't simply an issue of one-off in-fill here and there. It is becoming part of our vernacular in the way the Haussman Second Empire style signifies Paris or Bullfinch Boston etc. Other styles exist in those cities of course, and exemplary examples too, but they do not form the overall aesthetic we perceive there.
Urban Shocker
Doyenne
Yes, I think el-Khoury nails it pretty well. He stresses lineage, for one thing - Ladies Mile's "special distillation of Modernism — something rooted in Mies but with its own scale and agenda" - that sounds instinctively right when I look around at what's being built today by our better firms. There's a design culture at work that isn't a replica of what other cities do but is an expression of our own creative community and its roots, with a cross-pollination of ideas that's inevitable within communities. And we build on what went before, as I mentioned a couple of years ago in another thread:
And el-Khoury avoids the temptation to catalogue, pigeon-hole, cross reference and create some sort of Toronto Style For Dummies for net consumers of culture. He makes only passing reference to materials for instance. In the KPMB book that came out a couple of years ago Bruce Kuwabara talks about materiality as an entry-point to their design process, yet I doubt if many of our local architects would be able to reduce what they do to a crib sheet of Toronto Style For Dummies either. I haven't read anything to suggest any of them have tried. The term "art deco" wasn't coined until 1968, and has been applied to a wide range of design objects and fashions from an earlier time, and different people have quite different ideas of what it means ... yet nobody denies it exists.
Basically, el-Khoury is saying that you either see it or you don't, that it's an aesthetic response - which strikes me as perfectly sensible. There's no shame in not seeing it and there's nothing wrong with someone who doesn't. There's no reason why Archivist, for instance, should see it since he's already boasted:
And I sense his frustration of not having that edition of Toronto Style For Dummies at hand when - with one breath - he's a denier ...
... while with the next breath he's not:
It's difficult, I know.
TKTKTK
Senior Member
I think this goes back to something US and I mentioned: that so much of the creative industry in Toronto is ruled by a lack of imagination, and (I would add) too great a fear at standing out or being the first. The Toronto Style is hard to pin down (if it exists at all) because it doesn't really attempt to bring anything new to the table; it's about working within existing ideas and forms.
But does any of it it really matter? Does any city lay claim to its own form of modernism any longer? I thought that kind of micro-regionalization was a thing of the past? In which case, can we just point to the bay-and-gable, pat ourselves on the back, and be done with it?
But does any of it it really matter? Does any city lay claim to its own form of modernism any longer? I thought that kind of micro-regionalization was a thing of the past? In which case, can we just point to the bay-and-gable, pat ourselves on the back, and be done with it?
junctionist
Senior Member
A Toronto style doesn't have to happen spontaneously; our big firms can open up a formal dialogue and purposely achieve a distinct Toronto style. Maybe such buildings would use ample doses of colour to reflect the "diversity living in harmony" ideal, bold uses of Canadian materials for interiors like wood and granite definitely including brick, some curves and angles. Working together in dialogue they could have more sway on clients to be less conservative.
Also, Washington DC has a building called "The Toronto":
Also, Washington DC has a building called "The Toronto":
Ladies Mile
Active Member
Possibly the Boston response to their City Hall is simply reflective of their ability to spot a turkey. The building is imposing, but having toured it, it's also pretty abombinable. And it's not exactly as if there aren't plenty of other landmarks of that style in Boston by which to judge it. Bruer, Gropius, Saarinen, Pei, Rudolph--the list includes pretty much every major player of that era. Add the fact that City Hall Plaza erased Scollay Square and you have a recipe for civic indifference all round.
The DC building simply points up my own horror of giving condo towers exotic names, a trend that started with The Dakota and spiraled downward from there, thematicially and aesthetically.
Ick.
The DC building simply points up my own horror of giving condo towers exotic names, a trend that started with The Dakota and spiraled downward from there, thematicially and aesthetically.
Ick.
TonyV
Senior Member
This is a fascinating thread.
I was composing a response 2 days ago, a lengthy one, and my internet connection failed when I submitted it! Was I pissed, or what!
As I walk around Toronto these days I am pleased to be able to say I like what I see, and I can say it's definitely Toronto that I am looking at.
What comes to mind as I stroll through downtown is this -- "I wonder what's next". The only thing on my wish list at this point in time is to see the intersection of Bay & Queen spiced up a bit. Those two mid-sized towers anchoring southwest and southeast corners are a bit of a drag.
I hope you all realize we wouldn't have been having this discussion ten years ago.
I was composing a response 2 days ago, a lengthy one, and my internet connection failed when I submitted it! Was I pissed, or what!
As I walk around Toronto these days I am pleased to be able to say I like what I see, and I can say it's definitely Toronto that I am looking at.
What comes to mind as I stroll through downtown is this -- "I wonder what's next". The only thing on my wish list at this point in time is to see the intersection of Bay & Queen spiced up a bit. Those two mid-sized towers anchoring southwest and southeast corners are a bit of a drag.
I hope you all realize we wouldn't have been having this discussion ten years ago.
Last edited:
adma
Superstar
Frankly, the so-called rabble everywhere would feel thusly. And I already addressed the equivalent-circle-of-archi-geeks issue with my ref to "a few pointy-headed academics, architects, and Docomomo-fringe masochists as the mere pathetic exception."
But I think you missed my deeper point here: it isn't about the "equivalent circle of archi-geeks", it's about how they creatively, even constructively, galvanize their position. As per this quote
And to attribute this void to something like, to quote Ladies Mile,
is...pathetic. It just makes Boston seem Bulfinch-obsessed to the point of backwoodsness. Like, which of the above sounds like more of a mark of depth and enlightenment in reflecting upon one's urban environment: my "40th-anniversary symposia" scenario, or LM's "ability to spot a turkey" scenario? Unless one feels that the symposia scenario is a Whoopi-defending-Polanski lost cause, it should be no contest...
Archivist
Senior Member
Tewder, I agree with the notion that not every building in a city conforms. One of the reasons why I'm chasing a definition is that I'm hoping that a Toronto style, even loosely defined, might give us an additional tool in our arsenal in furthering our understanding of the look and feel of our city.
I do suspect that when some say "Toronto style", they actually mean to indicate the very neo-modern minimalism that you are omitting, but on the whole I am more enthused with your definition and the omission of buildings like Spire and 18 Yorkville. In the same way, I'm sure we can agree that clunky, ungainly buildings that nonetheless incorporate "heritage" elements do not apply (I'm thinking of 92 Carlton here in particular, but there are other examples).
Shifting the focus just a bit to pre-2000 buildings and smaller scale structures, I'd argue that some of the laneway houses might be included, such as D&S's Ways Lane Residence and Shim Sutcliffe's Laneway House, while not incorporating heritage elements themselves, demonstrate a similar sensibility to the later towers we are talking about.
I do suspect that when some say "Toronto style", they actually mean to indicate the very neo-modern minimalism that you are omitting, but on the whole I am more enthused with your definition and the omission of buildings like Spire and 18 Yorkville. In the same way, I'm sure we can agree that clunky, ungainly buildings that nonetheless incorporate "heritage" elements do not apply (I'm thinking of 92 Carlton here in particular, but there are other examples).
Shifting the focus just a bit to pre-2000 buildings and smaller scale structures, I'd argue that some of the laneway houses might be included, such as D&S's Ways Lane Residence and Shim Sutcliffe's Laneway House, while not incorporating heritage elements themselves, demonstrate a similar sensibility to the later towers we are talking about.
LowPolygon
Senior Member
I find myself curious as to what might have produced this self-conscious sense of Toronto Style. More specifically, I am wondering how the sense of the ‘rightness’ of neo-modernism in Toronto might have emerged; ie. what its antecedents, turning points etc may have been.
I find it a bit curious, because all largish North American cities have their ‘histories of modernism’, written in the architecture of the 50’s and 60’s. What is it then about the Toronto experience that led to this retrenchment of a kind of neo-modernist style?; to the point that its adherents can confidently claim that it represents almost a kind of indigenous form?
Of course there have always been efforts to define a Toronto-centric local practice, stretching back decades. Ironically the most persuasive earlier iteration (at the time anyway) sought to define Toronto primarily through the lens of postmodernism.
Through the mid-late 1980’s there was a sense that the ironies and appropriations of postmodernist aesthetics were a perfect fit for Toronto, mainly because it allowed architects to explore the interest in regionalism that marked much artistic practice here.
These were years when Fredric Jameson famously cited the Eaton Centre as an important example of contemporary architecture in his essay entitled "Postmodernism, or the Cultural Logic of Late Capitalismâ€, and Mississauga City Hall was amongst the most famous examples of postmodernist architecture in the world.
As well, mega-exhibitions like Janice Gurney, Andy Patton and Alan Tregebov’s The Interpretation Of Architecture in 1986, sought to define post-modernism as an inherently Toronto form of artistic practice. This was exemplified by Tregebov's catalogue essay, 'The Search for Significance: Post Modern in Toronto’.
At some point of course these ideas were largely rejected here, although I suppose the economy may have played the biggest role in the failure of postmodernist style to achieve any real dominance. Thankfully, this allowed us to escape some of the most egregious clunkers that were planned at the time: Safdie’s Opera House, the original design(s) for the Bay Adelaide Centre, and the Zeidler’s original World Trade Centre planned for Harbourfront.
So I am wondering about where and when the roots for this idea of a modernist renaissance may have emerged….
A few thoughts:
The decision to put Le Corbusier on the cover of the January 1991 issue of Canadian Architect with the headline “Modernism in the 90’s†must have been inspired by a sense that something was already in the air.
I am wondering whether this zeitgeisty moment might be related to the uproar surrounding the demolition of the Bulova Tower, and the subsequent publication of Detlef Mertin’s Toronto Modern in 1987. As well, I am curious about whether the turmoil in U of T’s School of Architecture, which culminated in the January 1986 announcement that the School would be closed, may have fueled a renewed commitment to the specificity of Toronto as a place, and as an important site for modernist inquiry; thereby producing a sense that Toronto’s modernist traditions made it a ‘place worth fighting for’….
On a side note: to me, another important moment occurred around the same time, when Cadillac Fairview decided to double down on high modernism in the early 90's, by going with another Mies-style tower for atop the old TSE on Bay St; rejecting the very elaborate pomo 'art deco' tower that O&Y had planned for the site. This may have been another ‘modernist line in the sand’…
I find it a bit curious, because all largish North American cities have their ‘histories of modernism’, written in the architecture of the 50’s and 60’s. What is it then about the Toronto experience that led to this retrenchment of a kind of neo-modernist style?; to the point that its adherents can confidently claim that it represents almost a kind of indigenous form?
Of course there have always been efforts to define a Toronto-centric local practice, stretching back decades. Ironically the most persuasive earlier iteration (at the time anyway) sought to define Toronto primarily through the lens of postmodernism.
Through the mid-late 1980’s there was a sense that the ironies and appropriations of postmodernist aesthetics were a perfect fit for Toronto, mainly because it allowed architects to explore the interest in regionalism that marked much artistic practice here.
These were years when Fredric Jameson famously cited the Eaton Centre as an important example of contemporary architecture in his essay entitled "Postmodernism, or the Cultural Logic of Late Capitalismâ€, and Mississauga City Hall was amongst the most famous examples of postmodernist architecture in the world.
As well, mega-exhibitions like Janice Gurney, Andy Patton and Alan Tregebov’s The Interpretation Of Architecture in 1986, sought to define post-modernism as an inherently Toronto form of artistic practice. This was exemplified by Tregebov's catalogue essay, 'The Search for Significance: Post Modern in Toronto’.
At some point of course these ideas were largely rejected here, although I suppose the economy may have played the biggest role in the failure of postmodernist style to achieve any real dominance. Thankfully, this allowed us to escape some of the most egregious clunkers that were planned at the time: Safdie’s Opera House, the original design(s) for the Bay Adelaide Centre, and the Zeidler’s original World Trade Centre planned for Harbourfront.
So I am wondering about where and when the roots for this idea of a modernist renaissance may have emerged….
A few thoughts:
The decision to put Le Corbusier on the cover of the January 1991 issue of Canadian Architect with the headline “Modernism in the 90’s†must have been inspired by a sense that something was already in the air.
I am wondering whether this zeitgeisty moment might be related to the uproar surrounding the demolition of the Bulova Tower, and the subsequent publication of Detlef Mertin’s Toronto Modern in 1987. As well, I am curious about whether the turmoil in U of T’s School of Architecture, which culminated in the January 1986 announcement that the School would be closed, may have fueled a renewed commitment to the specificity of Toronto as a place, and as an important site for modernist inquiry; thereby producing a sense that Toronto’s modernist traditions made it a ‘place worth fighting for’….
On a side note: to me, another important moment occurred around the same time, when Cadillac Fairview decided to double down on high modernism in the early 90's, by going with another Mies-style tower for atop the old TSE on Bay St; rejecting the very elaborate pomo 'art deco' tower that O&Y had planned for the site. This may have been another ‘modernist line in the sand’…
Urban Shocker
Doyenne
Bruce Kuwabara, from part of the interview he gave to Ian Chodikoff when he was awarded the 2006 RAIC gold medal:
Q: Do you situate yourself within the "Toronto Style"? For example, architects in Halifax or other parts of the country can recognize the work being produced in Toronto simply by looking at details like a cornice or recessed window. Are you conscious of this?
A: I think that you are always evolving. Toronto has a high density of solid and serious practitioners. It has a concentration of designers that have made the last 10 years really interesting and I really appreciate work that is done by my contemporaries. One of the great pleasures is to walk around and enjoy contemporary architecture in your own city. It's not all about KPMB, that's for sure. This is where I really like Larry Richards as a great curator of architecture. He has made a huge contribution to this city. Very quietly, he has ushered in great work and we've got results. The biggest thing is to create the density of the culture and an architectural scene that allows a number of really strong architects to have their careers evolve. We don't talk enough about this shared language and the validity of it. I think that if someone in Halifax can see it quite clearly, it's worth examining. I thought that the Toronto Style was a modality of practice - a diversity and heterogeneity that I think intrinsically is what the city is all about. I have been rereading No Mean City and I realize that besides the founding Aboriginal-British-french origins, there was a very strong American influence, especially during the postwar period. Toronto has gone through waves of eclectic development which has accelerated. On one hand, people say that there is an identifiable style, mainly on the strength of a lot of people who have come out of three firms: Jack Diamond, Barton Myers and George Baird. This might be what we are talking about. The number and density of good works being produced in Toronto has been increasing. In the '70s, it is not as though there were so many good works. It was all about competant work, but it is really pretty lively right now. Architecture is in the air.
Q: Do you situate yourself within the "Toronto Style"? For example, architects in Halifax or other parts of the country can recognize the work being produced in Toronto simply by looking at details like a cornice or recessed window. Are you conscious of this?
A: I think that you are always evolving. Toronto has a high density of solid and serious practitioners. It has a concentration of designers that have made the last 10 years really interesting and I really appreciate work that is done by my contemporaries. One of the great pleasures is to walk around and enjoy contemporary architecture in your own city. It's not all about KPMB, that's for sure. This is where I really like Larry Richards as a great curator of architecture. He has made a huge contribution to this city. Very quietly, he has ushered in great work and we've got results. The biggest thing is to create the density of the culture and an architectural scene that allows a number of really strong architects to have their careers evolve. We don't talk enough about this shared language and the validity of it. I think that if someone in Halifax can see it quite clearly, it's worth examining. I thought that the Toronto Style was a modality of practice - a diversity and heterogeneity that I think intrinsically is what the city is all about. I have been rereading No Mean City and I realize that besides the founding Aboriginal-British-french origins, there was a very strong American influence, especially during the postwar period. Toronto has gone through waves of eclectic development which has accelerated. On one hand, people say that there is an identifiable style, mainly on the strength of a lot of people who have come out of three firms: Jack Diamond, Barton Myers and George Baird. This might be what we are talking about. The number and density of good works being produced in Toronto has been increasing. In the '70s, it is not as though there were so many good works. It was all about competant work, but it is really pretty lively right now. Architecture is in the air.
Ramako
Moderator
I don’t know much about the finer points of architecture or architectural history, but I think that there is an emerging style in Toronto based on an industrial aesthetic.
By ‘industrial aesthetic’ I don’t mean assembly lines and cooling tanks. I mean old rail yards and brick warehouses; the 19th-century industry in which Toronto’s history is rooted. Brick, iron, wood, glass.
One of the reasons that I appreciate Pure Spirit is that it doesn’t try to outdo or one-up the existing historical buildings that abut it. It is much taller – yes – but it doesn’t demand the eye’s attention. Instead its simple minimalism serves to contrast and highlight the beauty of the older buildings by creating a subtle frame around them. At the same time it necessarily absorbs some of the industrial aesthetic that surrounds it. The reason that Pure Spirit fits in so comfortably in the Distillery District, yet also creates a sense of contrast, is that it uses the same materials that are common to the area – brick and glass. This aesthetic can be seen in new projects all over Toronto, especially by firms like aA, KPMB, and D+S who often use lots of brick, wood, and glass in their designs.
But there’s more to it than materials. Buildings like Koerner Hall, the National Ballet, and the Four Seasons Centre for Performing Arts all look like they're constructed with a purpose, as though inside their walls there is something that is being created – perhaps those things are not manufactured goods but cultural goods. As much as people decry Diamond’s opera house for looking more like a factory than a cultural institution, I would argue that the industrial overtones are intentional. (The question of whether or not the opera house should have been designed to stand-out rather than fit-in is a different matter.)
Even our latest crop of residential buildings achieves this aesthetic. Some argue that buildings with large, clear windows and balconies like Glas, Murano, or Casa look messy and cluttered, but to me they evoke images of those plastic models from biology class showing the layers of a body with the skin and muscle removed; the architectural equivalent of a Bodies Exhibition. They allow one to literally peer past the outer cladding into the inner-life of a building, as though it were a living body, working and pumping away like a factory or warehouse; hard and flat on the outside but alive and pulsing on the inside.
Furthermore, I would argue that this industrial aesthetic has evolved to the point where it has become liberated from the requirement of context. Nobody would say that Montage is in a neighbourhood that has anything even remotely resembling an industrial use, but it still achieves that industrial aesthetic in my view; the predominant use of bricks and glass, and the off-set column of windows that seems to eschew symmetry - obviously a purely aesthetic choice, yet which seems to have been done to create the impression that the building has some greater function. Really, the thing looks more like a giant transistor chip than a condo. The same thing could be said about Vancouver’s Shangri-La, which I always felt would look better in Toronto.
In summary, someone mentioned that Toronto doesn’t so much have a style as it does a sensibility. That sensibility is largely one of deference to context and existing historical styles. So when that sensibility is applied to Toronto’s industrial past I think you get a style that can, in fact, be articulated. I'd describe Toronto-style as being International Style-inspired neo-modernism reflecting Victorian-age industrial residue.
By ‘industrial aesthetic’ I don’t mean assembly lines and cooling tanks. I mean old rail yards and brick warehouses; the 19th-century industry in which Toronto’s history is rooted. Brick, iron, wood, glass.
One of the reasons that I appreciate Pure Spirit is that it doesn’t try to outdo or one-up the existing historical buildings that abut it. It is much taller – yes – but it doesn’t demand the eye’s attention. Instead its simple minimalism serves to contrast and highlight the beauty of the older buildings by creating a subtle frame around them. At the same time it necessarily absorbs some of the industrial aesthetic that surrounds it. The reason that Pure Spirit fits in so comfortably in the Distillery District, yet also creates a sense of contrast, is that it uses the same materials that are common to the area – brick and glass. This aesthetic can be seen in new projects all over Toronto, especially by firms like aA, KPMB, and D+S who often use lots of brick, wood, and glass in their designs.
But there’s more to it than materials. Buildings like Koerner Hall, the National Ballet, and the Four Seasons Centre for Performing Arts all look like they're constructed with a purpose, as though inside their walls there is something that is being created – perhaps those things are not manufactured goods but cultural goods. As much as people decry Diamond’s opera house for looking more like a factory than a cultural institution, I would argue that the industrial overtones are intentional. (The question of whether or not the opera house should have been designed to stand-out rather than fit-in is a different matter.)
Even our latest crop of residential buildings achieves this aesthetic. Some argue that buildings with large, clear windows and balconies like Glas, Murano, or Casa look messy and cluttered, but to me they evoke images of those plastic models from biology class showing the layers of a body with the skin and muscle removed; the architectural equivalent of a Bodies Exhibition. They allow one to literally peer past the outer cladding into the inner-life of a building, as though it were a living body, working and pumping away like a factory or warehouse; hard and flat on the outside but alive and pulsing on the inside.
Furthermore, I would argue that this industrial aesthetic has evolved to the point where it has become liberated from the requirement of context. Nobody would say that Montage is in a neighbourhood that has anything even remotely resembling an industrial use, but it still achieves that industrial aesthetic in my view; the predominant use of bricks and glass, and the off-set column of windows that seems to eschew symmetry - obviously a purely aesthetic choice, yet which seems to have been done to create the impression that the building has some greater function. Really, the thing looks more like a giant transistor chip than a condo. The same thing could be said about Vancouver’s Shangri-La, which I always felt would look better in Toronto.
In summary, someone mentioned that Toronto doesn’t so much have a style as it does a sensibility. That sensibility is largely one of deference to context and existing historical styles. So when that sensibility is applied to Toronto’s industrial past I think you get a style that can, in fact, be articulated. I'd describe Toronto-style as being International Style-inspired neo-modernism reflecting Victorian-age industrial residue.
Last edited: