News   GLOBAL  |  Apr 02, 2020
 8.4K     0 
News   GLOBAL  |  Apr 01, 2020
 39K     0 
News   GLOBAL  |  Apr 01, 2020
 4.7K     0 

Northern Light

Superstar
Member Bio
Joined
May 20, 2007
Messages
31,254
Reaction score
87,459
Perusing the agenda of the University of Toronto's Planning and Budget committee as one might on a rainy Sunday.........

I ran across this item in this report to May 4th meeting of said Committee:


From the above:

1651434573435.png


That one caught my attention.

Not really much info there, but upon using Google...........lo' and behold...........there was a U of T News Item about this late last year, which can be found here:


The project will demo/redevelop the iconic (not necessarily a good iconic, but highly recognizable) southern component w/the classrooms and dining facilities.
It will retain the office component, but completely renovate it.

Per the article:

1651434743639.png


Design Team to be selected Spring '22.

****

Lets put in some Streetviews of the existing to document that before things change:

St. George frontage:

1651434918919.png


One from April as well to get a leaf-free perspective of the building:

1651434975567.png


Huron frontage:

1651435038622.png


* note for the youngin's here,m this is more or less what the St. George frontage looked like before the steps were put in all along the patio.
 
Were the steps on St George a later addition? I remember the building pre-enclosure of the overhangs, and I remember the old lobby, but those steps were there as far back as I can remember?
 
Were the steps on St George a later addition? I remember the building pre-enclosure of the overhangs, and I remember the old lobby, but those steps were there as far back as I can remember?

They were indeed an addition.

Here's what it looked like when it opened: (by the 90s there were tables and chairs)

1651437810611.png

From: https://spacing.ca/toronto/2013/08/08/concrete-toronto-sidney-smith-hall-at-u-of-t/

They were added towards the end of my time at U of T, in 1997.

I found this:

"The broad front steps and planters, added by Brown + Storey Architects and van Nostrand DiCastri Architects during their 1997 revitalization of St. George Street, strongly connect the building to the sidewalk and have done much to make the east terrace a prime gathering spot during sunny weather."

Here: https://robertmoffatt115.wordpress.com/2010/05/26/parkin-pioneers-u-of-t’s-west-campus/
 
U of T has been cooking this for years through their secondary plan. IIRC there was pushback from Heritage - and rightly so, I think.

You've always been a big Parkin fan!

I have to say, in my student days at U of T, I can't think of one person who had a nice thing to say about Sid Smith.

It was generally seen as uncomfortable, inaccessible, and aesthetically displeasing/dull.

Its interior arrangement was also inconvenient and clunky.

The steps improved the appearance/relationship to St. George a great deal, but aside from the still unfortunate original patio on the Huron side....

The interior was still dreadful last time I was there.

I can't say I'd miss it.
 
There’s no doubt that the Parkin firm was one of the most important in Canadian history. This particular building, given its place and time, has huge significance.

At some point we (as a society and at City Hall) need to ask: does it make sense that we are protecting 1000 undistinguished vernacular buildings, but not this?
 
There’s no doubt that the Parkin firm was one of the most important in Canadian history. This particular building, given its place and time, has huge significance.

At some point we (as a society and at City Hall) need to ask: does it make sense that we are protecting 1000 undistinguished vernacular buildings, but not this?

We can both agree that there are buildings we are protecting that do not merit that protection.

We can both agree there are buildings that merit protection that are not getting it.

But I don't think we can agree on why buildings should be protected (or not); in general, I'm in favour or protecting buildings on aesthetic grounds; and the presumption of aesthetic value generally lies w/the broader public, and to some lesser, but not unimportant degree, with those who use a building every day.

If you stood outside Massey Hall and asked people if the building should be maintained/protected....I would think you would get a clear majority in favour.

However, if you did the same outside Sid Smith, I would be genuinely surprised if you got 10%

I don't think the broader public, or the faculty/students using the building think there's anything particularly remarkable about it, at least not in a good way.

I've never really been keen on the 'cultural' argument for saving a building, it feels contrived; it's often stretched to justify saving a building because a one-time celebrity happened to live there for a short time.

I'd rather we saved buildings because people love them; and particularly so if they would be near-impossible/prohibitive to replace.
 
Last edited:
I had many classes at Sid Smith. I'm not sure if it was attending early Monday morning classes, or the poor maintenance of the lecture halls, but I was never a fan.
 
I'm not sure heritage should be designated by popular vote though...that feels like a recipe for disaster. Rather it should be based on the merit and significance both historically and architecturally of the building and it's design. And processed through a committee of experties on the matter, hopefully selected in the most non-partisan way possible, IMO.
 
I'm very pro brutalist/modernist stuff and its preservation and I feel agony at what people are doing to so many of our best modernist buildings by adding such geometrically unsympathetic additions (Robarts extension, Manulife Centre even worse — look how they massacred my boy, etc.), but in this case I just don't really think there's enough architectural value here to justify this site being underused to this extent.

This central university site (both physically and in terms of how much student activity goes through it) could be used much much much more effectively and also be a place that is better for students. Students don't like Sid Smith for a reason: it's very hostile and doesn't really function that well as a space and just isn't that nice or pleasant to be in and around inside or out. If it was a nicer piece of architecture or of enough significance or functioned well as a space (of course these things are subjective) it might justify its preservation, and I do like some aspects of it, but I just can't find it in me to get upset about this one. And practically speaking the University could make much better use of this space and it would be an improvement to students lives.

I just don't think the architecture is that good or worth it here to justify that trade off. I used to scoff at Robarts too, but legitimately enjoyed my time in there as a student it's cosy and feels grand like a quiet fortress of learning and I've come to love it as I think many do (I wish I could still visit the stacks now that I'm no longer a student!). But how many people have really come to love Sid Smith? And does it actually provide value or a good experience for the people who use the building? Sometimes buildings just aren't that great or don't suit their purpose or site well even if they were made by a notable architect and are part of an interesting architectural movement. Sorry Sid Smith, I'm just not that into you, when the wrecking ball comes I won't be upset.
 
The interior of Sidney Smith was the epitome of a generic university building on the interior when I was a student, down to the painted concrete block walls. The exterior felt dull and sterile.

I think U of T could do a lot better considering how important this building is to the Faculty of Arts and Sciences and its location at the heart of the campus. If we're going to require one building to be standing at this site for generations to come because of heritage protection, it shouldn't be this building.
 
I'm not sure heritage should be designated by popular vote though...that feels like a recipe for disaster. Rather it should be based on the merit and significance both historically and architecturally of the building and it's design. And processed through a committee of experties on the matter, hopefully selected in the most non-partisan way possible, IMO.
I think in the case of an institutional building such as this, you also need to consider how functional it is. Forcing U of T to save a building that fails at its job as a university space because some architects say so isn't ideal either.
 

Back
Top