Sam's Sign and the Yonge Street Heritage Zeitgeist

[freshcutgrass]

This nostalgia vs heritage thing is a nonsense distinction without a difference.

That's probably more true than not, but the real mistake here is assuming heritage has more value than nostalgia. People are more likely to lean toward nostalgia, as it has a direct link to personal emotions.

If the sign truly has any historic value, it belongs in a museum, or a history book.

The sign itself doesn't have much historic value. It's just a relic. The record store was what was great...not the sign. But the sign is not an important relic for just what was a great record store, when record stores held an important position in popular culture. It has become the symbol of the Yonge Strip, which was an important cultural area of the city.

The zeitgeist that was the 60's/70's Yonge Strip is no longer there, but held a certain cultural significance to many things in the city, from gay rights, to feminism, to sex, to art, to music, to drugs, to hot rods and anything tied to youth culture. Pre-internet, places were real, not virtual. And the Yonge Strip was very real.

Nostalgia? You bet!! (I still get my hair cut at one of the few Strip hold outs...House of Lords)

 

[dt_toronto_geek]

It's looking grim for the Sam's signs. Below, a link to the proposed amendment between Ryerson & the City - http://app.toronto.ca/tmmis/viewAge...TE26.34&utm_source=&utm_medium=&utm_campaign=

 

[Mississauga Slim]

What a debate. Well, consider a place like London's Picadilly Circus. Some fine 19th Century Victorian buildings. These were completely covered in the early 20th century by flamboyant neon advertising. Over the decades those neon signs were replaced by new neon signs. Then by yet other neon signs. Then, in the 1990s the neon signs were replaced by first generation LED technology. Then those were replaced by newer LED technology, and so on.

So, what's "heritage?" in such a case? The original neon signs? Later neon signs? The general idea of "big signage?" The original Victorian buildings? All of these things? None of these things?

Here's the thing. In a living city things come and things go. Get over it.

 

[adma]

Here's the thing. In a living city things come and things go. Get over it.

If the whole "what's heritage?" argument boils down to that conclusion, then we might as well have no protection at all--of anything. Not that the Sam's signs are of the same calibre, but you really can do better than to recycle arrogant 60s Mad Men excuses on behalf of destroying, say, Old City Hall. (And, hey: if you want to go back in time re Picadilly, there's also the matter of the controversial destruction of John Nash's original Regent Street frontages a century ago--just because that's well before our lifetimes and we take their stiff Edwardian/post-Edwardian replacements for granted now doesn't mean we'd do that same thing today.)

Oh, re the "advertising" thing...

McGraw Hill hasn't been here for 40 years. Does that mean the sign's expendable?

To say nothing of PSFS...

 

[Mississauga Slim]

McGraw Hill hasn't been here for 40 years. Does that mean the sign's expendable?

To say nothing of PSFS...

Yes, but the buildings into which those signs are built still exist. If they didn't, could you make a case for preserving just the sign?

 

[adma]

Yes, but the buildings into which those signs are built still exist. If they didn't, could you make a case for preserving just the sign?

Yeah, definitely, even as a Guild Inn-esque tokenism. (That is, if demolishing said edifices was deemed an acceptable option at all--which, of course, it isn't.)

And technically, PSFS isn't "built into", but "applied to", so it *could* be removed like any old high-rise sign...

 

[Tewder]

What a debate. Well, consider a place like London's Picadilly Circus. Some fine 19th Century Victorian buildings. These were completely covered in the early 20th century by flamboyant neon advertising. Over the decades those neon signs were replaced by new neon signs. Then by yet other neon signs. Then, in the 1990s the neon signs were replaced by first generation LED technology. Then those were replaced by newer LED technology, and so on.

So, what's "heritage?" in such a case? The original neon signs? Later neon signs? The general idea of "big signage?" The original Victorian buildings? All of these things? None of these things?

Let's not lose sight of the 'story'. Cities have long narratives but not every clause is equal, right? So ask yourself, in the Picadilly/West End chapter of London's story what is the overarching theme that resonates down the years? Twentieth century commercialism, clearly!

Here's the thing. In a living city things come and things go. Get over it.

... of course they do, and this is good BUT when we manage change, growth and evolution carefully - and this includes effective and strategic heritage preservation - we end up with a rich layered urban symphony rather than a tinny one-note "big-city" ditty.

 

[k10ery]

Looks to be late 1960s/early 1970s; that green car is a Mustang Fastback from about '67-'69.

The midi skirt dates from 1971. Or 2013.

(You have to choose which subjects you want to be an "expert" on.)

 

[interchange42]

Front page story on the sign controversy.

42

 

[AlvinofDiaspar]

Hume's take from the Star:

http://www.thestar.com/news/gta/201...ts_should_change_their_tune_on_sign_hume.html

AoD

 

[devjohnson]

^ That hit the spot! Especially since I'm in the generation that doesn't have emotional ties to the sign. I can confidently say for my age group that the sign no way speaks for any of us.

 

[AlvinofDiaspar]

I can understand why some would have an emotional attachment to the sign (even though I don't share it) - but I think Hume made an excellent case. Certainly, I think he raised an excellent point vis-a-vis Empress.

AoD

 

[TrickyRicky]

I think there are two distinct arguments to address. Hume discusses the first rigid preservationist aspect.

The second argument is how Ryerson is perceived to have acted exactly like a "sleezy" developer to manipulate the system in order to get what they wanted.

I don't really personally care about this sign in particular. What the sign does represent to me however is an era where individual entrepreneurs and industrialists still shaped the city. Our city is now largely created by commitee and consensus. It is designed, maintained, and invested in by organizational commitees and corporate boards.

 

[Torontovibe]

Hume's take from the Star:

http://www.thestar.com/news/gta/201...ts_should_change_their_tune_on_sign_hume.html

AoD

I usually agree with Hume but this time I think he's so far off the mark. This sign should not be sitting in a museum, it should be lighting up the streets of Toronto, where people can enjoy its animation, colour and pizzaz. It's not just about nostalgia, it's about preserving neon art, which is not being made anymore. A great neon sign adds so much animation to a street, especially an iconic sign like Sams or the Elmocombo. They aren't just advertisements, they are local landmarks. Once a sign becomes a much loved local landmark, it becomes more than just a sign. If that sing is made of neon, it's even more valued because we have stopped making neon signs. I can't believe Hume doesn't get this. This is not strictly about nostalgia and Ryerson's students not knowing Sniderman or his store. Hume got this one terribly wrong!

And yes, the fact that Ryerson is being underhanded and trying some shady BS and the city is allowing them to turn their back on their obligations, is also very bad news for the city. It sends out a terrible message to all developers, that Toronto is a city that allows them to worm out of any deal. (legal or not) This sends out the message, loud and clear, that in Toronto, integrity has no value and money is the only thing that counts.

Screw Ryerson! This is really pissing me off. These guys think they are getting away with pulling a fast one and the sad part is, the city will probably allow it to happen. Integrity is going the way of the Dodo BIRD.

 

[AlvinofDiaspar]

Torontovibe:

No offense, but if it's about preserving a piece of neon art - one'd have to wonder why this piece was chosen over the others on its' own merit. The sign is an artifact, and putting it on a new building that no longer sells record on a street that no longer has neon signage is a bit of an odd combination. I'd rather not deface both the sign and the building with a forced marriage.

AoD