Bad architecture: Is ours worse, or just more?

[michaelpfox]

Toronto is unique for having high density nodes spread throughout the old "Metro" area. There are even many apartment buildings out in 905. By some counts, we are the densest North American city.

Looking at pics from elsewhere, it seems the ugly slab-type 1960s/70s building is typical. So are ours worse, or do we just have way more of them? Do these buildings comprise a higher proportion of our built-up city than elsewhere?

 

[TdotTrickyRicky]

I would say we just have more conventional and less exceptional architecture. If you look at the cities that are praised for their architecture, most of the built form is indistinquishable from Toronto. Even european cities like Paris (a city that is obsessed with aesthetic) has a lot of exceptional architecture in the city core, but the predominant built form in the city region is still, and increasingly, conventional in design.

 

[wyliepoon]

I think the reason why Toronto has so many slabs and other "uninspiring architecture" has to do with the fact that Toronto grew so fast in the postwar era, both downtown and in the suburbs. The huge demand for housing, office space and industrial buildings on short order meant that architecture was sacrificed for quicker and cheaper construction.

The above comment mentioned Paris. Paris was never really into aesthetics 200 years ago (even though it had Notre-Dame cathedral, royal palaces and other nice buildings). It was after Haussmann's redevelopment of central Paris in the mid 19th century that architectural aesthetics went way up in Paris.

I think Toronto has come to a point similar to Haussmann's time in Paris. Now we look back at Toronto and we realize that we have a really great city, but our architecture does not reflect that. That's why we're getting the ROM and the AGO redeveloped, and we're proposing supertall condo projects. We may not get a Haussmann-like figure to control the architecture in the city, but having the people of Toronto demanding bigger and better projects will have a similar effect.

 

[marksimpson7843]

Ever see the slabs in Metro Paris that were erected long after Haussmann intiative? Every city that built residential highrises from the 50s to the early 80s relied on this form. At least some of ours represent the best of this form.

 

[ganjavih]

"I think the reason why Toronto has so many slabs and other "uninspiring architecture" has to do with the fact that Toronto grew so fast in the postwar era, both downtown and in the suburbs."

Bingo... that's really the bottom line. Toronto didn't invent bad architecture... we just became a victim of the era. Unfortunately, we were hit really hard... moreso than other cities in North America - and it shows.

 

[Archivistower]

We have a LOT of ugly slabs, but to say that we were hit hard, compared to other NA cities, is both true and false. True, in the sense that we have so many unpleasant highrises. But false, in the sense that at least we have more high density areas, even those away from the core, that aren't just suburban sprawl. I'm thinking Yonge/Eglinton as an asset (and not so much Fairview Mall area as an asset).

 

[michaelpfox]

On a side note, the high densities in Toronto's 'middle' suburbs are unique. I have a pet theory bubbling that one of the main reasons is the way our bus system operates going all the way east-west or north-south along arterials, and the way it is completely integrated with the subway. Even though Toronto's subway system isn't as elaborate as many cities, the placement of the lines and the shape of the city seem to make it highly effective.

 

[cdl42]

From my admittedly limited travels, I find that the 60s-80s slabs and architecture far superior in Toronto than in Europe. I see highrises in London that are far worse than anything in Toronto, and concrete complexes (like York U) that are far more souless and ugly than anything here.

Maybe Toronto is moderate in that way. We we moderately brutalist, whereas many developments in Europe took brutalist to the extreme.

Ugly London:
Guy's Tower
Barbican Centre
Trellick Tower
NLA Tower

Ugly Rome:
Grattacielo Italia

 

[AlchemisTO]

We have a horrible sense of scale. The shitty one-storey retail fronts along Yonge near Gloucester aren't just ugly - they're undignified for a major street. Toronto is full of: single family houses next to high rise apartments set back from the street next to parking lots - it goes on and on like this. that's the source of our ugliness. If we built uninspiring buildings consistently, you would find Toronto to be a rather pleasant, if pedestrian, architectural experience.

 

[ganjavih]

God, those buildings are horrible cdl42... they do look worse than ours. But in cities like Paris, London and Madrid, you can easily avoid these uglies by avoiding the suburbs... in Toronto, they slap you in the face wherever you go.

AlchemistTO brings up a great point and the second major reason Toronto streetscapes aren't as attractive as they should be (the first reason being the era we grew up in). It reminds me of our friend, 77 Elm... an extreme brutalist building sitting beside several rowhouses. Jarvis has also been hit hard by this unholy combination of small Victorians, huge brutalist buildings and parking lots side by side. That's why I really appreciate buildings that take cues from the neighbourhood, like Mozo and the Morgan. It's just as important as the design of the building.

Next time you're walking down Yonge from Yonge/Bloor compare the east and west sides of the street. If you're walking on the east side, you get a view of the west side of Yonge. The rows of heritage buildings have mostly been preserved from just south of Bloor to around College and there's a nice cohesive, albeit gritty, feel to the street. Because it's mostly 2 or 3-storey buildings, you get a nice view of the clock tower around Yonge and College with beautiful College Park behind it and the skyline further back. If you walk on the west side of Yonge, you get a view of the east side of the street where things are a lot different. The cohesive feel of the street has been interrupted by office buildings and one-storey strip mall style buildings... it's extremely unattractive. There are two highrises that I particularly dislike, one is at the SE corner of Yonge and Wellesley and the other is just north of Yonge and Gerrard on the east side of the street... both are set back from the street and create a little bit of dead space on Yonge. Next time you're on Yonge, do the "east/west test"... see if you notice the difference.

 

[WhistlerinToronto]

I don't think we have anymore then the average North American city that went through the same boom as us in growth. Just nobody takes pictures of these dull structures. We only think we have more because we now where to look for them. I'm sure cities like Boston, Montreal , Philly, New York, Chicago, and so on have a huge number as well. They don't take pictures of them either. So to us who only know what we are shown, they just don't exist.

 

[Archivistower]

michaelpfox, I think you are dead on about the subway and its effectiveness. It may interest you to know that I've also heard that it was the timing of the subway that affected this. In the 1950's, not very many places were building or expanding subways, and Toronto built it's own just as the boom was settling in, meaning that in the 1950's and 1960's when so many buildings were being built, their locations were affected by the subway. We were very lucky in that regard, and I think the timing was important.

Also, I agree with ganj etc that the weird disparities in the massing of buildings is one of the problems. All this stuff slammed together weirdly means that you end up not looking at any of it. I can't even count the examples I can think of that are jarring. It's why I have some sympathy for those against the 100 Yorkville building, though not entirely. It's also why I can appreciate a row of buildings like the Soho through the Icon's and over to the Jefferson, which are pretty dense and vary in their architectural competence, but present an even scale along the street that they are on.

 

[michaelpfox]

I was in the stacks at the government library in Robarts, and I stumbled on an urban design study for Metro Toronto in 1975, done as a background to producing an Official Plan at the time. It noted that regulations in zoning by-laws at the time only spoke in relative terms to lot lines, and did not take actual buildings into account. The point it was making was, nothing was governing contextual relationships to other buildings, and to meet the regulations, buildings were often forced into awkward relationships. I guess since then, things have gotten slightly better, but not much...

It also argued there was a value judgement all through existing plans that multiple dwellings were 'bad' and had to be separated by open spaces or by other means. The value judgement was implicit; never thoughtfully explained or reasoned, and said more thinking should go into it.

It's interesting, because I only stumbled onto this study while researching South False Creek in Vancouver, and other studies done by Vancouver planning in the '70s, and their studies from that era read like our new Official Plan today. Its really jarring how the different thought processes were being played out, and to see the results. There is no more obvious comparison than the North False Creek (Concord Pacific) results, versus the CityPlace (Concord Adex) results. Another example is our waterfront developments (i.e. Harbour Castle) of the 70s, versus theirs at South False Creek.

It is dispiriting to say the least, for a Torontonian.

 

[SD2]

I don't think we have anymore then the average North American city that went through the same boom as us in growth. Just nobody takes pictures of these dull structures. We only think we have more because we now where to look for them. I'm sure cities like Boston, Montreal , Philly, New York, Chicago, and so on have a huge number as well. They don't take pictures of them either. So to us who only know what we are shown, they just don't exist.

Oh yes...there is a good thread at café l'urbanité regarding Boston:

Medieval Boston

They've destroyed at least as much of their heritage was we have...and have lots of ugly buildings as well.

 

[SD2]

We have a horrible sense of scale. The shitty one-storey retail fronts along Yonge near Gloucester aren't just ugly - they're undignified for a major street. Toronto is full of: single family houses next to high rise apartments set back from the street next to parking lots - it goes on and on like this. that's the source of our ugliness. If we built uninspiring buildings consistently, you would find Toronto to be a rather pleasant, if pedestrian, architectural experience.

I agree. Outside the core, there is too much of this. Yonge has some just awful 1 storey buildings. Makes you wonder who would ever put up garbage like that on such a major street.