[adma]

But regardless- it does seem that people see the building more as a symbol of an era, rather than as a piece of architecture.

Or maybe you're splitting-hairs overdemanding on the "piece of architecture" front. And in this case, trying to out-critic the architectural critic with the hubris of self-styled ultra-discernment.

(Makes me think of a recent on-line argument I had with someone re the rise and decline of architectural criticism and judgment--essentially, while I was hailing the post-WWII expanding scope of architectural scholarship and worth as a boon versus the coarsening effect of modern electronic social media, he seemed to attribute the decline to that very same post-WWII era because of how said expanding scope, particularly in concert with the heritage preservation movement, led to brownie-points/participation-award overlenience in the name of "diversity". And no, this argument had nothing to do with modernism-vs-traditionalism--if anything, it was more modernism-vs-"postmodernism", and the latter less in the architectural than in the Jordan-Peterson-bugaboo sense.)

 

[jje1000]

Or maybe you're splitting-hairs overdemanding on the "piece of architecture" front. And in this case, trying to out-critic the architectural critic with the hubris of self-styled ultra-discernment.

(Makes me think of a recent on-line argument I had with someone re the rise and decline of architectural criticism and judgment--essentially, while I was hailing the post-WWII expanding scope of architectural scholarship and worth as a boon versus the coarsening effect of modern electronic social media, he seemed to attribute the decline to that very same post-WWII era because of how said expanding scope, particularly in concert with the heritage preservation movement, led to brownie-points/participation-award overlenience in the name of "diversity". And no, this argument had nothing to do with modernism-vs-traditionalism--if anything, it was more modernism-vs-"postmodernism", and the latter less in the architectural than in the Jordan-Peterson-bugaboo sense.)

Oh please adma, you can stop trying to be exceptional. There’s nothing in your posts but the airs of an aged individual trying to masquerade as an authority. In other words- lots of projection and puffery!

There’s absolutely nothing wrong with being “over demanding” and wanting something more from this site. Even you admit that the building is hardly “a masterpiece”, and there’s little reasoning beyond the fact that the building’s significance only seems to stem from its existence as a centennial project. And again, being a centennial project or a ‘culture-building site’ does not inherently mean that the produced project is always going to be a great project.

Again:

[...]being a top 10/20/50/100 'culture-building program' does not inherently mean that the produced piece of architecture will always be a success. Heck, the O'Keefe Centre already proves that well- and if this building was to represent the spirit of the '67 Centennial, it must have been a very timid spirit.

There are no exceptionally sublime, or interesting spaces within the building- it's no jewelbox. There are no exceptional elements on the exterior frontages- the building is hardly more interesting than the other brutalist middle-tier governmental institutions that dot Toronto- and in reality, it feels as if it was designed from the bird's eye view- resulting in the most interesting elements stranded on the roof, and a dismally dull ground plane and Front Street facade. There is no other program beyond the theatre or ground floor activation (beyond the lobby), and so it sits as an empty bunker until the performances. The theatres it provides (which are hardly one-of-a-kind spaces nor reputed for exceptional quality) can be replicated in a newer building. Even the day-of-opening shot hardly paints it as an interesting structure- again, the rear end is more interesting than the front.

All in all, it feels like a building that's been designed-by-committee to be the absolutely most middle-road instance of brutalism around.

 

[ProjectEnd]

I totally disagree on the quality of the building, jje1000, and that "we can do better nowadays." (Really? Where?)

Also: This is one of about 10 sites that represent the most significant cultural building program in Canadian history. If this isn't heritage, what is?

From which book is that image?

 

[AlexBozikovic]

This discussion is getting messy. Two points I think are crucial:

1. Most of the things jje1000 doesn’t like about this building are either the result of clumsy renovations that tried to subvert the original design, or present-day expectations which are subject to change. There is no single, permanent definition of architectural quality.

2. Very few of the Toronto buildings with heritage protection are architectural masterpieces. And that’s fine. A building doesn’t need to be exceptionally well-designed in order to be interesting, important, or worth conserving.

I think that in Toronto, there are way too many pre-1950 buildings being protected and nowhere near enough post-1950 buildings being protected. This is a case study.

 

[Northern Light]

This discussion is getting messy. Two points I think are crucial:

1. Most of the things jje1000 doesn’t like about this building are either the result of clumsy renovations that tried to subvert the original design, or present-day expectations which are subject to change. There is no single, permanent definition of architectural quality.

This is true. An important statement. But it cuts both ways; which is to say, if the majority currently take the view that a given building's architectural quality is poor, there is no objective basis on which to declare that view wrong.

It's perfectly ok to hold a pro-brutalist view; irrespective of whether the majority differs. But it's equally ok to hold an anti-brutalist view, even if some architecture geeks may differ.

2. Very few of the Toronto buildings with heritage protection are architectural masterpieces. And that’s fine. A building doesn’t need to be exceptionally well-designed in order to be interesting, important, or worth conserving.

Also true that many mediocre buildings have been preserved. However, I do expect to hear a compelling justification for preserving something.

I'm not clear on what argument that is for SLC.

That something uniquely important took place there?

That it's incredibly interesting in its poor design?

That it's an exemplar of a legendary architect?

Contributes to or is beloved by area residents/workers etc.?

****

Like many here, I'm not a fan of Brutalism as a style; though I also dislike seeing it butchered when it remains standing (Manulife).

But specifically , this building ain't pretty; it's not an exemplar of Brutalism at its best; it's rather more pedestrian than interesting; its tenants seem to want it gone; and most residents feel no great love for it.

It doesn't seem to be particularly functional; in this particular case it is rather more jarring that complimentary to its historical neighbours.

I can't recall any particularly important thing to have happened in this building, or about this building.

Finally, the City has far better examples of this style and of this period.

I think that in Toronto, there are way too many pre-1950 buildings being protected and nowhere near enough post-1950 buildings being protected. This is a case study.

I think this statement is a bit too extreme for my taste. There are some buildings being unnecessarily preserved that are pre-1950, but we continue to lose some good ones.

While there are more contemporary buildings I would love to see preserved or treated better (topping my list Scotia Plaza whose concourse was needlessly molested; and the Eaton Center, whose interior is being made more banal by the day.)

But this particular building wouldn't make my list.

 

[salsa]

https://twitter.com/x/status/1220398376556138499

 

[jje1000]

1. Most of the things jje1000 doesn’t like about this building are either the result of clumsy renovations that tried to subvert the original design, or present-day expectations which are subject to change. There is no single, permanent definition of architectural quality.

Gotta disagree with this point. The building has not changed significantly in form even with the filling of the ground floor nor with the intrusion of the signage, and the observations I made are of the basic bones of the building.

Amusingly enough, from the heritage designation, even the city doesn't recognize it for its artistic merit- only for its history (which can be passed on even without the building).

https://www.toronto.ca/legdocs/mmis/2013/te/bgrd/backgroundfile-55717.pdf

There are no exceptionally sublime, or interesting spaces within the building- it's no jewelbox.

- This is something that hasn't changed since the opening of the building. The spaces are utiliarian, the ground floors low, and the upper floors hardly unique. There is no particularly unique play of interior space nor contrasts in materiality, as the best brutalist buildings are loved for. Even OISE has more interesting interior spaces than this.

There are no exceptional elements on the exterior frontages- the building is hardly more interesting than the other brutalist middle-tier governmental institutions that dot Toronto- and in reality, it feels as if it was designed from the bird's eye view- resulting in the most interesting elements stranded on the roof, and a dismally dull ground plane and Front Street facade.

- This has not changed since the building's opening. You still enter the building through a rathole (even the original entry was dark as the north-facing colonnade was too low). The Front Street facade is still as blank as ever, and standing in Berczy Park, the supposedly unique features on the roof are invisible as ever.

There is no other program beyond the theatre or ground floor activation (beyond the lobby), and so it sits as an empty bunker until the performances. The theatres it provides (which are hardly one-of-a-kind spaces nor reputed for exceptional quality) can be replicated in a newer building. Even the day-of-opening shot hardly paints it as an interesting structure- again, the rear end is more interesting than the front.

- This has not changed since the building's opening- and the lack of changes has not worked to its favor.

Also true that many mediocre buildings have been preserved. However, I do expect to hear a compelling justification for preserving something.

I'm not clear on what argument that is for SLC.

That something uniquely important took place there?

That it's incredibly interesting in its poor design?

That it's an exemplar of a legendary architect?

Contributes to or is beloved by area residents/workers etc.?

****

Like many here, I'm not a fan of Brutalism as a style; though I also dislike seeing it butchered when it remains standing (Manulife).

But specifically , this building ain't pretty; it's not an exemplar of Brutalism at its best; it's rather more pedestrian than interesting; its tenants seem to want it gone; and most residents feel no great love for it.

It doesn't seem to be particularly functional; in this particular case it is rather more jarring that complimentary to its historical neighbours.

I can't recall any particularly important thing to have happened in this building, or about this building.

Finally, the City has far better examples of this style and of this period.

Agreed on the last point- I have yet to hear anything particularly compelling about the SLC. It exists, it marks a point of time, it functions better than the O'Keefe. That's good. But it hardly elevates the site, as we expect good architecture to do.

Apples to pears, there are better instances of urban brutalism in Toronto. The Noor Centre/Ex-Japanese Canadian Centre is one of them- probably the best hidden architectural gem in Toronto. So are the York and the UTSC campuses. We will always have Robarts and the U of T Medical building- as blunt and intrusive as it is- is still interesting to look at.

I would almost argue that even the John McCrae public school is slightly superior in terms of form and use of its site, and even 77 Elm (unfairly maligned) is more gracious in its public realm and concrete detailing.

Overall, I'm fine with letting the SLC pass into history. It's done its job, and it's better off in the history books, with a nice illustration (from the birds-eye point of view, of course).

And yes, we should keep the chandelier- it would look quite good in a new Bluma Appel Theatre.

 

[adma]

Oh please adma, you can stop trying to be exceptional. There’s nothing in your posts but the airs of an aged individual trying to masquerade as an authority. In other words- lots of projection and puffery!

How are they "airs of an aged individual"? If anything, I'm reflecting a pluralism that is, in its way, absolutely contemporary.

And if you want what I find to be an admirable expression of today's pluralistic state of the art, here you go...

The Archivists of Extinction | Kate Wagner

In an era of capitalist ruin, we need an architectural history of the people.

thebaffler.com

 

[alklay]

This is not intellectual masturbation (excuse my language): there are some real practical issues involved. The place is neither functional or in good repair. Thus a lot of money needs to be spent. Would it be better to spend money to build something better? That is the debate.

Would we lose something if we built something better. Maybe. But we would probably get something a lot more functional and a good chance, just as aesthetically pleasing (if not more so). And just as representative of an era in architecture.

This does not appear to be a good representation of its particular architectural style. Nor is is particularly functional. If money needs to be spent, a good argument could be made to build something new....and probably better.

 

[adma]

I probably wouldn't use the "not a good representation" argument so much as "inadequate for the occasion". Because, once again, those with a knowingly expansive scope of our pre-existing built environment, and with no direct stake in its replacement, would be able to see value here--a "beholder's value", if you will. With that in mind, the SLC is hardly "boring"; as a civic work with a certain degree of architectural style in an uncommon mode, it's definitely something "of interest", however much one may quibble about certain inadequacies or depredations over time. And when it comes to work of that rough period in that neighbourhood--and this is where, when it comes to the post-Centennial architectural state of the art, "knowingly" is important--the SLC is way above the late, unlamented North St Lawrence Market (which might have been *more* "functional" in certain respects, even if said respects are public-facility euphemistic). And if you can't tell the difference btw/those two examples, or are tempted to use the latter in a game of "whataboutism" re SLC's defenders, then you're betraying your own inadequacy. (That is, those of us who may seem undiscriminatingly expansive might actually be more subtly "discriminating" than it may appear.)

I mean, it's fine to deem SLC potentially expendable. Trouble is, the jje1000 approach has a defensive "Kavanaugh rage face meme" about it. (Which, relative to the "aged" argument, knows no age.)

ETA: of course, re Centennial projects in that area, one might argue that the one which *really* timelessly matters above all else is the restoration of St. Lawrence Hall.

 

[jje1000]

I probably wouldn't use the "not a good representation" argument so much as "inadequate for the occasion". Because, once again, those with a knowingly expansive scope of our pre-existing built environment, and with no direct stake in its replacement, would be able to see value here--a "beholder's value", if you will. With that in mind, the SLC is hardly "boring"; as a civic work with a certain degree of architectural style in an uncommon mode, it's definitely something "of interest", however much one may quibble about certain inadequacies or depredations over time. And when it comes to work of that rough period in that neighbourhood -- and this is where, when it comes to the post-Centennial architectural state of the art, "knowingly" is important--the SLC is way above the late, unlamented North St Lawrence Market (which might have been *more* "functional" in certain respects, even if said respects are public-facility euphemistic). And if you can't tell the difference btw/those two examples, or are tempted to use the latter in a game of "whataboutism" re SLC's defenders, then you're betraying your own inadequacy. (That is, those of us who may seem undiscriminatingly expansive might actually be more subtly "discriminating" than it may appear.)

I mean, it's fine to deem SLC potentially expendable. Trouble is, the jje1000 approach has a defensive "Kavanaugh rage face meme" about it. (Which, relative to the "aged" argument, knows no age.)

ETA: of course, re Centennial projects in that area, one might argue that the one which *really* timelessly matters above all else is the restoration of St. Lawrence Hall.

MFW Adma dives into yet another one of his condescending Ad Hominems and actually tries to tie me to Kavanaugh this time around. What next? Ted Bundy?

Source

Like your (professional?) vested interest is more in the "doing better nowadays" than in the preexisting conditions--and those with such vested interest tend to be much more broad in their dismissal of the preexisting, or those who defend the "faulty" preexisting. (Particularly in this day and age of facadectomies of that which really didn't need to be facadectomied.)

That is, your tone resembles that of somebody bidding to do the replacement, or a confidant of the same.

(Ah, let me raise a conspiracy and discount your arguments by asserting that you're a developer (untrue)! Oh, and I'm a victim, nevermind the fact that the argument was purely about the SLC previously and had not once brought around any discussion of character.)

As somebody *without* any such vested interest, I see the preexisting urban environment in more nuanced warts-and-all terms. And I don't give a whoozis about those who feel threatened (professionally or otherwise) by such nuance. I'm a beholder, not a builder. (And sometimes, "better urbanistically" can be to the fault--in fact, if *anything* is by my estimation "boring", it's your "materiality is varied, street level is more forgiving, forms emphasize vertical breaks". Ho hum, yawn; just more dull urban-planner-ese.)

(Only the smartest galaxy brains can see why the building is valuable, it's you who lacks the taste! Ego- curb thyself!)

Or maybe you're splitting-hairs overdemanding on the "piece of architecture" front. And in this case, trying to out-critic the architectural critic with the hubris of self-styled ultra-discernment.

(Ah yes, I'm now an aspiring critic by your assertions! This building is for the people, but you wouldn't understand!)

How are they "airs of an aged individual"? If anything, I'm reflecting a pluralism that is, in its way, absolutely contemporary.

(Ah yes, you’re actually part of the zeitgeist! Nevermind that the article almost suggests that the SLC- a building that you consider 'too modest'- is perfectly fine passing into history if the 'common' people can preserve its history via artifacts and documentation rather than an 'elitist' preservation movement susceptible to neoliberal economics)

Because, once again, those with a knowingly expansive scope of our pre-existing built environment, and with no direct stake in its replacement, would be able to see value here--a "beholder's value", if you will.

(Only the 'educated' person can appreciate this building- y'all rubes just don't understand! Oh, and lemme throw a lil shade right there as I'm the one without any stakes in its replacement! (untrue as every citizen in Toronto has a stake in the replacement of a public building )

I mean, it's fine to deem SLC potentially expendable. Trouble is, the jje1000 approach has a defensive "Kavanaugh rage face meme" about it. (Which, relative to the "aged" argument, knows no age.)

(Let me try to tie you to an unpopular person since the argument isn't going anywhere in my favour)


No, this is projection from a person who almost always rambles irrelevantly in a geriatric manner, argues dishonestly and tries to strawman his way out of any argument by attacking the debaters’ characters. As has always happened in the past, if you pay enough attention.

Not once has he actually given an actual qualitative defense of the physical building, instead handwaving it away as "Y'all wouldn't understand it but to the 'educated-in-a-particular-manner' individual, this building is valuable!" If this building was literally a flaming trash heap, you betcha adma would be hopping around here trying to defend it as a 'pile of the people'.

 

[interchange42]

Normally we'd take all of this down, black card you both for a bit… but the quality of the ad hominem lunges here is higher than average, and kind of an interesting read. It's hard to turn away from the match, but please, no more parrying.

42

 

[jje1000]

Normally we'd take all of this down, black card you both for a bit… but the quality of the ad hominem lunges here is higher than average, and kind of an interesting read. It's hard to turn away from the match, but please, no more parrying.

42

Hey, I didn't start it! Purely defensive on my end, and I felt that unwarranted personal attacks on character should not be rewarded with the silence of consent.

 

[interchange42]

Hey, I didn't start it! Purely defensive on my end, and I felt that unwarranted personal attacks on character should not be rewarded with the silence of consent.

I get it…

We'll pull down anything further at this point.

42

 

[jje1000]

Thank you!