Preferred choice for the St. Lawrence Centre Redevelopment Competition

  • Brook McIlroy, Trahan Architects, and Hood Design Studio

    Votes: 11 13.9%

  • Diamond Schmitt, Smoke Architecture, and MVVA

    Votes: 12 15.2%

  • Hariri Pontarini, LMN Architects, Tawaw Collective, Smoke Architecture, and SLA

    Votes: 39 49.4%

  • RDHA, Mecanoo, Two Row Architect, and NAK Design Strategies

    Votes: 16 20.3%

  • Zeidler Architecture, Diller Scofidio + Renfro, Two Row Architect, and PLANT Architect

    Votes: 1 1.3%
  • Total voters
    79
  • Poll closed .
adma said:
When it comes to the reality of Toronto's heritage community, the fact that you're singling out Davisville as a "fewer voices" example has a way of placing your dismissiveness of the SLC in an unflattering light.
Click to expand...
Adma, speak for yourself. Stop trying to get petty little digs at other people- it's more unflattering to your own image.

I fail to see why you'd try to draw a direct line between Davisville and the SLC. This was a comment postulating on the potential noise the demolition of the ROM Crystal might have, in comparison to a more local instance of Toronto architecture. This is not a dismissal of Davisville's preservation efforts, nor a statement that it lacked supporters.

And yes, I put a caveat that things may change as the schedules become clearer in my prior comments about the noise made about the SLC. Don't know why you'd try to make another dig at me.
 
Last edited:
Council approves plan to replace St. Lawrence Centre for the Arts

By Francine Kopun City Hall Bureau
Wed., Jan. 29, 2020

A proposal to tear down the St. Lawrence Centre for the Arts sailed through council on Wednesday without amendments or debate, paving the way for a redevelopment of the site.

--------------

City staff have been instructed to start consulting with key stakeholders in the cultural community and in the St. Lawrence Market neighbourhood to help develop a building plan that “reimagines the St. Lawrence Centre for the Arts as a new cultural and civic hub.”

A cost estimate is to be prepared after the consultations, but in a submission to a city committee, TO Live proposed a $200 million investment, with $42 million coming from the city that would otherwise have been spent on repairs, $100 million in as-yet-unsecured city, provincial and federal money, and $38 million to $58 million raised by the newly created fundraising arm of TO Live.

The new building will be “a new reimagined centre as a state-of-the-art cultural and civic hub for the city’s creative communities and the community at large, in particular not-for-profit performing arts organizations, centred on its historic role as a landmark centre for economic and cultural activities.”
Click to expand...

Outline - Read & annotate without distractions

Outline is a free service for reading and annotating news articles. We remove the clutter so you can analyze and comment on the content.
outline.com outline.com
www.thestar.com

Council approves plan to replace St. Lawrence Centre for the Arts

The St. Lawrence Centre, on Front St. E. opposite Berczy Park requires an estimated $42 million in repairs just to bring it up to current municipal code. TO Live, the agency that oversees publicly owned theatres in the city, had asked instead for permission to tear down the complex and rebuild.
www.thestar.com www.thestar.com
 
Commentary on the future of the St. Lawrence Centre from this Op-Ed by Shawn Micallef:

www.thestar.com

Opinion | Fifty-year-old buildings have lots of life left. So why is Toronto tearing them down?

A perfectly functional and solid building lasting less than 50 years is obscene, Shawn Micallef writes.
www.thestar.com www.thestar.com

Outline - Read & annotate without distractions

Outline is a free service for reading and annotating news articles. We remove the clutter so you can analyze and comment on the content.
outline.com outline.com


The next test might be St. Lawrence Centre for the Arts. A year ago, city council voted unanimously to tear down the city-owned theatre complex and rebuild a state-of-the-art facility after TO Live, the city agency that oversees publicly owned theatres, said it required $42 million in repairs. Even the climate hawks on council didn’t try to stop it, but for now TO Live’s proposed $200 million rebuild is on hold due to COVID.

St. Lawrence Centre was one of nearly 900 centennial projects to celebrate Canada’s first 100 years and create public buildings and works to serve the country into its next century but it has always been in the shadow of its more famous neighbour despite the dizzying name changes, from O’Keefe to Hummingbird to Sony to, for now, Meridian Hall. St. Lawrence is a funky hunk of attractive, angular concrete that doesn’t seem as monumental as it really is, meeting the Front Street sidewalk humanely, with a glass wall that lets passersby see what’s going on in the lobby during intermission.

Theatre folks have argued it’s an imperfect venue for contemporary needs. That may very well be true, but there’s no reason a thoughtful renovation can’t transform the 50-year-young building to something great. Perhaps not the political prize a completely new building is, but the only responsible choice if Toronto takes climate seriously.
Click to expand...
 
While I understand that there would be a delay in the public engagement process on this proposal, due to Covid, I'm a little stymied as to why this was pushed out by ~ a year.

Other city divisions and agencies managed to figure out online consultation; but apparently that was too much of a problem here?

Be that as it may..........

Apparently they're back to musing about restarting the process..........

But because the already 4-phase public consultation process was somehow inadequate...........and required more 'lenses'.............

A phase Zero has been added!

As per this report to the applicable committee meeting on April 6th, 2021

 
The redevelopment is not dead and is being discussed next week and the Report notes "As directed by the City Manager, TO Live and Create TO will report to the Board of Directors of TO Live and the Board of Directors of Create TO no later than February 2022 to include "a project plan and schedule to deliver a new St. Lawrence Centre for the Arts, for subsequent consideration and approval by City Council as soon as possible thereafter". " See: https://www.toronto.ca/legdocs/mmis/2021/rl/bgrd/backgroundfile-165089.pdf
 
@AlexBozikovic has a new column in the Globe and Mail up on this redevelopment, or an alternative to it.

www.theglobeandmail.com

How to bring a Brutalist public building back to life

Toronto’s St. Lawrence Centre for the Arts may be facing impending demolition, but architect Tura Cousin Wilsons has a bold alternative vision for what the arts complex could – and should – be
www.theglobeandmail.com www.theglobeandmail.com

As at posting it is not behind the paywall.

The gist of the column is both a lament for the impending demolition of the existing building; and a proposed alternative for its adaptive reuse.

An alternative concept from SOCA design is discussed (image below).

1621841703335.png

Rendering of a proposal for an expansion of the St. Lawrence Centre for the Arts by SOCA Design.
Norm Li

****

Personally, I don't find anything particular endearing about the proposal above; nor the existing SLC.

But if I was attached to the existing SLC, I don't think I would consider this to be preservative; nor would I would welcome this addition to the neighbourhood; but to each their own.

There isn't actually a new facility on the table to discuss at this point so we have to content ourselves w/the comparing the status-quo, and the above.
 
Last edited:
Looks like something they're building on the existing structure. So doing the AGO 2.0 thing with this?
 
UtakataNoAnnex said:
Looks like something they're building on the existing structure. So doing the AGO 2.0 thing with this?
Click to expand...
The current proposal is to demolish the entire thing. Alex is advocating for a different model where we gut and reuse. On the face of it, this makes sense to me - but I’m not an architect, and I couldn’t tell you if the new design would meet the users’ needs.
 
allengeorge said:
The current proposal is to demolish the entire thing. Alex is advocating for a different model where we gut and reuse. On the face of it, this makes sense to me - but I’m not an architect, and I couldn’t tell you if the new design would meet the users’ needs.
Click to expand...

I find the proposal above to repeat the mistake of the original, that is to be very imposing on the neighbourhood, and disrespectful of context.

Albeit w/more colour, it also manages to exude something of a brutalist aesthetic probably due to the large window-less expanses.

That may well be necessary to a performing space, but it's jarring and unattractive to me.
 
Last edited:
allengeorge said:
The current proposal is to demolish the entire thing. Alex is advocating for a different model where we gut and reuse. On the face of it, this makes sense to me - but I’m not an architect, and I couldn’t tell you if the new design would meet the users’ needs.
Click to expand...
Oh okays...I saw the render and assumed the grey bits where the original structure. I guess though I wasn't seeing the forest for that tree, as this was an unofficial alternative proposal. Perhaps I should read the captions and attached article before presuming such in the future. >.<

...that said, I like where the alternative proposal is going with this.
 
You must log in or register to post here.

Back
Top