[nrb]

There is a significant difference between Toronto and american cities. Mainly that Toronto lacks the entrepeneurial exuberance that usually leads to the most monumental buildings in american cities. Toronto's economy only really took off when the banks moved there from montreal, and the skyline reflects that. Aside from TD, the banks built pretty plain buildings. They are conservative insitutions. And the TD center at that only really exists because of the Bronfman families influence with Mies. They also funded the seagram building in New York.

Compare, if you will, to Pittsburgh's US steel tower. The Carnagie and the Mellon famiy's influence can be seen throughout the city. The cathedral of learning wouldn't exist without Mellon's help. Other american cities bear similar architectural developments. They owe their splendor to absurdly successful businessmen who wished to build monuments to themselves.

You can look at Toronto and ask where exactly is this? Failed projects like the weston tower are examples of why toronto remains conservative. Maybe it's too much red tape, a stronger municipal government that doesn't want eccentric billionaires running amok with the cityscape, or maybe it's the generally much less successful and much more conservative business culture in Toronto that leads to monuments of mediocrity like the Rogers building instead of a unique skyscraper.

The architects don't fund the projects. There's only so much they can do with so much money. They are ultimately subservient to their clients. If their clients don't want something impressive or decadent, it's not going to be built.

 

[Urban Shocker]

As such, to say that any particular building or style or approach is distinctly 'Torontonian is absurd.

Clearly not, since many do. The wonder would be if it wasn't, not that it is, SpamEnd. And on that note ...

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’….

In your thoughtful post, of which that is but a part, I think you're right to focus on Toronto Style as an expression of who we are - as Kuwabara does when he refers to the Diamond/Myers/Baird provenance and the depth of the present collective - "the density of the culture and an architectural scene that allows a number of really strong architects to have their careers evolve". As with any creative community in a large urban centre with a unique design history, a critical mass of designers, architects and artists is at work - exchanging ideas, absorbing what works from elsewhere and incorporating it, inventing new forms and expressing the local.

Perhaps the brevity of our PoMo interregnum, which gave us Mississauga City Hall and nothing much else of any international importance or collective heft, was the result of the depth of our Modernist roots and their suitability as a practical working form. We're not early adapters - our embrace of sensible Modernism was mostly a post-WW2 thing, and a kinder gentler take on it too - and the PoMo spark was already dimming ... and looking too "spectacle-over-substance" for our liking. Suspicious of inauthentic modes of expression, we flirted ... but left with the one that brung us.

I think there are wider social issues at work in how design culture has reconnected with our strong Modernist roots. Kuwabara has described the post-PoMo era Kitchener City Hall design competition as representing a generational change and a time when we moved on, but in addition to cultural and civic buildings housing was once a central part of the Modernist movement and Peter Clewes subsequently expanded this reconnection to include multi-unit residential buildings.

That's another collective dialogue that's taking place - in his RAIC interview Kuwabara talks of how "Our work suggests a composite assemblage of urbanism. For example, in the case of the National Ballet School - the presence of the point towers by Peter Clewes from architects Alliance that are part of the overall development are fundamental to the success of our built component to the project. Our composition is both figure and ground relative to the heritage buildings as well as to the base of the towers. There is also a whole scaling thing in relation to the other buildings along Jarvis Street. It is interesting to see how the whole project which included new dance studios, heritage buildings and two point towers came together. I consider the project to be a remarkable mix of residential and institutional architecture that speaks to what the city is as we live in it today."

 

[ProjectEnd]

It's too bad your glued-shoes have made travel impossible. It would save me much time "spamming" threads with pictures in an effort to show you just how utterly boring this city and it's conservative 'design culture' really are. And to cloak that 'B building' apathy in bloated, 'good urbanism/we dun need yer stinkin' spectakle rhetoric' only shows how effete you and Dick Diamond really are. I am just loving the grey, uninspired, hulking, Toronto-Style snot mass that is Boutique looming over me...just loving it.

And though you seem to find it easy to hit the multi-quote, insert tired Shockerism button, you still have yet to provide an example of a Toronto-style building with a description of what makes it unique. You've quoted symposiums, interviews, books, articles, etc. to the effect of 'well they see it, so it must be true,' without actually breaking anything down beyond an empty je ne sais quois. To me this smacks of the kid in elementary school who was scared of being cast out for not seeing/understanding what the 'cool kids' did so he/she just lied to be part of the group.

 

[Tewder]

That's another collective dialogue that's taking place - in his RAIC interview Kuwabara talks of how "Our work suggests a composite assemblage of urbanism. For example, in the case of the National Ballet School - the presence of the point towers by Peter Clewes from architects Alliance that are part of the overall development are fundamental to the success of our built component to the project. Our composition is both figure and ground relative to the heritage buildings as well as to the base of the towers. There is also a whole scaling thing in relation to the other buildings along Jarvis Street. It is interesting to see how the whole project which included new dance studios, heritage buildings and two point towers came together. I consider the project to be a remarkable mix of residential and institutional architecture that speaks to what the city is as we live in it today."

This feels right to me. A pure minimalist International style just feels... well 'international', which is what it is meant to be I guess, and no problem, but when we talk about a Toronto style there must needs be something that transcends the universality of any given established style, anchoring it more specifically to a Toronto context.

I'm thinking here of an analogy to cuisine to illustrate my point. We might consider that what makes a cuisine regional or contextual is more than just a given technique which may be more widely and commonly used, but the expression of that technique using ingredients that are organically localized, unique or authentic. It may even be a blend of these things, more specialized techniques or tools arising from the demands and specifics of those local ingredients. It may also include a sensibility or adherence to a philosophy that combines all the above still...

In architecture and design by extension if modern minimalism is the prevailing technique then the contextuality must be the localized expression of it, exploring a sensibility that embraces the regionalism of traditional 'heritage' influences in design and architecture, of local materials in stone, wood and brick etc, and of local physical/cultural realities of weather, geographic situation, cultural identity and art that grounds a widespread design language more firmly into the local vernacular. In this sense what is of the Toronto Style can never really be exactly like any other, even as other places pursue their own similar philosophy of expression.

When I see those horrific McMansions I know they can never truly be perceived as expressing a philosophy that embraces integrity to a local context, and this is why they bother me, even if I happened to like faux chateaux, which I don't except for Casa Loma perhaps... The problem arises then when I do happen to like the style: new version of mid-century modernism still feels retrograde to me, even though I may like them, because they are anchored to a different philosophy. Not a bad one, and maybe one that is comfortable to us, but one not connecting legibly to a local context. This is why I like Kuwabara's comments above. Local practitioners are using the technique or language of modernism but interpreting it more specifically in its materials, in its interplay with heritage and how Toronto feels about its public realm (Jane Jacobs etc).

 

[alklay]

We did some modernism when modernism was fashionable, we have some very decent examples of brutalism from a time when that was fashionable, we have po-mo from the 80's (and much more than has been admitted by those in this thread) and we are now doing neo-modernism while everyone else around the world is doing it too (and its all quite frankly interchangable).

And even the architects most celebrated by those who foolishly believe there is a 'Toronto Style" can be seen practicing the fashions of the day during particular time periods (one just has to look at the pink pre-cast and overwrought green ironwork of the Richmond Hill Central Library to understand that Diamond is just a much a product of the fashion of the moment as most other architects).

One cannot pick and chose a few buildings and declare that such is a style indicative of architecture in the city, unless you can fit, let's say, the Toronto Police Headquarters, Sheraton Centre and Roberts Library into that style.

I hate to break it some, but there are plenty of cities with contextually respectful neo-modernism developments. We did not invent it, we are not the only ones doing it. And its not the only thing thats going on in this city.

And the quotes so far listed, either speak of individual projects (and do not even pretend to speak to any city universals - such as the Ballet School quote) or insular and provincial navel gazing not unlike authors providing each other favourable bookflap quotes with the chummy understanding that the favour will be returned.

 

[Tewder]

We did some modernism when modernism was fashionable, we have some very decent examples of brutalism from a time when that was fashionable, we have po-mo from the 80's (and much more than has been admitted by those in this thread) and we are now doing neo-modernism while everyone else around the world is doing it too (and its all quite frankly interchangable).

Agreed

One cannot pick and chose a few buildings and declare that such is a style indicative of architecture in the city, unless you can fit, let's say, the Toronto Police Headquarters, Sheraton Centre and Roberts Library into that style.

Actually, you can. Why would anybody claim that every single building ever built or being built fits the Toronto style? Some do, some don't. No harm really, the TD Centre isn't in the Toronto style, as I would foolishly perceive it at least, but I'm happy it's there all the same.

Also, of course any architect will explore different design responses where the context or circumstances are appropriate and Diamond is no different. Gehry also gave us an AGO expansion that is hardly a rote signature of his style. Great. There's room a plenty for it all.

I hate to break it some, but there are plenty of cities with contextually respectful neo-modernism developments. We did not invent it, we are not the only ones doing it. And its not the only thing thats going on in this city.

Yes, so a building that is contextual to Vancouver or LA shouldn't in theory be the same as one that is contextual to Toronto, given that the context is different. Why does the notion of a Toronto style have to be much more than that really? Why is this idea so preposterous?

 

[ProjectEnd]

First off, great post alklay.

Yes, so a building that is contextual to Vancouver or LA shouldn't in theory be the same as one that is contextual to Toronto, given that the context is different. Why does the notion of a Toronto style have to be much more than that really? Why is this idea so preposterous?

Because it's not simply the context which makes something contextual - that line of reason is just as empty as Shocker's: Toronto architects make Toronto-style because their 'creative culture' is Torontonian. Fine, but what makes it unique?

Good contextualism highlights the delicate balance between the existing structures and those being added by finding the best way for the new and the old to converse. Sometimes the solution is to reducing, as was the case with the excellent Bloor/Gladsone Library by Rounthwaite, Dick and Hadley, while other times it's found by showing off, as Danny Boy showed us at the ROM. However, as alklay rightly points out, excellent architects are doing this in excellent ways the world over and to claim that we do it best is, in his/her fine words, "insular, provincial navel gazing."

 

[Urban Shocker]

an empty je ne sais quois.

Actually, the je ne sais quois that can't be defined is what elevates good design to aesthetic excellence, and just because the I-shook-hands-with-Robert-A-M-Stern-and-didn't-wash-for-a-week RenzoWraith fanboy SpamEnd doesn't see something doesn't mean it doesn't exist. The opinions of those who have either posted positively about Toronto Style because they appreciate it, or been quoted on this thread discussing it, count far more than your tired, constipated, grass-is-always-greener-somewhere-else, rote Toronto Style denial - whether you wear your disconnect as a badge of honour or not - any day.

Deliciously put, Tewder. I'll have what you're having.

 

[alklay]

I think that in order for one to declare a 'Toronto Style' you have to first demonstrate that a particular style is unique to Toronto - and that has not even been done.

And with regard to differing contexts, Tewder you raise a very interesting point. But there are an infinite variety of contexts here in the city alone (what fits in beside Toronto Police Headquarters will be different than what fits in beside a row of Victorians or what fits in beside Manulife Centre). What is the unique to Toronto style that fits into all contexts in this city, but not Vancouver? There is none.

 

[Tewder]

Because it's not simply the context which makes something contextual - that line of reason is just as empty as Shocker's: Toronto architects make Toronto-style because their 'creative culture' is Torontonian. Fine, but what makes it unique?

I don't think that all Toronto architects are always making the Toronto style though, and there's nothing necessarily wrong with this except when it seems to really go off the beam, and I'm referring to my McMansion example by way of this. If we can't verbalize or have a reference for a Toronto style how can we really elaborate a challenge to this sort of faux-chateau style? or suburban-mediterranean, or any other non-contextual ersatz style for that matter? If we can't do this than any old crap should theoretically be fair game because there are no parameters to justify why something fits and something doesn't, and it really then just comes down to fashion, taste or popularity.

I'm also not suggesting that adherence to a philosophy of a Toronto style is the only thing that can recommend a design. It's fine if you're going to build pure brutalism, as long as it fits and is good brutalism (not sure if that's a contradiction or not). It's fine if you're going to build 'big hair' (to borrow) as long as it's good big hair. No problem. The city can be inclusive, and is. BUT, in addition to this we have a language to understand, express and interpret how local designers and architects are now adapting established styles to a local context in new and authentic (to Toronto) ways. And therefore it doesn't really matter to us (in terms of terminology) if they're doing this in Chicago too or anywhere else because their ways and their contextuality will be different.

Good contextualism highlights the delicate balance between the existing structures and those being added by finding the best way for the new and the old to converse. Sometimes the solution is to reducing, as was the case with the excellent Bloor/Gladsone Library by Rounthwaite, Dick and Hadley, while other times it's found by showing off, as Danny Boy showed us at the ROM. However, as alklay rightly points out, excellent architects are doing this in excellent ways the world over and to claim that we do it best is, in his/her fine words, "insular, provincial navel gazing."

It dawns on my as I type, and sip my wine (so excuse me if my thoughts here are utter bs), that maybe where we differ is in what it is we're looking to get out of the notion of a Toronto style? As I read through postings here I get the sense that some view it as a unique pure style that we can point to and say 'Eureka, here's a brand new design baby in Toronto, never been seen before'. In this sense I'd probably agree that the notion of a Toronto style is problematic. I'd probably also assert that in this modern day, in the global village if you will, you'd likely be hard-pressed to make this claim about any architecture anywhere.

If on the other hand we're talking a little more self-referentially in terms of understanding the built form here specifically and the work of local designers and architects etc then I think the term is very useful. In this regard I will repeat what I said earlier that if we are true to a philosophy of integrity to a local context then what we build *must* be unique and different to that of other places, because our context is different. If you're committed to this or to some degree of it then you will be less likely to mindlessly build McMansions or to mindlessly even want them.

 

[Urban Shocker]

And the quotes so far listed, either speak of individual projects (and do not even pretend to speak to any city universals - such as the Ballet School quote) or insular and provincial navel gazing not unlike authors providing each other favourable bookflap quotes with the chummy understanding that the favour will be returned.

There is no reason why, in discussing his local work, someone like Bruce Kuwabara would introduce some other building in some other city that may or may not look somewhat like some building he may or may not build here - the SOM building that dazed triumphalist PeeEnd spammed us with, say - to justify his designs. He need make no excuse for focussing on the local, and indeed one would hope he would. Several of the articles and interviews posted acknowledge the importance of the exchange of ideas within the design community and of complementary approaches - the connection between the two Clewes point towers, the Ballet School, and the heritage buildings that went before being one example. This isn't a one-solution-fits all town begging for a universal template to apply everywhere.

 

[ProjectEnd]

Actually, the je ne sais quois that can't be defined is what elevates good design to aesthetic excellence, and just because the I-shook-hands-with-Robert-A-M-Stern-and-didn't-wash-for-a-week RenzoWraith fanboy SpamEnd doesn't see something doesn't mean it doesn't exist. The opinions of those who have either posted positively about Toronto Style because they appreciate it, or been quoted on this thread discussing it, count far more than your tired, constipated, grass-is-always-greener-somewhere-else, rote Toronto Style denial - whether you wear your disconnect as a badge of honour or not - any day.

Deliciously put, Tewder. I'll have what you're having.

Well I did wash, but it was an enlightening experience - something you've clearly not had since your own meeting with Dick Diamond thirty or forty odd years ago (you're really dating yourself here). The post above just illustrates what I'm on about - anyone who 'sees' the Toronto Style, or just wants to pander to a senior member (a la Lady Smile) you approve of, while those of us who find fault with your broken thesis get insults and disdain.

There's enough room for the Jack Diamonds and Renzo Pianos and Bob Sterns to operate around the globe and just because you choose to acknowledge the talents of only one doesn't mean you get to self-righteously deride those who disagree. The grass is greener elsewhere (The Netherlands), and I do wear said 'disconnect' as a badge of pride but only because I want Toronto to be the city it deserves to be and am not generally content with the status quo. Your self-aggrandizing and criticism-as-a-bad-thing attitude only chip away at your already tired stone.

Speaking of rote, it's no wonder why at the Biennale last year, while other countries were embracing the theme of Architecture Beyond Building in unique and distinct ways, Canada was rehashing the same six-year-old North of 44 exhibit from 2002. Our exhibit ignored the program (contextual?) and chose to blandly exhibit models and prepared texts of buildings from the 2000-2001 vintage - the fact that our pavilion was empty while others teamed with intrigued visitors spoke to me and does again now in light of your pathetic defense of our equally pathetic 'design culture.'

 

[Tewder]

And with regard to differing contexts, Tewder you raise a very interesting point. But there are an infinite variety of contexts here in the city alone (what fits in beside Toronto Police Headquarters will be different than what fits in beside a row of Victorians or what fits in beside Manulife Centre). What is the unique to Toronto style that fits into all contexts in this city, but not Vancouver? There is none.

Yep, absolutely there are all kinds of contexts which is why different design responses can work and do. When I speak of context in the sense of a Toronto style specifically, however, I'm talking more about a 'regional' context (rather than a site-specific one, which is important too obviously) which is more rooted to local traditions, local heritage and history, local materials, etc., and how this all blends together with a local sensitivity which I think in Toronto is very Jane Jacobs. In another city they might address the problem of a preponderance of low-density low-rise inner-city streetscapes by raising them and building a-new whereas the sensibility in Toronto bristles against this and has found ways to build new and high around the old. This is not 'unique' to Toronto but is very 'Toronto' in a Toronto style context.

 

[ProjectEnd]

There is no reason why, in discussing his local work, someone like Bruce Kuwabara would introduce some other building in some other city that may or may not look somewhat like some building he may or may not build here - the SOM building that dazed triumphalist PeeEnd spammed us with, say - to justify his designs. He need make no excuse for focussing on the local, and indeed one would hope he would. Several of the articles and interviews posted acknowledge the importance of the exchange of ideas within the design community and of complementary approaches - the connection between the two Clewes point towers, the Ballet School, and the heritage buildings that went before being one example. This isn't a one-solution-fits all town begging for a universal template to apply everywhere.

Interesting you should further prostrate yourself before Kuwabara's name when that SOM building looks quite similar to one which he would produce - the point I was trying to make when originally posting ('spamming') it. Also interesting that you would mention the articles and quotes which you have posted ad nauseam as being appropriate to the discussion, blithely unaware that you, yourself, are 'spammmmmming.' Lastly, why claim that this isn't a 'one-solution-fits-all town' when you seem to be the key proponent of a pigeon-hole 'style' which which is just that?

 

[adma]

I don't think that all Toronto architects are always making the Toronto style though, and there's nothing necessarily wrong with this except when it seems to really go off the beam, and I'm referring to my McMansion example by way of this. If we can't verbalize or have a reference for a Toronto style how can we really elaborate a challenge to this sort of faux-chateau style? or suburban-mediterranean, or any other non-contextual ersatz style for that matter? If we can't do this than any old crap should theoretically be fair game because there are no parameters to justify why something fits and something doesn't, and it really then just comes down to fashion, taste or popularity.

To paraphrase alkay, "I hate to break it some, but there are plenty of cities with this sort of faux-chateau style, or suburban-mediterranean, or any other non-contextual ersatz style for that matter. We did not invent it, we are not the only ones doing it. And its not the only thing thats going on in this city."

Philistinism is philistinism, wherever you go--I might describe the ideal as "pluralism sans philistinism", but a lot of you seem to be tying the philistine knot way too tight. Like, too many of you're being too much the arid aesthetes for your own good.

By comparison, this is joy. If only a bunch of kids could do likewise with Boston City Hall, or whatever...