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 .
I prefer most of that area's predecessors to what replaced them.

Certainly, the loss of the Board of Trade building (former TTC HQ) is to be lamented.

1678490003523.png


The prior to last incarnation of the North St. Lawrence Market was certainly preferable to the box that was built there.

1678490272681.png

Taken from: https://images.thestar.com/jpd177T2...nto-torontos-foodie-history/1904-exterior.jpg

The Okeefe Centre's precessors were also superior.

1678489769231.png

- No known author, source Archives of Ontario/Wikipedia

It's peculiar to me to think of all the great heritage theatres that were demolished in Toronto, and then the City went and knocked down more great heritage in order to build new theatres.

You might have thought preserving some of those older venues and restoring them might have been a more sensible course of action.
 
Last edited:
I don't understand how the Zeidler design, the only one to actually respect the original architecture, wasn't chosen. The winning design literally hides it behind trees. Why even keep it at that point?
 
This was my 2nd favorite design at first, but upon review, maybe I like it best. The outdoor public space stands out. It‘s vibrant & an attractive building design. Zero complaints. And if I have to read somewhere in media, that it was the wrong pick & they should have gone w the brutalist design .. Please. The last thing downtown Toronto needs right now is more grey concrete.
 
I don't understand how the Zeidler design, the only one to actually respect the original architecture, wasn't chosen. The winning design literally hides it behind trees. Why even keep it at that point?

I think you answered your own question; but with a good question.

Most people strongly dislike the existing SLC.

They dislike everything that it ever was.

So the winner is the proponent who went the furthest away from it.

At the same time, you ask a perfectly good question; how much better would HP have done unencumbered by a requirement to retain some semblance of the original.

I would argue they could have done far better; and that never, ever should there have been the least thought to have retained any of the original.
 
Last edited:
The tyranny of the masses again. Another indictment of "most people's" architectural tastes if they prefer the overbearing glass blob to clean geometries with actual depth and nuance to them.
 
...and getting back today, I feel this building is now left in good hands. Barring The City asking anything weird of current proposal, I am confident that new life will be brought to this facility. As well as, it'll end up being a less of an eye sore for everyone in general that walks by there.

"Er...weren't you supportive of this building from the beginning, Uta?"

...well, let's put it this way: I'm glad that some of the it's more Brutalist elements will be kept in tact. And leave it at that. <3

Edit: ...er, that came off more obnoxious than I was intending. I did not say this to interrupt or take away from a very fascinating and important conversation of the history of this area. So my apologies. /bows
 
Last edited:
Certainly, the loss of the Board of Trade building (former TTC HQ) is to be lamented.

View attachment 460944

The prior to last incarnation of the North St. Lawrence Market was certainly preferable to the box that was built there.

View attachment 460945
Taken from: https://images.thestar.com/jpd177T2...nto-torontos-foodie-history/1904-exterior.jpg

The Okeefe Centre's precessors were also superior.

View attachment 460943
- No known author, source Archives of Ontario/Wikipedia

It's peculiar to me to think of all the great heritage theatres that were demolished in Toronto, and then the City went and knocked down more great heritage in order to build new theatres.

You might have thought preserving some of those older venues and restoring them might have been a more sensible course of action.
The St. Lawrence neighborhood was particularly devastated post-war. This is the north side of Front, now occupied by Berczy Park, all demolished in the 1960’s:

1250E492-3F40-41E4-BED8-BDB855CF789E.jpeg


Early 60’s:

C264DDE6-500E-4A75-BFCE-59B18D90E47E.jpeg
 
Last edited:
The tyranny of the masses again. Another indictment of "most people's" architectural tastes if they prefer the overbearing glass blob to clean geometries with actual depth and nuance to them.
“Tyranny of the masses” Lol. Any other big city with historically smart, classy & beautiful architecture & I may agree w you. But not for the concrete grey city of Toronto in 2023. The city desperately needs vibrancy, light & attractiveness from its buildings today more than ever. Just to break up of that drab concrete shabbiness. Look around!! Blame the historic failure on ambitious-less, rigid, local politicians, city builders & city planners of the past, w their shortsighted, cheap, parochial view of architecture & city building.
 
A photo popped up on FB feed of the construction of the O'Keefe Centre (as it was then known). Of note is what you do and do not see on the east side of Scott Street.

View attachment 460539

A zoomed in look:

View attachment 460542

I have to say, I prefer the SLC's predecessor to the SLC itself

Granted, we need the space for the arts; in that photo, I see plenty of other spots for such a building.
These photos are always great to see to remind us of what Toronto used to be: a small city losing its industry to other places, and as a result, trying to reshape itself. It was a very gritty place - much closer to Hamilton than it is nowadays. It was also a place that was slowly trying to shake off its Victorian ideals of being a "good" city.

We look at the wholesale destruction of the Victorian architecture in the St Lawrence Market as a bad thing because for us it is often just decoration and doesn't have anything but charming and folksy associations, but for many of the people alive at the time, they probably had real memories of the companies and industries and educational institutions that lived in those buildings. They often saw those places as exemplifying a lot of very old-fashioned and harmful ideals. People often forget how stultifying Toronto was - and the citizens' primary focus was not in keeping architecture, but in replacing that closed-minded city with something newer and more exciting. I think, in many ways, they have been successful!

I say this as someone who loves the Victorian buildings in our city, but it's something I try to keep in mind when these photos pop up. If we shake our heads at the past and wonder how people could have done what they did, we're probably ignoring the mistakes we're currently making.
 
Certainly, the loss of the Board of Trade building (former TTC HQ) is to be lamented.

View attachment 460944

The prior to last incarnation of the North St. Lawrence Market was certainly preferable to the box that was built there.

View attachment 460945
Taken from: https://images.thestar.com/jpd177T2...nto-torontos-foodie-history/1904-exterior.jpg

The Okeefe Centre's precessors were also superior.

View attachment 460943
- No known author, source Archives of Ontario/Wikipedia

Its peculiar to me to think of all the great heritage theatres that were demolished in Toronto, and then the City went and knocked down more great heritage in order to build new theatres.

You might have thought preserving some of those older venues and restoring them might have been a more sensible course of action.
It's in some ways unfortunate Toronto 'came of age' when it did. If those St. Lawrence buildings were repurposed I think we'd have a historic district that would rival anything in North America.

As for the winning submission, I'm happy with it. Overall should really enhance the area.
 
We look at the wholesale destruction of the Victorian architecture in the St Lawrence Market as a bad thing because for us it is often just decoration and doesn't have anything but charming and folksy associations, but for many of the people alive at the time, they probably had real memories of the companies and industries and educational institutions that lived in those buildings. They often saw those places as exemplifying a lot of very old-fashioned and harmful ideals.

I'm not unsympathetic to the idea of an evolving city. As a foodie, for one, I love the wide variation of food ingredients and restaurant meals that I can enjoy in today's Toronto. That wasn't even true to any great degree when I was a young child in the 70s; and I'm glad for that change, along with less religiosity and Sunday shopping and so much more.

That said, I'm sure how much of a role that played in the destruction of the buildings in question.

The Board of Trade building was the TTC HQ; we didn't abolish the TTC when the building was demo'd; the National Grocetria building was part of the Loblaw's empire which still lives on today as the wholesale arm of said enterprise; and there still is a 'North Market for the St. Lawrence market.

So I don't think the functions were the problem, most commonly; though doubtless that would have been true in some cases, particularly heavy industry, slaughterhouses etc.

I suspect that there were other things at play, such as:

1) Many of the buildings were terribly covered by soot due to years of coal-burning, both by power plants, but also by individual businesses and homes. So many buildings looked quite rough, in an un-restored state.

2) The older buildings required expensive, deep retrofits to meet modern needs (particularly central HVAC); but in some cases, elevators.

3) There were a far greater abundance of said older buildings at the early part of the great demolition derby. Losing one here or there did not seem such an issue where there were a great many.

4) The concept of adaptive re-use was not as widely held then, particulaly for larger buildings (there were always houses that became stores and vice versa). But the idea of a warehouse becoming a condo was all but unheard of....in Toronto, at any rate.

5) Once a critical mass of buildings is lost in any area, it can diminish the value of what remains.

6) Most of central downtown had no residents back then, this automatically reduces objections. The St. Lawrence neighbourhood wasn't yet a thing. (residentially speaking)

7) There was a seemingly unprecedented need for parking, and surface lots were big money makers.

****

I don't fault anyone for the loss of lesser buildings; those of which there were endless examples; or even the odd very good/great building replaced by something equally or more iconic.

I do fault people for not seeing more value sooner; of not recognizing the problem of history loss, the value of restoration, the undesirability of endless parking lots etc. I do fault people for losing 'great buildings' for either parking or mediocre replacements.

People often forget how stultifying Toronto was - and the citizens' primary focus was not in keeping architecture, but in replacing that closed-minded city with something newer and more exciting. I think, in many ways, they have been successful!

As noted above, I'm old enough to remember no shopping on Sunday's, the Lord's Prayer in schools, a far less diverse city, the bathhouse raids etc. I certainly agree, on balance, the City is much improved, notwithstanding the loss of some great buildings and key contextual history.

If we shake our heads at the past and wonder how people could have done what they did, we're probably ignoring the mistakes we're currently making.

I think if we obsess about or live in the past, I would agree. But I think we would learn nothing from history if we didn't recognize regrettable choices of the past and seek not to repeat them.

I'd also add, I see nothing wrong with seriously contemplating rebuilding some of the lost greats (albeit to current code); in a City with serious problems around homelessness and congestion, among other things, I wouldn't want to see most or all the money prioritized to such; but where it can perhaps enhance tourism dollars, civic pride, and perhaps meet one of those other social needs as well, why not?
 
Last edited:
Brutalism is now historic architecture with heritage value, that's evident in the fact they are keeping this building without an official heritage designation, and the contest was for an extension instead of a clean slate. So clearly the owners do understand that the existing building has architectural value, even if certain individuals refuse to acknowledge it. But then why they choose a design with no relation to the original building is beyond me. Then again it's Toronto so it's floor space maximization above all else.

“Tyranny of the masses” Lol. Any other big city with historically smart, classy & beautiful architecture & I may agree w you. But not for the concrete grey city of Toronto in 2023. The city desperately needs vibrancy, light & attractiveness from its buildings today more than ever. Just to break up of that drab concrete shabbiness. Look around!! Blame the historic failure on ambitious-less, rigid, local politicians, city builders & city planners of the past, w their shortsighted, cheap, parochial view of architecture & city building.
What Toronto are you looking at? Like 90% of downtown is glass and spandrel. Good thing they chose an all glass design here to break that up.
 
Last edited:

Back
Top