C-mac
Senior Member
Not at all. The original/south building is gorgeous. The north building doesn't even come close to south building.
Not at all. The original/south building is gorgeous. The north building doesn't even come close to south building.
DSC
Superstar
C-mac
Senior Member
zang
Senior Member
The original market is not the original market though. It’s several additions onto old, old city hall.
While there are nice features of it, it’s got some real problems. The bottlenecks at the north entrances, the terrible basement, etc. as far as global food market buildings go, there are a great many that outclass SLM South by a long shot. Mercado Central in Valencia, English Market in Cork, or just about any big bazaar in the Middle East topple SML for both beauty and functionality.
Let’s not discount North just yet. Form (which I think is quite nice, myself) is useless without function, and nobody has yet to see that in play.
Last edited:
DSC
Superstar
No, this is the building (built in late 1960s) that was demolished about 5 years ago to clear the site for what is being built right now. (It's predecessor looked somewhat like the current South Market and was, for many years linked to it by a 'bridge' over Front Street.)
C-mac
Senior Member
C-mac
Senior Member
I'm not referring to the functionality or the food that's in the building, I'm talking strictly aesthetics.
DSC
Superstar
You seem to be somewhat geographically (if not aesthetically) confused. This thread is on the NORTH Market, you appear to be talking about the South Market which is, as noted above, by @Zhang, a market building added onto the (very) old City Hall (Before the 'Old City Hall")
C-mac
Senior Member
Yes I know that. I'm not confused at all. I'll clear it up for you. The current St.Lawrence Market, (Old City Hall) which is on the south side of Front Street is gorgeous. The new one that being built as per this thread on the north side of Front Street is not nearly as nice.
Not sure where the confusion is.
DSC
Superstar
Well, glad that's cleared up but the confusion was started by you earlier today when you posted, in this, the (North Market) thread:
"It's not a bad building, but to me this perfectly illustrates how much we've gone in reverse from an aesthetic point of view when it comes to architecture as it's not nearly as nice as it predecessor."
zang
Senior Member
But even aesthetics-wise there’s nothing that really stands out. It was far more pleasing in its original form.
Toronto’s first City Hall - now a part of the St. Lawrence Market - Historic Toronto
Today, when people visit the south building of the St. Lawrence Market on Front Street, they enter through archways were once a part of Toronto’s
tayloronhistory.com
It has kinda nice exposed girders, but any design comes across as a total afterthought to building a quick hall onto another building. Compare it to other Edwardian markets and tell me this thing is a beauty of its time. Let alone Victorian markets like the original Les Halles or other Edwardian buildings of any sort.
I mean seriously, they couldn’t even be arsed to match brick colour on the addition.
South Market undeniably looks better than the 1968 North Market, but there are fallout bunkers that look better than that walmart slab cake of a building.
ADDED:
Because it's always reminded me slightly of SLM, the old Consumers Gas Purifying House No. 2 at Front & Berkeley. It's of a similar size and shape and is just a few years older than SLM South. But it's far more cohesive, ornate and is arguably a beautiful work. It was built at the time for purely industrial purposes, and not as a community meeting place or unique symbol of Toronto. It was just a building in the middle of an industrial area, surrounded by a good many buildings that look nearly as good. The refurb of Old Old City hall into SLM wasn't anything exceptional—especially during a time of prosperity and growth—and doesn't look much different than any random warehouse of the time. I know it's subjective, but I don't think I'm wrong in saying SLM South isn't anything special for either the time, or now.
Last edited:
tripwire
Active Member
I love the new North building look. The old concrete building was OK, I do like the brutalist look but it didn't really have the massing to impress IMHO. The South Market is also just OK for me, better than the old North building for sure, but it's not exceptional either IMHO.
Anyways, some views from (far away) above:
Cropped:
Anyways, some views from (far away) above:
Cropped:
AlvinofDiaspar
Moderator
This is a photo of the actual north market built in the early 1900s:
(via BlogTO - https://www.blogto.com/city/2010/05/st_lawrence_market_north_building_designs_are_unveiled/)
AoD
zang
Senior Member
Good gawd. I mean, it’s nice in that it mirrored the south market in many ways, but the random upper windows read like the cookie-cutter-suburban-starter-home-washroom-window-placement-guide.
slicecom
Active Member
Older is always better when it comes to architecture right? I present to you the 1850-1904 rendition of the North Market:
Jokes aside, the new building is turning out well, and I already much prefer it to any of the previous buildings that have stood on the site.
Jokes aside, the new building is turning out well, and I already much prefer it to any of the previous buildings that have stood on the site.