UtakataNoAnnex
Senior Member
Love that rainbow colour scheme though! <3
- Thread starter rdaner
- Start date
emphurent
Active Member
As I don't think any opinions I have really add to the the discussion, I got curious about some of the buildings that were historically around where Berczy Park is (and where St Lawrence Centre is) now and wanted to share some for those who also didn't know like me. It is a bummer looking at what we've lost in such a short amount of time. I try not to dwell on it as history happened and these buildings likely were left in poor shape, but it's always eye opening to think about what could have been (and the cool restaurants that could've faced the park from here.)
Buildings from the centre of this photo all the way to the right are where St Lawrence Centre sits now. (Source)
Bonus... Where 33 Yonge Street is today, as shot from Front Street (Berczy would be to the right) That whole block on Scott Street was quite grand... (Source)
Buildings from the centre of this photo all the way to the right are where St Lawrence Centre sits now. (Source)
Bonus... Where 33 Yonge Street is today, as shot from Front Street (Berczy would be to the right) That whole block on Scott Street was quite grand... (Source)
Last edited:
jje1000
Senior Member
As a preface- I met Tura before when he was working at Diamond Schmitt- undoubtedly an outstanding and talented individual, and an amazing contributor to Toronto's architectural community.
There are some good moves worth noting in any future iteration (reconstruction/renovation) of the site. First of, the entrance is relocated to a far more advantageous and less shadowy location, with an emphasis on stitching the O'Keefe and St. Lawrence Centre together with the pedestrianization of Scott Street. Secondly, the creation of additional 'urban rooms' helps create additional layering of activities, and places for urban spectating, and there must be some praise placed on at least addressing the worst parts of the St. Lawrence Centre- namely its corner.
Now, some comments on the design & its integration into the existing structure:
First of all, one might point towards the conveniently angling and hiding of the rest of the St Lawrence Centre facade in the renderings. If this project is about reinvigorating the St. Lawrence Centre, what's to hide? The rest of the building?
The few glimpses we see indicate an uncomfortable clash of warm red terracotta and dull grey concrete, with residual Front Street facade of the St. Lawrence Centre reduced to an awkward wafer emerging from the terracotta facade, like a ghost stair embedded in a gypsum wall, or a match box being pulled from its casing. Maybe even a cordyceps mushroom emerging from its host. Why not more of a neutral colour and tone to integrate the two elements together? Perhaps there is a degree of hesitation in showing and adapting too much of the design language of the original structure? Did no one want a second helping of Adamson's design?
Overall, this design compromises the original Adamson building in an intrusive manner- the original ensemble is essentially sliced in half, fragmented and obscured; the architectural language of the original discarded in favor of a contemporary one- perhaps ultimately indicating that the original exterior composition wasn't worth retaining, and that the most valuable spaces are the interior ones. The original building, designed to wrap around a corner (albeit poorly), is now reduced to two facades separately stranded on Front and Scott Street, and the profile intended to be seen from the corner is lost.
Like what @Northern Light has noted, this is not really 'respectful preservation' in any sense, but that's actually a good thing! I do think it's at least a step forward that even the stalwart taste-makers and architectural curators in Toronto's architectural community realize that the St. Lawrence Centre is not really an exceptional or even a good example of brutalist architecture, and is not worth preserving in entirety, in its current or even original form. To preserve the entire site while attempting to insert new programme is unnecessarily complicated, with restrictive programmatic arrangements as a result due to the spatial constraints- and that's not including the dubious qualitative aesthetic arguments as the initial basis of preservation.
Of course, there are also environmental arguments against a total demolition, but to do so, you don't need to preserve the entire building, as I will attempt to illustrate in a subsequent post.
(On an aside, I do find that most arguments about 'embodied energy' tend to be used advantageously rather than systematically, as an argumentative equivalent of throwing everything at the wall. "No, this building has heritage value! Wait, listen to me! Did you know that tearing down this building will emit more carbon???" IMO, we don't necessarily have to leave entire place-damaging buildings standing for another hundred years just to offset 30 minutes of Chinese and Indian industrial output- we have the ability to pick and adapt what components work best. But that's another argument for another day.)
I have, however also noticed some individuals utilizing a city report and claiming that because it's a 'listed landmark', it shouldn't be torn down, and that there are far blander and older buildings that have gotten the same level of recognition.
Yet inside that very same 2012 report, the city itself doesn't find any exceptional quality of the architecture but rather the social events within- and to attempt to push the former as a reason why it's a 'listed landmark' is blurring recognition of events that occurred on the site with the quality of architecture. If the importance this site holds is in the historical/social events, these are ephemeral and not necessarily tied to the physical space.
And the rest of the report certainly doesn't hold back on the vagueries- there isn't more of a lukewarm architectural endorsement than this. Perhaps this building is closer to those undeserving old buildings that undeservedly get heritage designation around our city than one would think.
Of course, there are also arguments made that the design has been damaged by consequent renovations, but are typically accommodated by pristine architectural photographs, which deliberately frame & capture architecture the moment it's 'hot-off-the-press', before the designs become inhabited by pesky, unpredictable humans.
To utilize these images as arguments obfuscates lived reality that has transpired since- and that this building perhaps didn't really perform exceptionally as a performance space in that time (lacking any sort of folkloric acoustic renown akin to that to the then-dingier Massey Hall). And if one is arguing that this project is emblematic of Adamson's work, shouldn't Ron Thom's interventions be recognized as well? As a renowned architect himself who renovated the building in the 80s, were these changes not educated, deliberate choices based on continued feedback from the users rather than just merely 'bad changes' that ruined the original design?
As such, I find this quote in the G&M article attached to the proposal sort of poignant:
Maybe to dance around the words, this building in particular was perhaps never particularly pleasant or functional to the dirty plebeians who have to interact with it on a regular basis beyond the occasional society event. Perhaps it's a reason why it was never particularly loved in the first place, and why those renovations had to occur that obscured the original architectural vision. But then again, these people aren't educated enough and perhaps have to be told by select professional heritage individuals on what's correct and what's wrong. "They must learn to love it. They must!"
Overall, the St. Lawrence Centre is at most mediocre brutalism in its design, without anything noticeable or unique about the materiality, massing, nor interior spaces- and is at worst, an archtypical instance of late 60s-70s society's notion of fortress urbanism, encapsulated in its abysmally-dull street-facing facades. It can ultimately be summarized as a mid-managerial institutional design, latching onto an architectural style in popular at the time, but failing to replicate the sublime and terrifying aspects seen in the best of brutalism.
As I mentioned in an earlier comment, there's no reason why things must be left the way they are. As some people argue, our cities change, and because a building was built to mark a particular event or period of time shouldn't mean that its site is perpetually off-limits to change. The site will always transcend the buildings on them, no matter what. It is instead our jobs as citizens to ensure that what ends up on the site serves us best.
Last edited:
jje1000
Senior Member
As an addendum, here are some quick massing studies done on a very rough Sketchup site plan, assembled in an afternoon to demonstrate some alternative proposals that aim to seek a middle ground. There are perhaps some real arguments to be made about not unnecessarily demolishing buildings, and as argued elsewhere, the performance spaces are perhaps the raison d'être of the building, and most valuable elements of the site. However, the current desires to preserve as much of the existing structure as possible (despite compromising the original design in the process) have perhaps clouded certain judgments and precluded some more liberating opportunities.
Style-wise, the back sides are the most interesting brutalist elements of the building, while the public front of house is of little architectural significance inside and out. As such, there should be no qualms about expunging the existing street-facing structures, but any elements that remain should be respected for what they are.
Ultimately, it has been historically noted that site constraints was what really hobbled the original building from the start and as construction is limited over the existing theatres- short of a total reconstruction- and to metaphorically cut the Gordian Knot, I believe that either demolishing the Jane Mallet Theatre or buying the building next door are the ways out of this spatial dilemma.
Option A:
The Jane Mallet Theatre and the existing front of house are demolished and rebuilt as part of an integrated development. Office, black box theatre, and rehearsal space are incorporated as part of a new stacked structure, with a new front of house facing Front Street & the O'Keefe Centre. This preserves around 50-60% of the existing structure.
Ultimately, the massing is pushed as far south as possible to reduce its impact on Berczy Park, with the brutalist elements of the Bluma Appel Theatre preserved in-situ in memory of the '67 Centennial, but not perpetuated. The Front Street frontage is raised to the height of the surrounding buildings, with an open terrace for urban spectating, and could even open onto the black box theatre for outdoor performances.
Option B:
The Beardmore building next door is purchased and integrated into the site like in Massey Hall. The existing front of house is demolished, and office & rehearsal space are relocated throughout the Beardmore, with possibly a new extension for a black box theatre, replacing a mid-80s extension in the back. This essentially transforms the St. Lawrence Centre into a tripartite design, with two smaller theatre flanking a central one. This preserves up to around 75-80% of the existing structure.
In this case, the massing is kept relatively low, to avoid dominating Berczy Park. The Front Street frontage remains a connective spine, with stair rising from the corner into a 'New Berczy Room' event space. The angled overhang on the corner is a repetition of the overhang on the Bluma Appel theatre, to tie the two together architecturally while opening up the tight public space. As the building wraps the corner, it utilizes a color gradient to transition from a grey to warmer tones & materiality in order to integrate it into the rest of the neighbourhood.
Now, back to my personal projects...
Style-wise, the back sides are the most interesting brutalist elements of the building, while the public front of house is of little architectural significance inside and out. As such, there should be no qualms about expunging the existing street-facing structures, but any elements that remain should be respected for what they are.
Ultimately, it has been historically noted that site constraints was what really hobbled the original building from the start and as construction is limited over the existing theatres- short of a total reconstruction- and to metaphorically cut the Gordian Knot, I believe that either demolishing the Jane Mallet Theatre or buying the building next door are the ways out of this spatial dilemma.
Option A:
The Jane Mallet Theatre and the existing front of house are demolished and rebuilt as part of an integrated development. Office, black box theatre, and rehearsal space are incorporated as part of a new stacked structure, with a new front of house facing Front Street & the O'Keefe Centre. This preserves around 50-60% of the existing structure.
Ultimately, the massing is pushed as far south as possible to reduce its impact on Berczy Park, with the brutalist elements of the Bluma Appel Theatre preserved in-situ in memory of the '67 Centennial, but not perpetuated. The Front Street frontage is raised to the height of the surrounding buildings, with an open terrace for urban spectating, and could even open onto the black box theatre for outdoor performances.
Option B:
The Beardmore building next door is purchased and integrated into the site like in Massey Hall. The existing front of house is demolished, and office & rehearsal space are relocated throughout the Beardmore, with possibly a new extension for a black box theatre, replacing a mid-80s extension in the back. This essentially transforms the St. Lawrence Centre into a tripartite design, with two smaller theatre flanking a central one. This preserves up to around 75-80% of the existing structure.
In this case, the massing is kept relatively low, to avoid dominating Berczy Park. The Front Street frontage remains a connective spine, with stair rising from the corner into a 'New Berczy Room' event space. The angled overhang on the corner is a repetition of the overhang on the Bluma Appel theatre, to tie the two together architecturally while opening up the tight public space. As the building wraps the corner, it utilizes a color gradient to transition from a grey to warmer tones & materiality in order to integrate it into the rest of the neighbourhood.
Now, back to my personal projects...
Last edited:
AlexBozikovic
Active Member
A higher-res image.
To clarify: In this proposal, more than 90% of the original shell and structure of the building would be preserved. The proposal is based on TOLive’s business plan which calls for a new restaurant/event space — here it would go on the roof of the theatre; a new black box, and other program.
The idea that additions to heritage buildings should “defer,” and that buildings should blend into their context, are ideas that deserve to be questioned.
To clarify: In this proposal, more than 90% of the original shell and structure of the building would be preserved. The proposal is based on TOLive’s business plan which calls for a new restaurant/event space — here it would go on the roof of the theatre; a new black box, and other program.
The idea that additions to heritage buildings should “defer,” and that buildings should blend into their context, are ideas that deserve to be questioned.
Northern Light
Superstar
TY for those @jje1000
In your 'B' option are you proposing to maintain the entire heritage portion of the Beardmore, in its entirety?
***
Also, in respect of same, you note a mid 80s extension to same.
I was looking at Scott Lane......is all of this from the 80s?
jje1000
Senior Member
Yes, that's the portion that I believe is expendable. The upper portions appear to have been heavily altered in the 80s-90s, while the bottom portion seems to be a later extension of the original structure, and is of little architectural note. Of course, if the texture is still desired, the original brick walls can be retained, like in the Distillery District.
And I question if 90% of the structure deserves to be preserved if you're going to 'preserve' it in such a manner that compromises its original language- not to mention the question of much of the existing structure really needs to be kept in order to keep the 'spirit of '67' alive.
As such, the G&M proposal is really an act of architectural facadism in spirit- as a 3-dimension design is reduced to two facades, and the most interesting rooftop elements are hidden away by the new addition. The latter statement is interesting as despite your claims that the original building should be kept for its architectural heritage, it still ends up becoming an appendage/accessory to the 'new and better' bursting from its metaphorical chest- perhaps calling into question how much of its original design really was respected in the first place, rather than as a means to an end.
In essence I see this as the architectural equivalent of a marriage that has drifted apart. They (the addition & original building) still share the same house (site), but they aren't talking to each other...
Last edited:
Tura Cousins Wilson
New Member
Thanks for the kind words @jje1000 whoever you are!.... Your thoughtful and critical comments have enticed me to Join UrbanToronto!
For clarity, the intent for @AlexBozikovic's piece and my speculative design proposal was to provoke the question of what we collectively deem as heritage in this city? and to further ask the question of whether it is possible for a contemporary arts institution such as SLCA to reimagine and repurpose itself without completely purging the past? It's also important to note that these questions of modernist/brutalist heritage extend well beyond this specific site.
The very fact that people are debating these questions in this thread and your alternate versions of maintaining portions of the existing building is precisely the point and I 'd say success of the provocation -- Why not at the very least explore the possibility of working with the existing? That is really what this piece is asking.
The SLCA previously explored 1 Option of minor upgrades and another of a full demolition and rebuild. What my proposal and even your massing studies show is that there is certainly a middle-ground option in between minor updates and a full demolition worth exploring at these early stages. -- So why not?
Is this the best example of Brutalism and architecture of its era? Of course not! But neither are Foundry Buildings and the many other structures we collectively deem heritage in this city. Are Alex and I in the minority of people who see value in the existing? Probably, but it was also once a minority position to see industrial buildings and cookie cutter Victorian houses as heritage... All that to say opinions can and do change!
I am very much aware that there are multiple viable options worth exploring and did consider your option 'A' as a possibility. As you're aware, a project of this scale even just as a feasibility study would require a large team and budget. For clarity, neither Norm Li nor myself were paid for this work. I took the idea of keeping the most heritage as possible and ran with it. But in all honesty whether it's 90%, 75%, or 40% detracts from the intent nor did I see that as my role to determine with the information I was working from. So in response to your comment on why not show multiple renderings showing different perspectives of the existing building?..... I'd say sure!... If it's was a real paying project.
Lastly, and not fully for you @jje1000, I'd push back against the idea that new buildings must always defer to 19th century architecture to be considered 'good conservation'... sometimes yes, but other times not.
Cheers!
For clarity, the intent for @AlexBozikovic's piece and my speculative design proposal was to provoke the question of what we collectively deem as heritage in this city? and to further ask the question of whether it is possible for a contemporary arts institution such as SLCA to reimagine and repurpose itself without completely purging the past? It's also important to note that these questions of modernist/brutalist heritage extend well beyond this specific site.
The very fact that people are debating these questions in this thread and your alternate versions of maintaining portions of the existing building is precisely the point and I 'd say success of the provocation -- Why not at the very least explore the possibility of working with the existing? That is really what this piece is asking.
The SLCA previously explored 1 Option of minor upgrades and another of a full demolition and rebuild. What my proposal and even your massing studies show is that there is certainly a middle-ground option in between minor updates and a full demolition worth exploring at these early stages. -- So why not?
Is this the best example of Brutalism and architecture of its era? Of course not! But neither are Foundry Buildings and the many other structures we collectively deem heritage in this city. Are Alex and I in the minority of people who see value in the existing? Probably, but it was also once a minority position to see industrial buildings and cookie cutter Victorian houses as heritage... All that to say opinions can and do change!
I am very much aware that there are multiple viable options worth exploring and did consider your option 'A' as a possibility. As you're aware, a project of this scale even just as a feasibility study would require a large team and budget. For clarity, neither Norm Li nor myself were paid for this work. I took the idea of keeping the most heritage as possible and ran with it. But in all honesty whether it's 90%, 75%, or 40% detracts from the intent nor did I see that as my role to determine with the information I was working from. So in response to your comment on why not show multiple renderings showing different perspectives of the existing building?..... I'd say sure!... If it's was a real paying project.
Lastly, and not fully for you @jje1000, I'd push back against the idea that new buildings must always defer to 19th century architecture to be considered 'good conservation'... sometimes yes, but other times not.
Cheers!
Northern Light
Superstar
TY for the post.
Interesting material to ponder.
****
That said, (speaking for myself) I don't see a societal shift coming on the view of Brutalism.
What people once disliked about Victorians was their antiquation, more than their aesthetic.
People of my parents or grandparents era wanted homes with central heat and air conditioning, or a garage, or plumbing set up for washers/dryers and dishwashers, or finished basements.
They wanted floors that didn't creak, and homes that didn't require a bundle of maintenance.
Many older brick and stone buildings were also badly soiled by pollution going into the mid-20thC when so much was torn down.
Had those buildings (at least the better ones) been cleaned up and restored, as many survivors have, I expect greater value would have been seen in them, as is now the case.
Whereas, I don't think the bulk of those issues drive people's view of Brutalist buildings.
If you fix what most people dislike about them, they won't be Brutalist anymore.
It's certainly my perception that negative views of Brutalism tend to be informed by the 'fortress' vibe, too few windows, too little colour/warmth, not the technological status or amenitization of the buildings.
If you make the SLC building terracotta, with more glass, people may be amenable to its appearance; but it won't really be the same building anymore.
It also won't resolve the functional issues of the tenants either, which is an issue wholly apart from the architectural style of the buildings.
****
We will also have to disagree on the matter of deference to heritage.
Toronto has very few intact blocks of quality 19thC commercial architecture.
Those few we have deserve a measure of deference.
It's not as if there's all that much to protect, or a shortage of space on which to building interesting buildings in a City as large as ours.
jje1000
Senior Member
Thank you, and it'll be great to see your opinions here!
I definitely agree with your point that the SLCA should be exploring more options to retain some of the existing structures, as more of a gradient between full demolition and full reuse but as you have noted, this building is hardly the best example of architecture from its era- and as such, the arguments could very much explore the concept of reuse via environmental concerns + social preservation, rather than purely aesthetic ones based on the original quality of the architecture.
From this, there must also be a conversation in what we want to curate, what best parts of the existing structure that ought to be preserved as memory of the events that have gone there.
I believe that it is on this topic where the argument bifurcates- whether or not the majority of the building is really worth keeping in spite of its apparent flaws- or if we can pick the grains from the chaff and choose what elements are worth preserving, so to speak- while freeing up room for more daring architectural and programmatic freedom. This is a debate that extends all the way around the city, from the SLC, to Yonge Street, to Little Jamaica- what do we keep? What can we let go of? How do we ensure that the social history is remembered regardless?
And in terms of a conversations...it's not only about the surrounding 19th century buildings that matter- and if preservation over curation is preferred, the dialogue between the existing building on the site (the SLC) and the new intervention also must be had. Otherwise, it's a one-way speech, not a conversation- this was the thrust of my initial point, that for all the emphasis on preserving the SLC and the thoughtfulness put into the programmatic design, the final product seems to deemphasize the original building on the site.
As a tangent, this is an interesting theory I have on why McMansions are still popular in this day and age despite their awful design...namely that the general uneducated public in the West subconsciously wants something that looks like a traditional house with modern amenities, but architectural knowledge and skills on how to design and build such designs have essentially evaporated outside the realm of the ultrarich... and so with McMansions we must endure.
As is generally the case, cultural shifts are uneven, and some of the older substrate will still persist after time- modernism is no different in this regard...
Last edited:
UtakataNoAnnex
Senior Member
That's an oddly shaped cordyceps mushroom though...
...but I would like to see something between TOLive’s version and Option A above, as I am beginning to warm warm to the idea that something needs to be done with the Front street portion to make it flow with the rest of the buildings beside it. Currently it's quite jarring really. And probably one of the contentious reasons of why some want to passionately nuke this place from afar. By having something that fills that gap that compliments both this building and its neighbours, without going full on Stern with it, will likely do wonders here from where I sit.
...but I would like to see something between TOLive’s version and Option A above, as I am beginning to warm warm to the idea that something needs to be done with the Front street portion to make it flow with the rest of the buildings beside it. Currently it's quite jarring really. And probably one of the contentious reasons of why some want to passionately nuke this place from afar. By having something that fills that gap that compliments both this building and its neighbours, without going full on Stern with it, will likely do wonders here from where I sit.
DSC
Superstar
From TOLive meeting next week:
On May 10, 2021 TO Live launched the website www.stlcnext.org. The launch announcement and invitation to complete the survey was distributed via TO Live's database, newsletter, social media and dedicated campaigns, as well as by many other outlets including the St. Lawrence BIA, St. Lawrence Neighbourhood Association, Toronto Arts Council, Toronto Alliance for the Performing Arts, Ward 13 constituentsnewsletter (Councillor Wong-Tam). The virtual consultation with the Stakeholder Working Group will commence on June 17, 2021, with other workshops scheduled for July 6, July 27, and August 12, 2021. The schedule of events and reports can be found on the website www.stlcnext.org
See: https://www.toronto.ca/legdocs/mmis/2021/rl/bgrd/backgroundfile-167274.pdf
Also some new public art underway:
Public Art
TO Live has commissioned a public art piece to go up on the west wall of the St. Lawrence Centre, by artist Que Rock, an Anishinaabe rapper, b-boy and graffiti artist from Nipissing First Nation (currently based in Toronto). The artist will be painting a visual land acknowledgement on the Centre to acknowledge the past, present and future. Completion of the project is scheduled to be completed in the first week of June 2021.
On May 10, 2021 TO Live launched the website www.stlcnext.org. The launch announcement and invitation to complete the survey was distributed via TO Live's database, newsletter, social media and dedicated campaigns, as well as by many other outlets including the St. Lawrence BIA, St. Lawrence Neighbourhood Association, Toronto Arts Council, Toronto Alliance for the Performing Arts, Ward 13 constituentsnewsletter (Councillor Wong-Tam). The virtual consultation with the Stakeholder Working Group will commence on June 17, 2021, with other workshops scheduled for July 6, July 27, and August 12, 2021. The schedule of events and reports can be found on the website www.stlcnext.org
See: https://www.toronto.ca/legdocs/mmis/2021/rl/bgrd/backgroundfile-167274.pdf
Also some new public art underway:
Public Art
TO Live has commissioned a public art piece to go up on the west wall of the St. Lawrence Centre, by artist Que Rock, an Anishinaabe rapper, b-boy and graffiti artist from Nipissing First Nation (currently based in Toronto). The artist will be painting a visual land acknowledgement on the Centre to acknowledge the past, present and future. Completion of the project is scheduled to be completed in the first week of June 2021.
Northern Light
Superstar
I had a look at the survey.
First thing to note, is it says the survey closes May 28 (in the past).
Though, it does, in fact, let you start it, if you click through.
Second, the survey, very unusually for the City, starts with biographical information (your name, email etc etc.)........which are mandatory fields. No anonymous submission.
****
People know I keep up on stuff pretty well.............I hadn't heard that the survey had launched, as I do, it already closed? Fail!
Also, I may well be prepared to submit comments with my name; but this isn't social media, where one might be concerned about foul language or such........it's a survey.
Some people will be turned off and will not complete the survey due to the nosiness. Fail.
bilked
Senior Member
I like the idea of public art here, but my strong preference would be that it's raised off the wall by some type of support medium, rather than directly applied to the wall.
The west elevation of building is quite attractive as is. Applying spray paint directly to the concrete may invite more public misunderstanding as to its architectural significance.
mburrrrr
Senior Member
It should be done tomorrow.
Last edited: