Dickinson Debate

[Silence&Motion]

Hopefully we don't already have a thread on Peter Dickinson. I figured that with all of the debate over his buildings in the Regent Park thread, it might be worth opening a new one here. Also, BlogTO just posted this article on Dickinson:

http://www.blogto.com/city/2011/03/the_lost_architecture_of_peter_dickinson/

One of the questions that arises in a discussion of Dickinson is why we allow so many of his buildings to be demolished and whether or not he deserves more reverence than he receives. Some argue that today the early modern buildings of the late 1950s are in a similar position as the Victorian buildings were in the 1960s. Early modern buildings have fallen out of fashion, but do not yet invoke historical nostalgia, which means that they become ideal candidates for demolition.

The BlogTO article frames Dickinson buildings in ways that are often used to discuss Victorian buildings, arguing essentially that "they don't build them like they used to". The author laments that "to look at [Dickinson's] Benvenuto Apartments... is to see a way of designing buildings that is sadly past," and argues that his buildings have an "undeniable delicacy" to them that presumably cannot be recreated today. This is quite similar to how we describe Victorian architecture (though not necessarily the delicacy part).

Putting aside the issue of whether Dickinson buildings should be preserved, I actually disagree with the parallels being drawn between Victorians and early modernism. We really DO NOT build Victorian buildings anymore and we are incapable of building them even if we wanted to. We lack the materials, the technology, and the skills that allow us to build Victorian buildings in any realistic way. There are not too many stonemasons living in Toronto these days. There's barely any stone. The stock of Victorian buildings we currently have is all we will ever get, which places more pressure on us to preserve them.

By contrast, we actually DO build and design buildings in essentially the same way as we did in the early modern era. Sure there have been some small technological and aesthetic changes, but the basic architectural language and construction practices are the same. Architectural buffs may have a detailed enough understanding of the field to identify the subtleties that distinguish a Dickinson from other modern buildings, but they cannot say that the aesthetic variation between early modernism and contemporary modernism in anyway approaches the variation between modern and Victorian. And they definitely will have a hard time arguing that most of the aesthetic successes achieved by Dickinson cannot be reproduced by today's architects and construction industry.

What does this mean in terms of preservation? My personal inclinations are actually in favour of preserving the Dickinsonians for historical reasons. But I doubt we will ever see the same kind of public pressure to preserve early modernism as we do with Victorian buildings – at least not until we see another major transition in the way we construct buildings (possibly due to environmental pressures such as peak oil).

 

[Urban Shocker]

I agree that there's a strong continuity between early Toronto Modernism and the neo-Modernism ( Mannerist Modernism? ) being designed today ... but perhaps that's one reason why the value of the early stuff is being discounted - being ubiquitous, and similar to today's work, it is rather invisible - whereas, say, Gingerbread Victorian, being so superficially different and designed for a different kind of society, isn't?

 

[junctionist]

There's so much Modernism around that it's not surprising that it doesn't feel threatened, especially as we've seen a return to the style in recent years. I agree that it might take a shift in style for it to be more appreciated. A lot of Dickinson's buildings were in fact quite memorable and look a step above neighbouring buildings from the same era, like the Regent Park South towers with their unique arrangement of windows and balconies (originally). The simple answer to the preservation question is that Modernism produced many great buildings with details unique to the style that are in fact worthy of preservation.

It was a coming of age time Canada and a time of optimism internationally, and there was a lot of investment in materials, landscaping, and artwork to produce attractive and functional buildings. The public and the design community needs to know what the design features unique to Modernism are, since these buildings are all around us and many look great. What's often detrimental for any style is when the details and design language (for instance, "less is more") aren't understood. Next to demolition, unsympathetic renovations are a major risk, whether we're talking about a Victorian or Modernist block.

In response to your comment that we can't build Victorian architecture, the inclination to preserve the good isn't because we can't build them, but because we won't build them. Economics, design trends, and preferences mean we won't build new Victorians. However, it's possible to build a fine contemporary building in a Victorian style if one wanted to make the investment--monetary and intellectual. It could have modern construction hidden in its core, but achieve the true Victorian aesthetic in terms of design. Any design community that says it's impossible just doesn't have very sophisticated views on historical architecture. It's possible to train to be a master of a number of long-past styles. It definitely wouldn't be hard to build a row of brick Bay and Gables with terra cotta ornamentation, stained glass windows, and bargeboard trim.

 

[freshcutgrass]

Some argue that today the early modern buildings of the late 1950s are in a similar position as the Victorian buildings were in the 1960s. Early modern buildings have fallen out of fashion, but do not yet invoke historical nostalgia, which means that they become ideal candidates for demolition.

I don't see much of a parallel between mid-century modernism and victorian era architecture in terms of "appreciation" of design.

Victorian design was most hated directly after the period ended. Along with all things victorian, it represented a long period of repressed attitudes people were glad to rid themselves of...including the architecture. By the time the 60's rolled around, most people did considered it "pretty". It was only where it stood in the way of progress, was it considered expendable. A lovely three-storey victorian building is no match for a modern office tower if that is what progress is dictating.

I'd say most of Toronto's stock of victorian residential houses have survived quite well, and have a bright future, as restoring them is actually worth the cost of doing it now (buy one...they aint gonna get cheaper) It's the commercial buildings in the wrong places that were the victims.

I don't think mid-century modernism has suffered much of an "unappreciated" phase at all, and mid-century design is very hot right now. Mid century buildings are only in danger if they commit the sin of being in the way of progress. Mid century buildings will fare better than victorian buildings, as they were generally built to a larger scale, and the economics of demolishing and replacing them is not the same. The real problem for mid century architecture is bastardizing the design with "updating". Modernize the internal systems of the building...but just maintain the architecture and design as built.

It definitely wouldn't be hard to build a row of brick Bay and Gables with terra cotta ornamentation, stained glass windows, and bargeboard trim.

Oh...even the most elaborate Annex Princess Anne house could be replicated as to be indistinguishable from the vintage item. The materials and tradesmen exist to do such things too, so that isn't the problem. Yea...it would cost a little more, as you just can't get everything at Home Depot to do it. But cost isn't the real issue either...people pay a lot more for worse design.

There are two main reasons why you don't see this happening.

One...developers don't bother going to the trouble of that much detail, because they don't need to....the average home buyer doesn't give a shit...they will buy it anyway.

Two...for those who love the design, there is still a huge inventory of real victorian homes to pick from in a vast price range. Real estate prices now make it equitable to actually spend the money to totally restore them, inside and out.

In fact, it's even to the point where some of those victorian houses that were butchered by the Portuguese immigrants back in the 60's (flat-fronted with angel stone & wrought iron horrors) are being "re-victorianzed". There's a pair of semi's on Lakeview Ave that had that done...and the results aren't half bad. The good news is that it actually PAYS to spend the serious money to do it now.

Don't mean to disrespect those Portuguese immigrants...it was them who kept the old inner-city neighbourhoods alive while everybody else was fleeing to the burbs...bless their souls. But man, their taste was in their toenails.

 

[Urban Shocker]

I'm hopeful that commercial storefronts of the same vintage, along Queen West and on Yonge south of Bloor for instance, which are currently defaced by stucco, garish paint jobs, graffiti "art" hucksterism and various forms of commercial signage, will also eventually be returned to their former glory. As with the stock of houses, they have a collective impact that ought to be appreciated again. There are signs, here and there, that this is happening - the redevelopment known as 5 St. Joseph for instance cleans them up and incorporates them rather nicely.

I wonder if we'll eventually see the butchered/"improved" Dickinson buildings restored to their original state? There are a couple of his office buildings - on the west side of Yonge, at King and Wellington - that would be good candidates.