|
|
|
Sam's Sign and the Yonge Street Heritage Zeitgeist
- Thread starter Southcore
- Start date
David_Brown
New Member
...and there's the Hollywood sign, which was originally an advertisement for a real estate development.
pw20
Active Member
The majority of buildings constructed for commercial purposes are a mix of function and advertising. The rational behind constructing the TD Centre (which is ONLY 45 years old) was an advertisement of sorts for TD Bank - as a mighty, imposing, and sound financial institution. If TD were to go bankrupt and the building wasn't able to be re-used would we just simply tear it down
That's a bit hyperbolic of course - Mies is a famous architect and the TD Centre is certainly more adaptable then two spinning neon discs - but we can't simply disregard heritage simply because it is "commercial" or an "advertisement".
I personally... don't like stagnation for the sake of stagnation and Sam's was indeed a dinosaur. That being said - an agreement was made to protect the signs in some form. There's a dangerous precedent being set here about agreements made between city council. I suspect if a corporate interest had purchased the property and was reneged on its promise the clamour would be even louder. I get the sense that Ryerson thinks that they can circumvent the rules simply because they're a public institution.
"Hey guys - love us - we put ice back in Maple Leaf Gardens."
AlvinofDiaspar
Moderator
pw20:
Well, it was negotiated and the decision have to go before council. Personally, I think those signs are heritage worthy but I much prefer the idea of preserving the signs but not rebuild it on site given how bad of fit and unauthentic it would have looked.
And this really isn't the first time there was angst over signage (though not necessarily to the level of making it a council decision) - recall the El Mocambo sign on Spadina.
Speaking of the signs - article from the Star:
http://www.thestar.com/news/gta/201..._maker_hopes_his_neon_records_spin_again.html
AoD
Well, it was negotiated and the decision have to go before council. Personally, I think those signs are heritage worthy but I much prefer the idea of preserving the signs but not rebuild it on site given how bad of fit and unauthentic it would have looked.
And this really isn't the first time there was angst over signage (though not necessarily to the level of making it a council decision) - recall the El Mocambo sign on Spadina.
Speaking of the signs - article from the Star:
http://www.thestar.com/news/gta/201..._maker_hopes_his_neon_records_spin_again.html
AoD
Last edited:
Roy G Biv
Senior Member
It's less about the sign, more about how its preservation was made a condition for approval of the development application. All the problems related to mercury or aesthetics should have been discussed at that time.
KWT is like most other councillors, in that getting her name next to some good press is at the top of her list. I used to be a big fan until I peeled back the good PR.
KWT is like most other councillors, in that getting her name next to some good press is at the top of her list. I used to be a big fan until I peeled back the good PR.
AlvinofDiaspar
Moderator
Roy G Biv:
Personally I think that condition of re-establishing the sign in-situ as the prerequisite for the approval of the project is a bad one (especially given the change in built form). If anything the city should require the disassembly, repair and storage of the sign instead.
As an aside if the Zanzibar ever gets to be redeveloped, it will be interesting whether the heritage facade and signage will be saved in-situ.
AoD
Personally I think that condition of re-establishing the sign in-situ as the prerequisite for the approval of the project is a bad one (especially given the change in built form). If anything the city should require the disassembly, repair and storage of the sign instead.
As an aside if the Zanzibar ever gets to be redeveloped, it will be interesting whether the heritage facade and signage will be saved in-situ.
AoD
someMidTowner
¯\_(ツ)_/¯
Very interesting question. I can't picture the sign being incorporated into a condominium development, or any type of office - due to the associated subject matter of the sign - but it would be a shame to see that facade restored sans neon.
AlvinofDiaspar
Moderator
sMT:
Don't hold your breath of that happening anytime soon if at all - they're grandfathered I believe. But anyways I thought I might throw it out there as a thought exercise - and on a heritage basis, I think they have just as much claim than anyone else.
AoD
Don't hold your breath of that happening anytime soon if at all - they're grandfathered I believe. But anyways I thought I might throw it out there as a thought exercise - and on a heritage basis, I think they have just as much claim than anyone else.
AoD
Roy G Biv
Senior Member
You're likely right. My point is that if it is a bad idea today, it should have been a bad idea then. The plan was likely a concession KWT brokered in order to appease those needing appeasement; a concession both superficial in detail and motivation....
dt_toronto_geek
Superstar
There were plenty of great and mediocre neon sign designs - sometimes used simply as illumination behind plastic covers (as in the old Uptown theatre sign). Luckily we had lots of great neon throughout our city in the past; works of art many of them. Sadly most of it gone now. You lumping all neon signs into the "obnoxious" category speaks volumes.
Below is a photo of the Sam's sign which pre-dates the spinning disc, perhaps someone can put a date on it based on the vehicles in the photo? Early 1970's?
Last edited:
egotrippin
Senior Member
Looks to be late 1960s/early 1970s; that green car is a Mustang Fastback from about '67-'69.
Last edited:
DtTO
Active Member
Further supporting the notion that corporate signage need not be preserved. Or is this some kind of a "me too" scenario where Toronto *has* to preserve a sign, no matter how ugly, because some other city has done so? Just because Boston did something stupid, we aren't obliged to go down the same path. As I said earlier, if the sign is truly worthy of being preserved, it needs to be placed in a museum, or maybe the CNE, but certainly not on site, where it would be defacing one of the most architecturally inspiring buildings on Yonge.
The Hollywood sign still serves a purpose, and in no way defaces its surroundings.
What does speak volumes is the fact that neon signs are no longer in use. I'm sure corporations would love the ability to reintroduce those cheap, obnoxious, effective advertisements.
Last edited:
dt_toronto_geek
Superstar
Well there lies the problem, we don't have a Museum of Toronto or Canadian Music Museum, despite several valiant efforts. The signs were never returning to the street, as I recall the sign (or signs?) was to be restored and displayed somewhere inside the common area of the Student Learning Centre.
Point is, it was originally a temporary real estate sign (Hollywoodland) that eventually fell into such disrepair that parts of the letters starting collapsing down the hill. After most of it sat there for half a century it had became iconic so the Hollwood letters were restored, and today it's iconic. In the end, it was just another huge corporate sign that became famous over time.
Other types of lighting have become so much cheaper to operate and design (i.e. LED) which is why neon has fallen out of favour in a relatively short period of time. Most people want nothing to do with it, and there are fewer and fewer people who can design and/or repair neon. I watched a piece on TV with a guy who does neon work in Toronto, it's a true art. The show was about the restoration of the legendary El Mocambo sign on Spadina Ave.
adma
Superstar
Tewder
Senior Member
Stupid? The idea here is that in a city like Boston, where they know a thing or two about preservation, the understanding of heritage is wide enough and progressive enough to include more than just Bulfinch-designed buildings or 'Spirit of America'-type historical sites. The Sam's sign may not be 'serious' Heritage but that's just the point, right? This is Yonge/Dundas after all, and the carnival-type atmosphere traditional to this area isn't entirely lost yet, despite Ryerson's best efforts.
That said, I do agree that it is less important to preserve this sign in-situ than it is to preserve it within the broader context of Yonge/Dundas... and rather than see it enshrined in some lobby or museum i'd rather see it lit up in Dundas Square as a permanent heritage monument/art installation tribute to the area's colourful past.
... oh and Ryerson should foot the bill for this too!