A
adma
Guest
Re: "Please don't pimp our square"
Just to be quick, note X Hume's piece and Cathy Nasmith's letter in the Star today...
Just to be quick, note X Hume's piece and Cathy Nasmith's letter in the Star today...
Toronto Nathan Phillips Square + Spirit Garden | ?m | ?s | City of Toronto
A
adma
Guest
Re: "Please don't pimp our square"
I know. That's why my stance is, "why not both"?
F'rinstance w/Graduate House, consider it to be a gadfly's bemused disdain both for the "real people" who hate it with a passion (wimps) and the architects and aesthetes who defend it (pretentious pseuds). Equal opportunity. What matters is that it's an architectural landmark, that some day will (presumably/hopefully) earn its own "official" landmark status.
As a cultural-data fact, as opposed to a banally "humanistic" fact, the built environment's like that. That's why it ain't just archi-snobs who "get" Corbusier-chic...
I know. That's why my stance is, "why not both"?
F'rinstance w/Graduate House, consider it to be a gadfly's bemused disdain both for the "real people" who hate it with a passion (wimps) and the architects and aesthetes who defend it (pretentious pseuds). Equal opportunity. What matters is that it's an architectural landmark, that some day will (presumably/hopefully) earn its own "official" landmark status.
As a cultural-data fact, as opposed to a banally "humanistic" fact, the built environment's like that. That's why it ain't just archi-snobs who "get" Corbusier-chic...
M
maxy505
Guest
Re: "Please don't pimp our square"
When will the yokels learn... NPS is not meant to be there for the people to enjoy, it is a PIECE OF ****ING ART!!!
Personally I hate it and would love to see it bastardized, but that just shows how base and uneducated I am. As soon as I get the chance, I'll get a masters in Architecture so that my (undoubtably reversed) opinions will have merit.
When will the yokels learn... NPS is not meant to be there for the people to enjoy, it is a PIECE OF ****ING ART!!!
Personally I hate it and would love to see it bastardized, but that just shows how base and uneducated I am. As soon as I get the chance, I'll get a masters in Architecture so that my (undoubtably reversed) opinions will have merit.
G
GeekyBoyTO
Guest
Re: "Please don't pimp our square"
No offense, but above all, City Hall MUST be a place for people to enjoy, by its' very definition. Art it is, but it is art with overt functions.
That being said, I'd prefer the interventions to be minimally intrusive and respect and defers to the original project.
GB
No offense, but above all, City Hall MUST be a place for people to enjoy, by its' very definition. Art it is, but it is art with overt functions.
That being said, I'd prefer the interventions to be minimally intrusive and respect and defers to the original project.
GB
S
SD2
Guest
Re: "Please don't pimp our square"
It has to be possible to retain the walkways and make them more appealing.
Above all, they should be opened. They were made to be used...I think keeping them closed is just as bad as tearing them down.
It has to be possible to retain the walkways and make them more appealing.
Above all, they should be opened. They were made to be used...I think keeping them closed is just as bad as tearing them down.
A
adma
Guest
Re: "Please don't pimp our square"
Y'know, sizing up the emerging spin, it appears that the big issue is whether all this gesturing, int'l competition et al, is really necessary to fix NPS's supposed wrongs. Because all the elements are there for this to become one big, embarrassing, unnecessary and potentially destructive boondoggle--and that's what Barber, Hume etc are getting at. When even the guidelines indicate, "let it be"--implicitly, to leave well enough alone--what's the point in all of this? And furthermore, when monkeying w/the square is already being framed in the press as ill-advised, who, pray tell, would be tempted to enter such a competition? It's tarred on the spot.
I suspect it's all a way of appeasing Councillor Milczyn, as he's the one preoccupied with the walkway-removal issue--but who else, other than an underinformed vox populii, is in his camp? Thanks to Barber, Hume et al, the issue's already being spun away from Milczyn--as if it ever had a chance otherwise. To crusade against the walkways now has come to seem like crusading against the Archer in 1966 (and of course, as goes the mayoral office, the underinformed vox populii won that one by knocking off Mayor Givens, but that's another issue).
And sheesh, the "discredited modernist urban ideal" undertone to Milczyn's reasoning; what is this? 1982?
Well, if there were any time when removing the walkways might have been a "plausible" option, it might have been 1982ish, when Postmodern critiques of Modernist failures still had an exhilarating rush to them, and not without justification. (And if it happened, we'd be decrying it to this very day--if you think the Peace Garden's bad, well...) But in terms of Toronto, what happened is that the Bulova Tower became the Penn Station of Toronto Modernism, an icon, a cause celebre, a symbol of engangered modern architecture. Henceforth, the idea of meddling with City Hall and NPS in a tear-down-the-walkways way came to seen, well, barbaric and philistine--at least among the network positioned to call the shots on it. Apparently.
And y'know something? Re the Le Corbusier vs Jane Jacobs issue, in this case it can be turned on its head--that is, as an invitation to architectural egos and the misguidedly high-minded, wouldn't the competition be more "Corbusian"? (Even, paradoxically, on behalf of "correcting" a so-called discredited Corbusian urban concept!) And likewise, wouldn't leaving well enough alone--that is, simply burnishing and fine-tuning and giving good purpose to NPS, walkways and all--be more the stuff of Jane Jacobs?
Funny thing is, I think Toronto City Hall's been overrated all along. Like Sydney Opera, Coventry Cathedral, and other such creations of its period, it's got something of the populist potboiler about it. But hey, whatever.
Y'know, sizing up the emerging spin, it appears that the big issue is whether all this gesturing, int'l competition et al, is really necessary to fix NPS's supposed wrongs. Because all the elements are there for this to become one big, embarrassing, unnecessary and potentially destructive boondoggle--and that's what Barber, Hume etc are getting at. When even the guidelines indicate, "let it be"--implicitly, to leave well enough alone--what's the point in all of this? And furthermore, when monkeying w/the square is already being framed in the press as ill-advised, who, pray tell, would be tempted to enter such a competition? It's tarred on the spot.
I suspect it's all a way of appeasing Councillor Milczyn, as he's the one preoccupied with the walkway-removal issue--but who else, other than an underinformed vox populii, is in his camp? Thanks to Barber, Hume et al, the issue's already being spun away from Milczyn--as if it ever had a chance otherwise. To crusade against the walkways now has come to seem like crusading against the Archer in 1966 (and of course, as goes the mayoral office, the underinformed vox populii won that one by knocking off Mayor Givens, but that's another issue).
And sheesh, the "discredited modernist urban ideal" undertone to Milczyn's reasoning; what is this? 1982?
Well, if there were any time when removing the walkways might have been a "plausible" option, it might have been 1982ish, when Postmodern critiques of Modernist failures still had an exhilarating rush to them, and not without justification. (And if it happened, we'd be decrying it to this very day--if you think the Peace Garden's bad, well...) But in terms of Toronto, what happened is that the Bulova Tower became the Penn Station of Toronto Modernism, an icon, a cause celebre, a symbol of engangered modern architecture. Henceforth, the idea of meddling with City Hall and NPS in a tear-down-the-walkways way came to seen, well, barbaric and philistine--at least among the network positioned to call the shots on it. Apparently.
And y'know something? Re the Le Corbusier vs Jane Jacobs issue, in this case it can be turned on its head--that is, as an invitation to architectural egos and the misguidedly high-minded, wouldn't the competition be more "Corbusian"? (Even, paradoxically, on behalf of "correcting" a so-called discredited Corbusian urban concept!) And likewise, wouldn't leaving well enough alone--that is, simply burnishing and fine-tuning and giving good purpose to NPS, walkways and all--be more the stuff of Jane Jacobs?
Funny thing is, I think Toronto City Hall's been overrated all along. Like Sydney Opera, Coventry Cathedral, and other such creations of its period, it's got something of the populist potboiler about it. But hey, whatever.
U
urbandeveloper
Guest
Re: "Please don't pimp our square"
It seems the walkway is a touchy point - but there's only so much you can do with bare concrete. Right now it looks like an elevated version of the gardiner for pedestrians.
In keeping with the original design spirit, I would look into replacing the concrete sides along the entire walkway with frosted glass – with a light source sandwiched between the glass panes. Heck, change the colours of the lighting for seasonal events.
A similar example of this can be found in the new section of Montreal’s underground path network (see right side).
The concrete bunkers, peace garden, and the hideous raised vents along Queen have got to go. Oh, and whoever decided to use that ugly fencing to prevent folks from climbing the pool arches needs a clue – that’s not something you use for such a high-profile location.
It seems the walkway is a touchy point - but there's only so much you can do with bare concrete. Right now it looks like an elevated version of the gardiner for pedestrians.
In keeping with the original design spirit, I would look into replacing the concrete sides along the entire walkway with frosted glass – with a light source sandwiched between the glass panes. Heck, change the colours of the lighting for seasonal events.
A similar example of this can be found in the new section of Montreal’s underground path network (see right side).
The concrete bunkers, peace garden, and the hideous raised vents along Queen have got to go. Oh, and whoever decided to use that ugly fencing to prevent folks from climbing the pool arches needs a clue – that’s not something you use for such a high-profile location.
A
adma
Guest
Re: "Please don't pimp our square"
Hey, it's only fair. Score one for the Milczyn camp, courtesy the Toronto Star Editorial Page... [who writes this stuff?!?]
===========================
May 15, 2005. 01:00 AM
Landmark city square needs bold new look
Nathan Phillips Square needs more than a makeover. It needs more than a facelift. It needs a full-blown redesign; an imaginative reworking.
This square, more than any other place, deserves being called the heart of Toronto. It cradles the seat of government for Canada's largest city.
Flanked on one side by the Victorian splendour of Old City Hall, and on the other by elegant Osgoode Hall, Upper Canada's seat of justice, the square is nestled in history.
It is also a living place — a true centre of the community. People gather here regularly for rallies and demonstrations, concerts, a summer farmers' market, religious celebrations, an art festival, ice skating and more.
Surmounting it all is a masterpiece of original design — the soaring curves of Toronto City Hall, designed by Viljo Revell and recognized around the world as a sterling example of modern architecture.
Few public spaces in Canada have such potential for greatness. But, although surrounded by glory, Nathan Phillips Square is itself a disappointment. The architectural jewel that is Toronto City Hall is stuck in a worn and cluttered setting.
The square lacks a memorable threshold, or entry way, and is marred by several design flaws and poorly integrated add-ons, such as the Peace Garden.
Although noble in intent, the garden's tiny green space, and its eternal flame, seem lost in the square. They should be relocated to a more intimate venue.
The square's problems extend well beyond aesthetics.
Consider the "Freedom Arches," three elegantly curved concrete arcs spanning the square's reflecting pool. Their beautiful design is spoiled by a curtain of chain-link fence added to the base of each arch. Evidently, the original planners failed to consider that drunks and others with impaired judgment could climb onto these gently sloping arches and fall.
There is similar concern over the raised walkway that runs around three sides of the square enclosing an area about the size of a city block. Resembling a concrete wall on stilts, the walkway is part of Revell's original design and is meant to frame the square, cleverly creating a boundary, but not a barrier.
Contrary to Revell's vision of an open and accessible place to stroll, the walkway has been closed to the public for years. It is hard to maintain, especially in winter. And there are serious security concerns. The two-storey walkway offers a tempting place from which to drop objects onto people below.
Also shut is the square's second-storey level, around the base of City Hall's curved towers. In an obvious design flaw, this section was built with loose paving tiles that are easily lifted. City officials have legitimate concerns that a tile could be dropped onto people below.
Revell's masterful City Hall building stands the test of time. But his walkway, and the space that it encloses, do not.
We live in a different world from the late 1950s, when Revell first envisioned his landmark building and public square. Today, there is a loutish factor that must be taken into account.
The city has changed in good ways, too. Toronto's dramatic skyline, with its soaring business towers and hotels, didn't exist in Revell's time. That vista frames the square. There is no aesthetic need for the walkway.
It should be torn down. The Freedom Arches should be redesigned, making them idiot-proof. And the square, as a whole, should be reinvented and reworked, complete with suitable entrance ways.
If done with verve and imagination, a new square could complement Revell's City Hall design while assuming a rightful place as one of Canada's foremost public spaces.
Hey, it's only fair. Score one for the Milczyn camp, courtesy the Toronto Star Editorial Page... [who writes this stuff?!?]
===========================
May 15, 2005. 01:00 AM
Landmark city square needs bold new look
Nathan Phillips Square needs more than a makeover. It needs more than a facelift. It needs a full-blown redesign; an imaginative reworking.
This square, more than any other place, deserves being called the heart of Toronto. It cradles the seat of government for Canada's largest city.
Flanked on one side by the Victorian splendour of Old City Hall, and on the other by elegant Osgoode Hall, Upper Canada's seat of justice, the square is nestled in history.
It is also a living place — a true centre of the community. People gather here regularly for rallies and demonstrations, concerts, a summer farmers' market, religious celebrations, an art festival, ice skating and more.
Surmounting it all is a masterpiece of original design — the soaring curves of Toronto City Hall, designed by Viljo Revell and recognized around the world as a sterling example of modern architecture.
Few public spaces in Canada have such potential for greatness. But, although surrounded by glory, Nathan Phillips Square is itself a disappointment. The architectural jewel that is Toronto City Hall is stuck in a worn and cluttered setting.
The square lacks a memorable threshold, or entry way, and is marred by several design flaws and poorly integrated add-ons, such as the Peace Garden.
Although noble in intent, the garden's tiny green space, and its eternal flame, seem lost in the square. They should be relocated to a more intimate venue.
The square's problems extend well beyond aesthetics.
Consider the "Freedom Arches," three elegantly curved concrete arcs spanning the square's reflecting pool. Their beautiful design is spoiled by a curtain of chain-link fence added to the base of each arch. Evidently, the original planners failed to consider that drunks and others with impaired judgment could climb onto these gently sloping arches and fall.
There is similar concern over the raised walkway that runs around three sides of the square enclosing an area about the size of a city block. Resembling a concrete wall on stilts, the walkway is part of Revell's original design and is meant to frame the square, cleverly creating a boundary, but not a barrier.
Contrary to Revell's vision of an open and accessible place to stroll, the walkway has been closed to the public for years. It is hard to maintain, especially in winter. And there are serious security concerns. The two-storey walkway offers a tempting place from which to drop objects onto people below.
Also shut is the square's second-storey level, around the base of City Hall's curved towers. In an obvious design flaw, this section was built with loose paving tiles that are easily lifted. City officials have legitimate concerns that a tile could be dropped onto people below.
Revell's masterful City Hall building stands the test of time. But his walkway, and the space that it encloses, do not.
We live in a different world from the late 1950s, when Revell first envisioned his landmark building and public square. Today, there is a loutish factor that must be taken into account.
The city has changed in good ways, too. Toronto's dramatic skyline, with its soaring business towers and hotels, didn't exist in Revell's time. That vista frames the square. There is no aesthetic need for the walkway.
It should be torn down. The Freedom Arches should be redesigned, making them idiot-proof. And the square, as a whole, should be reinvented and reworked, complete with suitable entrance ways.
If done with verve and imagination, a new square could complement Revell's City Hall design while assuming a rightful place as one of Canada's foremost public spaces.
G
ganjavih
Guest
Re: "Please don't pimp our square"
Completely agree with the article. This says is all:
Completely agree with the article. This says is all:
J
Junglab2002
Guest
Re: "Please don't pimp our square"
I absolutely hate statements like this. As if humanity has the potential to (d)evolve in the space of a single generation...
It is our perenial fate to deplore the architecture/contributions of our fathers, and for them to deplore and debase our character.
I absolutely hate statements like this. As if humanity has the potential to (d)evolve in the space of a single generation...
It is our perenial fate to deplore the architecture/contributions of our fathers, and for them to deplore and debase our character.
A
adma
Guest
Re: "Please don't pimp our square"
Well, then there's the matter of overreaction to urban loutishness--and the Star's own Chris Hume addressed this point a few months ago.
Perfect case in point: the anti-skateboard disfigurement of the TD Centre benches through metal warts gouged into the granite...
Well, then there's the matter of overreaction to urban loutishness--and the Star's own Chris Hume addressed this point a few months ago.
Perfect case in point: the anti-skateboard disfigurement of the TD Centre benches through metal warts gouged into the granite...
G
GeekyBoyTO
Guest
Re: "Please don't pimp our square"
Junglab:
Indeed. Historically I wonder how many of the so called "great urban squares" actually stayed as is over the centuries however. I suspect very few.
adma:
Yeah, those metal studs are just terrible. There are some rather atrocious examples at College Park as well, on the plaza fronting Bay.
The granite benches at Dundas Square handled that issue in a far more subtle manner.
GB
Junglab:
Indeed. Historically I wonder how many of the so called "great urban squares" actually stayed as is over the centuries however. I suspect very few.
adma:
Yeah, those metal studs are just terrible. There are some rather atrocious examples at College Park as well, on the plaza fronting Bay.
The granite benches at Dundas Square handled that issue in a far more subtle manner.
GB
M
maxy505
Guest
Re: "Please don't pimp our square"
Perhaps we aren't devolving, but things do change rather quickly these days. Take the aforementioned skateboards -- for thousands of years, benches and window ledges could be smooth and unadorned with no consequences. But in the blink of an eye -- 15 years, maybe? -- all smooth edges have become the playground of skateboarders. You can be virtually assured that any suitable surface in a populated area will be co-opted.
Some other changes can occur more slowly. For example: pissing in public. I don't know if it's on the rise or on the wane in Toronto, but I know that in some parts of the world it is unthinkable and in some parts it's commonplace. This will no doubt shift over time, and cities must adjust to accommodate.
Leisure habits change as well. If Seurat is any guide, one hundred years ago, sunny weekends were reserved for picnicking(?) by the water's edge. Still popular today, but now people will also go skateboarding, blading, jogging (a very recent leisure activity!), skydiving -- and so forth.
Regarding the arches in NPS, it would be unlikely that the raw number of drunks walking past the arches on a given night has remained the same for the past 40 years. In fact, 40 years ago, what occasion would a drunk have to be in the area at night? I doubt there were many bars or residences.
The city needs to evolve along with the lives of its citizens. Personally I feel that the walkway around the square is irrelevant and even aesthetically offensive to Torontonians. Personally I don't give credence to the view that it is significant (I was being sarcastic when I called it art). To my knowledge the walkway was never "popular" with the public, so history isn't contradicting me either. So probably only a minority of people today, and perhaps some people of the future (or perhaps not!) want to retain the walkway. Have these a higher claim than the "underinformed vox populii"?
(to eliminate ambiguity -- no, they don't)
Perhaps we aren't devolving, but things do change rather quickly these days. Take the aforementioned skateboards -- for thousands of years, benches and window ledges could be smooth and unadorned with no consequences. But in the blink of an eye -- 15 years, maybe? -- all smooth edges have become the playground of skateboarders. You can be virtually assured that any suitable surface in a populated area will be co-opted.
Some other changes can occur more slowly. For example: pissing in public. I don't know if it's on the rise or on the wane in Toronto, but I know that in some parts of the world it is unthinkable and in some parts it's commonplace. This will no doubt shift over time, and cities must adjust to accommodate.
Leisure habits change as well. If Seurat is any guide, one hundred years ago, sunny weekends were reserved for picnicking(?) by the water's edge. Still popular today, but now people will also go skateboarding, blading, jogging (a very recent leisure activity!), skydiving -- and so forth.
Regarding the arches in NPS, it would be unlikely that the raw number of drunks walking past the arches on a given night has remained the same for the past 40 years. In fact, 40 years ago, what occasion would a drunk have to be in the area at night? I doubt there were many bars or residences.
The city needs to evolve along with the lives of its citizens. Personally I feel that the walkway around the square is irrelevant and even aesthetically offensive to Torontonians. Personally I don't give credence to the view that it is significant (I was being sarcastic when I called it art). To my knowledge the walkway was never "popular" with the public, so history isn't contradicting me either. So probably only a minority of people today, and perhaps some people of the future (or perhaps not!) want to retain the walkway. Have these a higher claim than the "underinformed vox populii"?
(to eliminate ambiguity -- no, they don't)
A
adma
Guest
Re: "Please don't pimp our square"
Er...question. How many Torontonians would go so far as to call the walkway "aesthetically offensive"? That's a pretty harsh judgment, y'know.
"Irrelevant" may be closer to the mark--but not in the sense you think. Because I feel that, in fact, most Torontonians are indifferent. The walkway is "just there". Not so much "offensive", as benign. Maybe a bit of a presently non-functional enigma, but far from get-rid-of-it offensive. And as fundamental element of the mythic Nathan Phillips Square from the start, as a fait accompli--well, it's not hard to imagine how even ordinary people can develop a wistful, even unknowing affection for it. Maybe they remember romantically walking along it when it was open; or, if they're too young for that, they could easily think back to a time when Beatle-haired/mini-skirted young couples who could have been their parents might have done so. Anyway, it's evocative of a certain NPS-ness of NPS--and not in a bad way. (Well, I do remember a vague "lover's walk" ambience up there--something which transcends any "plus 15 pedestrian network" urbanism the walkway was supposedly/abortively meant to feed. Maybe that theme can inform future usage--and hey, given how NPS is contemporary with the sexual revolution and all that, why not. A creamy concrete walkway for creamy mushy stuff. Speaking of erotic 60s ambiences: ah, I should have seen that Brian Auger show this past weekend;-))
And re that "unknowing affection"--the real test of that may come w/its mooted removal. You don't know what you got til it's gone, bla bla--and that's the unfortunate too-late moment "they'll" know what they got. (The key of all good preservationism is to preemptively prevent such moments from happening.)
You say "only a minority of people today, and perhaps some people of the future (or perhaps not!) want to retain the walkway", sure. Actively want to retain the walkway. But I'll betcha than a roughly equal minority, all things considered, actively want to remove the walkway. The rest are neither one way or the other; they'll go with the status quo, whatever it happens to be.
So, then, do those who argue for removal have a higher claim than the "underinformed vox populii"? To eliminate ambiguity: no, they don't. (Rhetorically speaking.)
You see, it takes a bit of overall socio-political-cultural-media literacy (however much from the armchair) to realize the inherent "fallacy" of our arguments, in and of themselves. That so-called attacks on pro-walkway design snobs etc might, in effect, be a pot calling the kettle black? After all, whether we like it or not, the catchbasin of engaged thought represented by forums (and individuals within forums) like Urban Toronto is pretty limited. It just seems universal, because it's out there on the Internet where, theoretically, anyone can read it.
It ain't "the truth", it's the way that you spin it; or the way it fortuitously overlaps with/affects our collective perspective on "reality". Which is why certain of the so-called "un-popular" or "minority" or "marginal" carries power, and the rest does not to the same extent. Yeah, a touch of Animal Farm some-more-equal-than-others, but I'm philosophical about it.
So that's how your kind of "giving the people what they want" is readily spun into something fatally philistine--and why the elites win over the philistines time and again. (Which brings us to why the Liberals have trounced the ReformAllianceConservatives over and again, but that really ought to go into the Politics forum; but, whatever.)
Gee, I love making these epic response posts;-)
Er...question. How many Torontonians would go so far as to call the walkway "aesthetically offensive"? That's a pretty harsh judgment, y'know.
"Irrelevant" may be closer to the mark--but not in the sense you think. Because I feel that, in fact, most Torontonians are indifferent. The walkway is "just there". Not so much "offensive", as benign. Maybe a bit of a presently non-functional enigma, but far from get-rid-of-it offensive. And as fundamental element of the mythic Nathan Phillips Square from the start, as a fait accompli--well, it's not hard to imagine how even ordinary people can develop a wistful, even unknowing affection for it. Maybe they remember romantically walking along it when it was open; or, if they're too young for that, they could easily think back to a time when Beatle-haired/mini-skirted young couples who could have been their parents might have done so. Anyway, it's evocative of a certain NPS-ness of NPS--and not in a bad way. (Well, I do remember a vague "lover's walk" ambience up there--something which transcends any "plus 15 pedestrian network" urbanism the walkway was supposedly/abortively meant to feed. Maybe that theme can inform future usage--and hey, given how NPS is contemporary with the sexual revolution and all that, why not. A creamy concrete walkway for creamy mushy stuff. Speaking of erotic 60s ambiences: ah, I should have seen that Brian Auger show this past weekend;-))
And re that "unknowing affection"--the real test of that may come w/its mooted removal. You don't know what you got til it's gone, bla bla--and that's the unfortunate too-late moment "they'll" know what they got. (The key of all good preservationism is to preemptively prevent such moments from happening.)
You say "only a minority of people today, and perhaps some people of the future (or perhaps not!) want to retain the walkway", sure. Actively want to retain the walkway. But I'll betcha than a roughly equal minority, all things considered, actively want to remove the walkway. The rest are neither one way or the other; they'll go with the status quo, whatever it happens to be.
So, then, do those who argue for removal have a higher claim than the "underinformed vox populii"? To eliminate ambiguity: no, they don't. (Rhetorically speaking.)
You see, it takes a bit of overall socio-political-cultural-media literacy (however much from the armchair) to realize the inherent "fallacy" of our arguments, in and of themselves. That so-called attacks on pro-walkway design snobs etc might, in effect, be a pot calling the kettle black? After all, whether we like it or not, the catchbasin of engaged thought represented by forums (and individuals within forums) like Urban Toronto is pretty limited. It just seems universal, because it's out there on the Internet where, theoretically, anyone can read it.
It ain't "the truth", it's the way that you spin it; or the way it fortuitously overlaps with/affects our collective perspective on "reality". Which is why certain of the so-called "un-popular" or "minority" or "marginal" carries power, and the rest does not to the same extent. Yeah, a touch of Animal Farm some-more-equal-than-others, but I'm philosophical about it.
So that's how your kind of "giving the people what they want" is readily spun into something fatally philistine--and why the elites win over the philistines time and again. (Which brings us to why the Liberals have trounced the ReformAllianceConservatives over and again, but that really ought to go into the Politics forum; but, whatever.)
Gee, I love making these epic response posts;-)
A
adma
Guest
Re: "Please don't pimp our square"
And one more point re the "aesthetically offensive" judgment; the way I'm hearing it, it's like Nathan Phillips Square and its walkways are more brutally unlikeable than they are--like this is Boston rather than Toronto City Hall we're talking about.
Now, I'm pro-Boston City Hall, too, but can comprehend why people might find it "aesthetically offensive"--after all, it isn't "Saarinen Modern", but full-bore Brutalism, the ultimate architectural acquired taste.
And for that matter, to go from an ill-loved Brutalist municipal masterpiece to an ill-loved Postmodernist municipal masterpiece, then there's the case of Mississauga City Hall...
And one more point re the "aesthetically offensive" judgment; the way I'm hearing it, it's like Nathan Phillips Square and its walkways are more brutally unlikeable than they are--like this is Boston rather than Toronto City Hall we're talking about.
Now, I'm pro-Boston City Hall, too, but can comprehend why people might find it "aesthetically offensive"--after all, it isn't "Saarinen Modern", but full-bore Brutalism, the ultimate architectural acquired taste.
And for that matter, to go from an ill-loved Brutalist municipal masterpiece to an ill-loved Postmodernist municipal masterpiece, then there's the case of Mississauga City Hall...