Toronto Eaton Centre (Ongoing Renewal) | ?m | ?s | Cadillac Fairview | Zeidler

[condovo]

The renovations Context made to the Ryrie building (on ONE floor only) now allow that building to support a 21st century, open-plan office, something it could not have done before. I witnessed the before and after, have a soul, and can tell you the end result provided drastically better spaces and a much more efficient place, both for people to spend their days, and to conduct business in.

Buildings (and cities) can be preserved but only if they are able to adapt effectively and intelligently to changing uses. Trying to preserve everything in brine is completely unfeasible, and it is the sensitive reuse and adaptation of the old that make cities exciting.

The Eaton Centre is changing. That building is there to make money for its owners and tenants and they want a decor change. If it were a museum (It could make a great space for a museum one day) it would also need to be adapted as buildings do and have done since the beginning of time. Take the Musee d'Orsay, for example... all that 80s PoMo galleries inside the train station are as much a part of that building functioning as a museum as the original train station housing it.... and is now just as much a part of the building's history as the original structure.

+1

 

[grey]

So glad all this bitching about railings has resulted in ... nevermind.

I guess we all should have gone to the mall and chained ourselves to the railings in protest while we had the chance.

 

[condovo]

^^ Don't give adma any crazy ideas.

 

[junctionist]

The 1970s design deserves respect because a lot of investment was made into that design, which attracted a lot of attention. Besides, it's not like it can't change. It could use some more exuberant finishes. But the point is probably not to spend that much money. Often times, "moving on" is simply an excuse to do an unsophisticated renovation on the cheap that will look dull in a matter of a few years. It takes more than a bunch indifferent non-experts for a city with a good preservation and design culture. I don't know why some people even speak out if they don't care.

 

[grey]

The ground level was just as bright and airy with the original railings. There was literally no reason to change them, other than to stop dirt from getting kicked into the food court.

It's money that should have been put toward something that actually needed fixing. Try walking into the mall during winter from the subway station and see if you can hold your breath long enough to reach the food court, a necessity since the air ducts don't seem to have been cleaned since the '70s. Are they fixing that?

 

[droyces]

I was down there today and although it is difficult to fully gauge the changes at this point I am of the opinion that the changes are for the better. The third floor at the south end looks much better than the third floor area just south of the sears store. Looking forward to seeing things when completed.

 

[adma]

The renovations Context made to the Ryrie building (on ONE floor only) now allow that building to support a 21st century, open-plan office, something it could not have done before. I witnessed the before and after, have a soul, and can tell you the end result provided drastically better spaces and a much more efficient place, both for people to spend their days, and to conduct business in.

I think the point is more: from a heritage-sensitivity standpoint, was this the kind of place for the "21st century, open-plan office" of which you're speaking.

And from experience, the daughter of the Eaton Centre designer would beg to differ re your unilateral only-one-way-to-go claims.

+1

Sorry, condovo. Margie kicks your ass so hard, you'll have to defecate our of your mouth.

And it's because of the UrbanFervours and condovos out there that stuff like this is redlined.

That's not "optimum heritage sensitivity" by today's standards.

 

[urbandreamer]

^I wonder who needs a face lift more?

 

[adma]

Though as I've suggested before, a lot of these "bring it on" comments might well highlight a certain UT cultural divide: between the "new projects/construction" geeks and the "existing circumstances that prevail" geeks. And it's probably pretty safe to say that the former, by and large, are either ignorant of or hostile to any but the most token/rudimentary contemporary heritage currents--and perhaps identify that realm with meddlesome anti-progress Grundys who forcefeed pathetic abortions like the John Lyle Studio facade at 1 Bedford...

 

[UrbanFervour]

For the record, Adma, I'm all for preservation of noteworthy buildings. I'm also not afraid of changing and adapting them, either. Just like parents don't own their children, architects don't own their buildings. They should expect that changes, additions and modifications will be made to them over time.Those changes become part of the history of the building as well and they help buildings to remain vital and functional, incorporating changes in technology, design innovation and taste, over time.

In my opinion, buildings (and cities, for that matter) are a process, not a finished product. They live & breathe. If they don't change, they die. Good architects can sensitively modify old buildings successfully so they blend elements of the building's original ethos with design fitting contemporary tastes. European cities are FULL of examples of buildings far older, more noteworthy, and famous than the Eaton Centre that have been modified successfully.

Facadism (of the Lyle Studio type) is offensive because it visually embodies the cynicism of developers who are begrudgingly forced into tokenistic preservation efforts by "anti-progress Grundys" (who, in my opinion, would do better to lobby for better NEW buildings, rather than preserving the dismembered bits & pieces of old ones' corpses). They're like the mother who would've let King Solomon cut the baby in half... and the result of their efforts is a reminder for that compromises like this result in all parties involved end up worse-off than they would've done if one party or the other had had their way.

 

[officedweller]

I agree. It has the most beautiful ceilings I've seen in any shopping mall, anywhere. Many people don't notice them, but they and other details contribute to the overall beautiful appearance of Yorkdale.

Yorkdale opened in the 60s, the largest mall in the world then. Continued investment has kept it up to date and looking fresh. I may have lost a lot of its original elements but a shopping centre is an evolving animal. It needs to keep up to continue to attract traffic. Malls that don't renew end up looking old and tired and shoppers flock to the newest mall in town.

The Eaton Centre fell into a catch 22: maintain the original architecture or continue fresh and relevant. I'm glad they made the right decision. Declining to stay modern would have ended up in customers flocking to the new suburban malls and abandoning the Eaton Centre. I think the preservationists would have ended up in a worse situaton: an abandoned mall would eventually be a demolished mall.

The Yorkdale ceiling at Eaton's entrance was awesome - ditto for the Simpson's Court.
You don't see that level of detail anymore - half the time it's just exposed ductwork.
You see similar detailing / monumental shopping centre architecture at a couple of the malls around Seattle - the original part sof SouthCenter Mall and NorthGate Mall.

Found a pic of the Eaton's Yorkdale daisy columns on Flickr:

http://www.flickr.com/photos/33518477@N00/837235812/in/pool-yorkdale

Yorkdale photo pool:
http://www.flickr.com/groups/yorkdale/pool/

 

[condovo]

Ad hominem abuse aside, it's a mall. A thirty-three year-old mall firmly rooted in contemporary mall culture. It's ahistorical, even anti-historical. Preservationist arguments are irrelevant in the face of this capitalist, profit-driven, market-driven, money-making machine. The only thing to preserve here is change.

[video=youtube;QtTu7pKzuZ8]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QtTu7pKzuZ8[/video]

 

[adma]

Facadism (of the Lyle Studio type) is offensive because it visually embodies the cynicism of developers who are begrudgingly forced into tokenistic preservation efforts by "anti-progress Grundys" (who, in my opinion, would do better to lobby for better NEW buildings, rather than preserving the dismembered bits & pieces of old ones' corpses). They're like the mother who would've let King Solomon cut the baby in half... and the result of their efforts is a reminder for that compromises like this result in all parties involved end up worse-off than they would've done if one party or the other had had their way.

Except that...I don't disagree. Which is why I brought that example up. But you have to realize that today's heritage-awareness state of the art doesn't disagree, either; and indeed, the, uh, ACO types out there have been warning against facadectomies for a good generation or more now. That municipal heritage bodies, planners, and hired-hands still engage in such egregious lipstick-on-a-pig gestures (which, IMO, are more, not less, of a piece with the Ryrie interior evisceration) isn't exactly cause for heart-of-the heritage-community Banzai!!!, you know--in fact, as per my Ryrie point, I'd reckon the perpetrators have more in common with yourself or Condovo. The enemy is not the "hysterical preservationists"; the enemy is you. When it comes to preemptive "heritage consciousness", you're stunted and stuck in the 70s or 80s; and in cases like this, it shows.

Of course, "preemptive thinking" doesn't dissuade change; I'm not exactly one to rant about the FCP reclad or, uh, "monstrous carbuncles" like the ROM Crystal. Indeed, the ultimate irony is that if you were capable of the kind of preemptive thinking I'm suggesting, you might have had a better argument *against* the Lyle facade retention, at least in the shotgun-sop-to-the-Grundys manner it was executed...

 

[adma]

Ad hominem abuse aside, it's a mall. A thirty-three year-old mall firmly rooted in contemporary mall culture. It's ahistorical, even anti-historical. Preservationist arguments are irrelevant in the face of this capitalist, profit-driven, market-driven, money-making machine. The only thing to preserve here is change.

Can the armchair Marxism--if that were the case, then 3/4 of that the heritage movement were concerned with out there is an oxymoron.

Shoppers' World, Framingham, MA (1951-94). If you think its demolition was to be welcomed on grounds of "natural capitalist forces", then you deserved to be bludgeoned by the heritage buffs out there. All the more so from a 2010 rather than 1994 perspective...

 

[Tewder]

Ad hominem abuse aside, it's a mall. A thirty-three year-old mall firmly rooted in contemporary mall culture. It's ahistorical, even anti-historical. Preservationist arguments are irrelevant in the face of this capitalist, profit-driven, market-driven, money-making machine. The only thing to preserve here is change.

.. and to underscore your illogical thinking here you are approaching the idea of a 'mall aesthetic' from the box-store/power centre perspective of today which is anti-design and anti-historical... which in contrast serves to shoot down your premise that the design/architecture driven approach of the Eaton's Centre isn't... when in fact it is probably just about one of the best examples of the urban form of a suburban phenomenon in its design heyday. In other words, lots of things that would recommend it from a heritage point of view.. after only thirty years so far!