Lost Toronto

[dt_toronto_geek]

Correct me if I'm wrong, but it was fire that destroyed a good 50% of these buildings, if not more.

Thanks for the great post JanneClaude.

I've never seen photos of most of those buildings. I slobbered while enjoying them then mourned the loss.

The 1904 fire took out pretty much everything from around Esplanade to Wellington, Yonge to University. Some of the buildings from those photos were likely lost to the fire but many were clearly raised to "progress". That crime sadly continues to this day.

 

[junctionist]

But we still have so much good stuff:
1885- Bank of Montreal Building

(wikipedia)

1850- St. Lawrence Hall

http://flickr.com/photos/chuckkahn/58125153/

(Wikipedia)

1853- Toronto Street Post Office

(Wikipedia)

1857- MacKenzie House

(wikipedia)

1864- Don Jail

http://flickr.com/photos/redkam/404042118/

Not to mention the well known University College (1857), Distillery District (~1859), Old City Hall (1899)

and there are so many more of these beauties standing in decent to restored condition...check out http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_oldest_buildings_and_structures_in_Toronto

 

[Tewder]

I've always wondered what must have existed south of Front and down to the lake. All that's there now is pretty much urban wasteland, vehicle arteries and new construction. I am assuming that the original lakeshore was sited around where the port authority building is?

I too regret the loss of so many truly beautiful old buildings, but that's simply my preference in terms of what I tend to like. I do like a lot of the new buildings that have replaced them, but all too often I think these older buildings bit the dust for surface parking lots, brutal slabs and cheap apartment bldgs/condos. Say what you like about the spirit of the 50s and 60s, the New City Hall era etc. but there truly was vision in Toronto back in the 19th and early 20th century, especially when you look at the grand building schemes and some of the urban design plans such as Vimy Circle etc.

 

[AndreaPalladio]

Originally, everything south of Front WAS the lake. If you do a property search, all the land south of Front is described as water lots (at least, they were until it was all converted to Teranet).

 

[Edward Skira]

I've always wondered what must have existed south of Front and down to the lake.

AP is right. Outside of the railways and some factories everything else was empty fill. Most of those lots never had any buildings.

 

[junctionist]

Downtown, there is still a decent amount of mid 19th century buildings (see above), but the 1950s and 60s were especially devastating in the west end. Numerous graceful late 19 century blocks were replaced by gas stations and garages which are now in terrible shape without any interesting architectural features.

 

[adma]

Yet all things considered, there's a lot that still remains. And even certain of the 50s/60s stuff (like the sawtooth building at Dundas/Pacific) can be now deemed cherishable in its own right. Besides, if there's any consolation, the gas station/garage sites are readymade sites for urban infill/intensification...

 

[Jarrek]

No matter how you look at it, none of these new condos that are being built now could ever come close to being appreciated 50 years down the road from now, as these buildings could have been.

None.

And that's the tragedy.

 

[adma]

"None"? Really?

Maybe let's compare the best of 50 years ago then, like Benvenuto...

 

[Canuck]

What is blah-chitecture today, is tomorrow's ignored building, the next generations' most hatred style, and soon thereafter people will love them and question what kind of barbarians destroyed and reviled such beautiful structures.

It's a cycle.

 

[billy corgan]

I don’t think many people will cry over the loss of brutalist buildings.

 

[junctionist]

No matter how you look at it, none of these new condos that are being built now could ever come close to being appreciated 50 years down the road from now, as these buildings could have been.

None.

And that's the tragedy.

I think some will be appreciated, 100-150 years from now. 30-60 years is how long it takes for people to get tired of it and call it ugly. This may be the fate of Liebeskind's crystal, I've already heard people suggest we should consider a new city hall. The general public can easily like a work because its shiny and fresh in style, but besides that they can't really pinpoint what makes the architecture any good. Regardless, 100-150, the architecture will reflect a way of thinking, a rational that will have disappeared in the floorplans, lines, etc...

And people will enjoy looking at it.

 

[Canuck]

I don’t think many people will cry over the loss of brutalist buildings.

And yet Boston City Hall remains, despite being dysfunctional and fugly in the eyes of most.

Brutalism will have its time once again.

 

[adma]

Well, while the present mayor's trying, Boston City Hall hasn't been given the chance yet to "meet its fate"--not because it isn't dysfunctional, but that it'd involve a lot of thinking and effort (and municipal resources) to blow it up and start over. And heck, it's still less than 40 years since it opened--so it's jumping the gun to assume that "overriding merit" is directly behind its continued existence (even if I'm prone to defending it). It's still there because they're hogtied.

Outside of archi-geeks, it's *very* hard to tell about Brutalism--likewise, going the other direction, with the retro-schlock condo/McMansion aesthetic; it may be more "appealing" to the masses, but is it the sort of appeal that'll draw preservation-minded sentimentality down the line? Or will it be more ashes-to-ashes? After all, even now, an Ron Thom or Arthur Erickson home of the 1970s is more likely to inspire rallies than, say, a Napier Simpson home of that same era (and that was *tasteful* retro). Likewise, I assume in the future, Shim-Sutcliffe vs Gordon Ridgeley.

Perhaps, ultimately, the whole "brutalism will have its day" or "you never know; today's McMansions might become tomorrow's landmarks" arguments might simply be consumed by the increasing segmentation of taste and eclipse of consensus. Once upon a time, it was accepted that the chronological march of judgment of heritage-worthiness was inexorable; today, with something like Neutra's Cyclorama at Gettysburg, the debate takes on more of a Red/Blue America never-the-twain-shall-meet tinge...

 

[ganjavih]

I don't buy the whole "it's a cycle" thing. Architecture, in terms of design, relationship to the environment, and quality of materials used, took a serious nosedive in the middle of the 20th century. It ain't comin' back.