We're funny about architecture here in North America, and Big Daddy's points are a reflection of that.

For some reason, North Americans got totally hung up on neoclassicism in the 19th century, and we've never recovered. By "neoclassicism" I mean trying to revive the classics - building your churches and train stations and harbour commissions so they look like something the Greeks or Romans might have liked. This took many forms, from the rounded Richardson Romanesque to pointy gothic revivalism to stocky Beaux-Arts union stationism, but one way or the other it usually involved a lot of stone and columns and porticos and other clearly-identifiable old-timey cues.

Waves of classic revival thinking started hitting North America in the second half of the 19th century, and it had reached fever pitch by the time of the 1893 World's Columbian Exhibition across the lake in Chicago, in which an entire "White City" of insta-bake, white-painted French Classical buildings was erected. The aesthetic hit Toronto at about the same time, and as JMS Careless wryly remarked of the Bank of Toronto on Yonge, soon a bank was scarcely a bank unless it looked like a Temple of Jupiter.

The funny thing is that we never moved on. We got stuck. It's not because this is the only way they built quality buildings in history. It just turned out that these were the going styles at the time that urban North America got really big. And - perhaps as a result - the North American mind only seems to think old buildings are worthwhile if they look like something a centurion might feel at home with.

There's a lot of reasons we should keep #90 here. Not only is it a handsome building on its on merits, it's a blessed relief from all the green-glass podiums that blight the area. It adds diversity of age, materials and scale to the neighborhood. And I think it's pretty sharp-looking, but that might just be me.

But the bigger point is this: unthinking brand-loyalty towards classic-lookin' buildings does a disservice to the cause of preservation. As long as people don't look at buildings on their merits, but unthinkingly say, "Hey, this one has columns! It's old-timey and it should stay," rallying people to save modern heritage will be a lost cause.
 
Since we're floating both opinions and schemes here, I'll throw in one of both. 90 should be kept. It's not beautiful, but it's handsome in a poised and sturdy sort of way, much like a lot of news anchors. As some have mentioned or even sketched, it would look fine, perhaps even better, with a tower growing out of its roof. The effect would be not unlike the Confederation Building in St. John's, which is in a similar style.

As for 60, well ... There's already a plan to take down the Gardiner ramp and turn the loop area into a park. I would move 60 into the parking lot on the west side of 90 where it could once again gaze past the park and across the water, and at the same time be admired from the York Slip area. I think it probably is feasible to move a building of this size this far, and with the ramp down, Harbour Street would be just wide enough for it to pass. That would leave the entire portion of the block along Bay open for high-density development with no constraints.
 
Sir Novelty Fashion said:
But the bigger point is this: unthinking brand-loyalty towards classic-lookin' buildings does a disservice to the cause of preservation. As long as people don't look at buildings on their merits, but unthinkingly say, "Hey, this one has columns! It's old-timey and it should stay," rallying people to save modern heritage will be a lost cause.
Click to expand...

I honestly don't think that "old-timeyness" is an issue here, except in a few of those warnings against green-glass replacements...
 
yyzer said:
Actually I found Rebecca-HT's post to be incredibly condescending, especially coming from a newbie to the forum...
Click to expand...

I'm pretty sure Rebecca was (for the most part) quoting research documents done by experts in the field on 90 Harbour St. If anyone is being condescending, it's you. Who cares how many posts she has if she has something very relevant to say and something that is important for the discussion?

I think as much of 90 Harbour should be saved. It would make for a great amenities portion of a condo. I'm not sure if the building's demise is 100% imminent, but I wrote to Ontario Realty, Ontario Heritage Trust, Councillor McConnell, and Rosario Marchese asking to work to preserve as much of the building as possible as part of the sale and development of the property.
 
Sir Novelty Fashion said:
We're funny about architecture here in North America, and Big Daddy's points are a reflection of that[...]
Click to expand...

I couldn't agree more with all of your points, Sir Novelty. Modernism simply isn't viewed as legitimate heritage, yet, by the public at large at least (witness Big Daddy)... and even if this building isn't exactly wikipedia-worthy in terms of its significance or exceptionality we are inclined to view it as such in that it remains a vestige of the harbour areas's past, and an increasingly more significant one in that there is very little left here anymore... and in the context of the rampant development and 'non-architecture' that steadily encroaches Adma's point about 'authenticity' feels even more urgent because whether you 'like' it or not, or whether we collectively appreciate it yet or not, 90 Harbour is thoughtfull architecture (as Rebecca points out) and carries a certain dignity or integrity that will not likely be the case with yet another boxy glass tower in the area.
 
I'm certainly not condensing and as regardless of being a newbie, being with HT I think I can add value to any historical preservation discussion.

What I posted was the reasons for listing by the City.

Additionally, this building was actually going to be designated, but HPS removed the proposed designation because the owner ORC is a provincial agency. If HPS went as far to designate it, then there was groundswell to preserve it.
 
Yes, and with Hearn also at risk I would like to point out:

In July 2010 the Province established its Standards and Guidelines for Conservation of Provincial Heritage Properties for the identification, maintenance, protection, conservation, use and disposal of provincial heritage properties which stress the importance of consultation with interested communities and groups when making decisions about provincial heritage property.

These new standards and guidelines provide that demolition or removal be considered only as a last resort after all other alternatives have been considered and subject to heritage impact assessment and public engagement.
 
Sir Novelty Fashion said:
......and Big Daddy's points are a reflection of that................... "Hey, this one has columns! It's old-timey and it should stay,"
Click to expand...
Don't put words in my mouth, I can speak for myself - and my reasons for saving 80 Harbour (built in 1917) have more to do with its history, the governance of Toronto’s waterfront and the extreme efforts its builders went to make a landmark building. The building was originally on the waterfront before infilling the harbour. The people who worked there used to refer to it as the “T†building because of the “T†patterning which they interpreted as “T†for Toronto. The architecture whether one likes it or not, is of lesser importance here but it is a powerful building intended to make a strong statement about Toronto, its waterfront development and its future.

If your argument for saving 90 Harbour (built in 1953 to house the OPP) is simply "lets save every building 50 years and older" then I can't support that. There must be a better reason for saving a building other than "its 50 years old". In some way all buildings are an example of the years in which they were built. If we save all buildings without reasons for doing so, we are again supporting urban sprawl. If you want to save the memory of this building, document it – but don’t force the city to choke on it for no clear reason.

Where we would perhaps agree is what should be built here. I believe our urban planners spend far too much time fretting about a buildings height and not enough time on how a development meets the street. The projects in CityPlace are an example of suburban development where the street level is disregarded and each glass clad building is stand alone. This is what people really fear - that the replacement development will be devoid of character and will make no effort to tie into the fabric of the city. I would hope that our city planners would be tougher on developers to make projects that actually make a contribution to the cityscape and not just a return for investors.
 
Big Daddy: for the 80th time, there is no 80 Harbour. It's 60. That's 20 less than 80. 60!

60

42
 
CanadianNational said:
Thanks for the well-articulated post, Rebecca-HT

These two buildings together work well for the scale of the north side of harbour. They are surrounded by parking lots, each of which can be used for development. Also, aside from the adapted buildings at Harburfront centre, they are just about the only remaining architectural - historical links to the waterfront's past in the area.
The building has already paid for itself, and renovating it would not involve the same massive outlay of capital that building an entirely new building would.
They also provide an important, agreeable contrast to the fairly identical recent-history towers sprouting around them.

Adaptively preserving this building will also help ameliorate shading and visual crowding over the discussed York / Harbour / QQ park.

Buildings don't have to be knockouts to be important. Especially in a city such as Toronto, where so little indicators of our past remain as it is. What both these buildings have, regardless of individual's aesthetic response, is that they are authentically historical. With this authenticity, they possess a rare and special quality that no new construction will duplicate.
Click to expand...

How is shading on the park an issue? The park is south of this site.
 
Big Daddy said:
Don't put words in my mouth, I can speak for myself - and my reasons for saving 80 Harbour (built in 1917) have more to do with its history, the governance of Toronto’s waterfront and the extreme efforts its builders went to make a landmark building. The building was originally on the waterfront before infilling the harbour. The people who worked there used to refer to it as the “T†building because of the “T†patterning which they interpreted as “T†for Toronto. The architecture whether one likes it or not, is of lesser importance here but it is a powerful building intended to make a strong statement about Toronto, its waterfront development and its future.
Click to expand...

... but 90 Harbour isn't necessarily of 'lesser' architecture, it's of different architecture. The aesthetic is so completely different that it is unfair to compare them... and in this context it isn't so much a question of saving every building over 50 years as it is not condemning every one that isn't:

Big Daddy said:
If your argument for saving 90 Harbour (built in 1953 to house the OPP) is simply "lets save every building 50 years and older" then I can't support that. There must be a better reason for saving a building other than "its 50 years old". In some way all buildings are an example of the years in which they were built. If we save all buildings without reasons for doing so, we are again supporting urban sprawl. If you want to save the memory of this building, document it – but don’t force the city to choke on it for no clear reason.
Click to expand...

... and this posture that accuses the effort to save 90 Harbour as a frivolous one that tries to save every and any old building is a strawman when you consider that there probably are only a handful of buildings over 50 years left in the area... which is sort of the whole point of preservation here to begin with.

Big Daddy said:
Where we would perhaps agree is what should be built here. I believe our urban planners spend far too much time fretting about a buildings height and not enough time on how a development meets the street. The projects in CityPlace are an example of suburban development where the street level is disregarded and each glass clad building is stand alone. This is what people really fear - that the replacement development will be devoid of character and will make no effort to tie into the fabric of the city. I would hope that our city planners would be tougher on developers to make projects that actually make a contribution to the cityscape and not just a return for investors.
Click to expand...

The problem here is that insisting on design/urban standards for this site is probably even a more hopeless cause than insisting on heritage preservation or adaptation, given the powerful development motivations at play. In other words if they don't care about Heritage they are not likely to care how something meets the street, or materials, or quality design/architecture. Like it or not you will have ended up tearing down a building that did have potential for these things for something that likely wont. Just take a look around and you will get my point.
 
Big Daddy said:
If we save all buildings without reasons for doing so, we are again supporting urban sprawl.
Click to expand...

Rubbish. 90 Harbour is not a dilapidated one storey shack occupying an entire superblock of land that can't possibly be reused or intensified. The choice is between towers plus 90 Harbour or towers and a low-rise podium instead of 90 Harbour. No, no one will ever be shown slides of it in an Architecture 101 class, but so what? Many buildings, regardless of their aesthetic/architectural/heritage merit, are demolished because they can't be reused. Very rarely do sites like this, with an attractive and perfectly reusable building surrounded by parking lots, become available. Chances are good that the condo podium that replaces 90 Harbour will actually have less square footage (and you wouldn't want to support urban sprawl, would you?). Maybe it will be replaced by some master-planned peripheral, like a giant porte-cochere or the garbage/loading dock, kind of like how the Registry Building was lost not to City Hall, but to ancillary stuff like the garage ramp.
 
You must log in or register to post here.

Back
Top