Miscellany Toronto Photographs: Then and Now

[thecharioteer]

Back in the day:

I think that the discussion about the merits of this building illustrates the dilemma facing the preservation of Modernist buildings in the city (and for the record, I think that deepend and Jaborandi are spot on in their comments). The attributes of the original building that got lost in the renovation were extremely subtle and seem almost negligable, if one has never seen the original: for example, the mullion spacing and rhythm of awning windows, the setback of the ground-floor pilasters, the recessed entrance, and the materiality that established the relationship between solid and void.

This building, and ones like it, are not ones that inspire affection from the general public. They're almost invisble. The first thing usually to go in these buildings are the windows, most likely because of them being single-glazed. Almost never will a building owner try to match the originals. From that point, it's usually downhill: canopies, retail "enhancements", new signage, re-cladding.

A case in point, is the abuse suffered by 2 Carlton (even lost its clock and Pizza Pizza strikes again, however the windows above the podium and balconies look original):

 

[adma]

Though for all it mucking-around, it's incredible how much character 2 Carlton retains, regardless--especially compared to the Westbury to the north. (Same with Sutton Place--to me, the worse injustice there is the signage replacement up top.)

 

[LowPolygon]

here's the Bank of Nova Scotia building as it was originally conceived. so elegant! i love the metal letters running across the length of the lower third of the building.

it appears that the large backlit sign, covering up the top in its early 70's iteration, was the first sign of all the deformations that were to come...

[/QUOTE]

 

[fiendishlibrarian]

Note as well the corresponding decline and degradation in the streetscape along Bloor in the form of increased clutter (unsightly retail facades, unnecessary phone booths, proliferating publication boxes, street-spam postering vandalism). It's a theme that runs throughout this whole thread, where the decline in a given building's appearance is invariably paralleled with the decline in the appearance of what's around it. Doesn't say much about how we've maintained our public realm in the last forty years, does it? Or maybe it says a lot actually.

 

[Anna]

Half of that second house in is still there, hidden behind the Pizza Pizza abomination.

 

[Urban Shocker]

Note as well the corresponding decline and degradation in the streetscape along Bloor in the form of increased clutter (unsightly retail facades, unnecessary phone booths, proliferating publication boxes, street-spam postering vandalism). It's a theme that runs throughout this whole thread, where the decline in a given building's appearance is invariably paralleled with the decline in the appearance of what's around it. Doesn't say much about how we've maintained our public realm in the last forty years, does it? Or maybe it says a lot actually.

Well, the same cultural approach - look! unadorned space! quick! cover it with advertising/corporate branding/junk posters! - is at work at all levels. There's never a dull moment with consumer capitalism's great visual screaming match. Look at the City's new street furniture, used primarily as a vehicle for advertising revenue, to see how pervasive it is.

 

[jaborandi]

Though for all it mucking-around, it's incredible how much character 2 Carlton retains, regardless--especially compared to the Westbury to the north. (Same with Sutton Place--to me, the worse injustice there is the signage replacement up top.)

Alas, the lobby of 2 Carlton took a massive direct reno hit - BOOM!

 

[Edward Skira]

Note as well the corresponding decline and degradation in the streetscape along Bloor in the form of increased clutter (unsightly retail facades, unnecessary phone booths, proliferating publication boxes, street-spam postering vandalism). It's a theme that runs throughout this whole thread, where the decline in a given building's appearance is invariably paralleled with the decline in the appearance of what's around it. Doesn't say much about how we've maintained our public realm in the last forty years, does it? Or maybe it says a lot actually.

Well, the same cultural approach - look! unadorned space! quick! cover it with advertising/corporate branding/junk posters! - is at work at all levels.

Have things really changed? How many ads do you see here? I even see posters in the first one.

From Walton Street:

And from Edward Street:

 

[junctionist]

On the bright side, Bloor's ugly stack of overhead wires and wooden poles is ancient history.

 

[adma]

Alas, the lobby of 2 Carlton took a massive direct reno hit - BOOM!

Though I've heard murmurs that the original mural/mosaic treatment still exists underneath.

Oh, and re 800 Bay: I wouldn't go so far as to suggest that no aesthetic thought went into the renos--in fact, I'd obliquely agree with Traynor that they knew exactly what they were doing (as is so often the case with Pomo-era alterations). Rather, it's a matter of a tin ear re the subtleties of what already existed--essentially, the building was regarded as nothing more than raw built material open to "improvement". Excusable at the time, maybe, but...

Which is why I'd advocate an "heritage-anticipatory" approach to building renovation even re that which isn't necessarily currently-decreed "heritage".

 

[Mustapha]

Honest Ed's looked so much better in the before picture. It certainly acts as an abrupt segway in between the Annex and Korea town.

One can't help but wonder if the place is even profitable. With all that real estate it's downright silly they never put in a full size grocery store (there is a grocery section but it's quite sad), it would be great for the area (price chopper prices) and would pull in a lot more people who would start buying their random crap (saw a Nintendo Wii knockoff called the MiWi last time there lol). It's amazing how many people I meet in Toronto who have never even been in the damn place despite living down the street from it. In it's current state this has to be one of the most tragic missed retail opportunities in any major city anywhere.

I was last in there a few years ago with a leaving town student offspring looking for sheets and pots and things. We came out mostly empty handed wondering about the state of mind of the store buyer. I don't think things have improved much judging by the window displays.

After seeing the shot of THE SUTTON PLACE, I am reminded of two of the

worst things about it:
Single pane windows that howled sometimes like a wolf, and the unseen
galvanized steel plumbing, which required a costly refit during the '80's.
Rubin and his partner, Max? weren't sure of the enterprize being a "go",
so they "hedged their bets", with the above, as well as giving long term
tenancy for the apartments.
IT WAS A HIT! (At least one fine 'man was blown out of his bed!)
Regards,
J T

Was this the bomb under the bed 'hit'? I couldn't find anything online about it. Didn't it take place in the late 60s and not the 80s?





November 23 addition.



Then: August 23, 1927. Bay street, W side, just a couple dozen feet N of Dundas street.

Now: October 2009.

 

[Traynor]

...Oh, and re 800 Bay: I wouldn't go so far as to suggest that no aesthetic thought went into the renos--in fact, I'd obliquely agree with Traynor that they knew exactly what they were doing (as is so often the case with Pomo-era alterations)...

Thanks for that adma. It takes guts to stand up to the self-important tyrants that are the conversation killers on UT. Their bullying tactics have beaten most forumers into simple "great post!" comments rather than expressing actual opinions.

Let's also face the fact that 800 Bay was not air-conditioned and probably as insulated as a sieve... It was either renovate or tear-down... Unless a certain tyrant would like to work his 8 hour day in July with a great desk fan?

 

[jaborandi]

Was this the bomb under the bed 'hit'? I couldn't find anything online about it. Didn't it take place in the late 60s and not the 80s?

Ah yes, Myer Rush I believe.

http://news.google.com/newspapers?n...9AMMAAAAIBAJ&sjid=jFoDAAAAIBAJ&pg=6195,639821

 

[thecharioteer]

Thanks for that adma. It takes guts to stand up to the self-important tyrants that are the conversation killers on UT. Their bullying tactics have beaten most forumers into simple "great post!" comments rather than expressing actual opinions.

Let's also face the fact that 800 Bay was not air-conditioned and probably as insulated as a sieve... It was either renovate or tear-down... Unless a certain tyrant would like to work his 8 hour day in July with a great desk fan?

I'm also relatively new to UT, and the thing I like about it is the level of discussion and the breadth of knowledge most of the forumers have (as well as some great research skills). This is a forum of ideas, and I find that it's always better (like in real-life conversations) to talk about issues (like urbanism, architecture, design, heritage) on an intellectual level, not on the level of "taste", which like you say is a "conversation killer".

I think that the question that 800 Bay raises is not whether to renovate or tear-down. The question is how does one renovate a building of this era sensitively and sympathetically, that enhances the attributes of the original design without treating the structure as a blank canvas on which to paint the "plat du jour". For instance, could not the original mullion spacing be preserved? The slight setback of the ground floor pilasters? The original materials? Signage? These are all issues on which a talented architect makes decisions.

In a sense, these PoMo renos belong to the same school as those renos of the 60's that covered Victorian and Edwardian buildings with metal panellings to make them look "modern" (like the Woolworth Building at Queen & Yonge or the Mini Dealership building at King & Brant). They occur when the original design is "out of fashion" and the owner wants to update the image (and consequently the rents). The technical issues (like A/C and insulation) are secondary.

A case in point are the ubiquitous slider windows below a large window combo that now graces practically every older apartment building in the city. This change was done for technical reasons (energy conservation), but in many cases (like the older Art Deco and Art Moderne buildings in North Toronto) destroyed the elevational composition that had been created with horizontal mullions. In fact, when the Garden Court Apartments on Bayview were renovated recently, this issue of the window mullions was a major issue and got resolved by attempting to replicate the original design. Other buildings, like the series on Eglinton, just east of Bathurst were not so lucky.

 

[adma]

Thanks for that adma. It takes guts to stand up to the self-important tyrants that are the conversation killers on UT. Their bullying tactics have beaten most forumers into simple "great post!" comments rather than expressing actual opinions.

Let's also face the fact that 800 Bay was not air-conditioned and probably as insulated as a sieve... It was either renovate or tear-down... Unless a certain tyrant would like to work his 8 hour day in July with a great desk fan?

Except that, in disputing the claim that there was "no aesthetic thought" behind the reno, I'm not defending the reno, least of all as a valid, desirable solution for the present day. And there are ways to get around the air-conditioning/insulation issues which wouldn't have to involve this sort of drastic aesthetic solution.

IOW I'm clarifying the situation in order to reinforce the cause of the "self-important tyrants". You got to face it: in terms of 2009, you're facing a stacked deck no matter where you turn--and not unjustifiably so, either...