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

The North Food Court still has a long way to go

img00122201103240708.jpg


img00121201103240708.jpg


img00123201103240708.jpg
 
MetroMan said:
I didn't want to rehash this debate because I know that in the end, it's just a matter of opinion so nobody will "win" the argument. However, I do want to pose one question to adma:

If the entirety of the mall, in all its details is important to preserve the heritage integrity of the building, then you must believe that the stores themselves can't be changed. The storefronts as originally built were part of the character of the mall but they had to change because stores closed, others opened and retail has changed. Would you have defended that the storefronts remain the same, to the detriment of their ability to compete in the market? If not, then you are advocating changing details of the mall. If so, then you are complicit in the mall losing revenue which leads to it falling into disrepair and ultimately closing.
Click to expand...

I answered your question. Re changing the stores: no. Properly handled, that can be allowed for.

But you must remember, too: that "entirety of the building" doesn't mean the whole place is to be freeze-dried. Because if you're making that suggestion, you're no different from those who oppose heritage conservation districts on frivolous "what?!? I can't install a new kitchen?!?" grounds.

Oh, and the "change or die" retail examples you illustrate aren't of the Eaton Centre's architectural calibre or importance.
 
Sir Novelty Fashion said:
Oh dear...
Click to expand...

Indeed.

Lets not start taking logic to extremes here, I wouldn't advocate those changes to the Don Mills building by any means, just as those against changes to the Eaton centre advocate that everything over 50 years old be automatically preserved and untouched forever.

What I'm reading here more than anything is whether banisters and floor tiles constitute a corruption of the original design of this mall. I for one, who is certainly an advocate of preserving quality buildings and designs, don't see these changes as particularly negative. More broadly speaking I do think malls interior spaces should very much reflect current trends and fashions; they should be blank canvases for modern commercial tastes- this includes decor and certain design elements. I wouldn't want significant changes to the galleria area, but perhaps a compromise should have been made- maintain the POMO 80's railings directly under the galleria but on the lower levels replace them with modern glass which indeed helps to open up these darker spaces.

I’m looking forward to new sculptural element in this revamp more than anything. Or is this an affront to Michael Snow’s geese?
 
adma said:
I answered your question. Re changing the stores: no. Properly handled, that can be allowed for.

But you must remember, too: that "entirety of the building" doesn't mean the whole place is to be freeze-dried. Because if you're making that suggestion, you're no different from those who oppose heritage conservation districts on frivolous "what?!? I can't install a new kitchen?!?" grounds.

Oh, and the "change or die" retail examples you illustrate aren't of the Eaton Centre's architectural calibre or importance.
Click to expand...

You haven't explained how the railings are any different than the store fronts, which arguably have a bigger impact on the mall because the storefronts occupy almost all of the inner facing walls. If the store fronts are allowed to evolve to continue to appeal to changing retail demands, so are the railings, elevators and floors.

If you didn't like my examples of tired malls that no longer compete in today's retail world, an excellent example lies right in the Eaton Centre. The food courts were old, ugly and frankly rather a turn off from eating there. If we're to preserve the original look of the food courts, The Eaton Centre would continue to fall behind the new malls in the GTA.

The only lasting advantage that the Eaton Centre has going for it is the built in foot traffic in the area. But given a choice, fewer and fewer people would choose Eaton Centre to do their shopping when other malls do a better job of providing a clean, open and modern shopping experience.
 
Last edited:
I agree with Metroman! I understand where Adma is coming from but still, what Metroman is saying is bang on. Eaton Centre's true advantage really is the location and while that is of course a big thing, I personally feel that the renos (from what I've seen so far) are satisfactory at best. It should've been more like Yorkdale (the best mall in the GTA).

The problem with much of Toronto's new developments is that they're usually quite functional and that's it! And while being functional is important of course, they seem to lack the frills or wow factor, whether it be renos like this one, or other large projects like the Bay Adelaide tower, the Ritz Carlton (both the inside and outside for me), etc.

I'm not saying they're not nice...they are but they're not exceptional (most projects cannot be exceptional but these projects should've been given their location, importance, etc.).
 
CITY_LOVER said:
I agree with Metroman! I understand where Adma is coming from but still, what Metroman is saying is bang on.
Click to expand...

Yeah, but you're the kind of person who advocates the even more idiotic idea of recladding the Simpson Tower.
 
adma said:
Yeah, but you're the kind of person who advocates the even more idiotic idea of recladding the Simpson Tower.
Click to expand...

I still feel it should be reclad or at least 'cleaned up'. It is in need for some update or freshening up. I'm impressed that you remember me saying this from years ago but I'm not too happy about the way you slam others' opinions or ideas on what could or should be done (i.e. thinking it's idiotic because it doesn't agree with your opinion).
 
Bogtrotter said:
Indeed.

Lets not start taking logic to extremes here, I wouldn't advocate those changes to the Don Mills building by any means, just as those against changes to the Eaton centre advocate that everything over 50 years old be automatically preserved and untouched forever. e?
Click to expand...

But actually...when considers things, one could easily imagine, at least back then, a MetroMan-esque argument on behalf of what happened to Parkin's Bank of Montreal pavilion in Don Mills. You know, that the filling-out and modernization of the pavilion was deliberately done in a modern style that paid tribute to Parkin while remaining thoroughly contemporary--after all, given the time, it could have been some kind of brick/stucco/pedimented PoMo. And, of course, the whole "change or die" thing, i.e. if BMO hadn't done that, they might have seen fit to move elsewhere, then the pavilion would have been abandoned and likely demolished, bla bla etc etc.

Of course, now that I've presented it and framed the Parkin BMO reno as a retrospectively "bad" thing, well...take that, and the reflex I twigged in you, as forewarning.

Heck, it's not exclusive to mall and retail culture--you can find equivalent anti/post-heritage "change or die" arguments on behalf of *anything*. Like when it comes to listing, designation, HCDs etc, all that quack blather about wrecked resale value and inability to do nuthin' with one's place. Or, the notion of the retention of old office buildings and warehouses as "uneconomic".

Ultimately, MetroMan's vapid slippery-slope "why the railings and not the storefronts" arguments are part of that same school of thinking--and look: when he brings up the food courts, who's been arguing on behalf of the food courts?!? There's been no reference to them in any of the "Eaton Centre preservationist" screeds I've come across--sure, they may be "high-trafficked"; but so is the GO concourse at Union Station.

All it betrays is that...sorry. MetroMan's fatally not versed in heritage or architectural history, though he certainly seems versed in "retail logic" to an airheaded reading-from-the-script degree that has "shill" written all over it...
 
CITY_LOVER said:
I still feel it should be reclad or at least 'cleaned up'. It is in need for some update or freshening up. I'm impressed that you remember me saying this from years ago but I'm not too happy about the way you slam others' opinions or ideas on what could or should be done (i.e. thinking it's idiotic because it doesn't agree with your opinion).
Click to expand...

In some ways, any "freshening up" there is already in process with the Bonnie Brooks-ification of the Bay: O&B replacing Timothy's, et al. And I suspect it'll be more of a "content thing" than an "aesthetic thing", at least externally, i.e. you don't need overwrought makeovers when you have Bonnie Brooks...
 
I think they should have spent a butt-load of money sprucing up the outside of the Queen St. entrance. The sidewalk and green paneled wall in and around the Goodlife entrance looks deplorable.
 
A new light show at the Eaton Centre

dscf0200m.jpg


dscf0201fi.jpg


dscf0202c.jpg
 
You haven't explained how the railings are any different than the store fronts
Click to expand...

One was designed by Zeidler as an integral part of the architecture, and not intended to be changed, while the other...wasn't.

The railings, along with the light standards and cascading planters/water features were all one deliberate cohesive design element by the architect, that tied in with the basic architecture of the interior. If it were just bland design to begin with, it would be one thing...but it wasn't. That's the great thing about good design...it doesn't have to be changed. I don't know about you, but I can't afford to shop at Walmart...you have to keep replacing that crap. And this is what CF understood back in the day.

But that was a day when it was run by the Bronfmans (with a giant nod to Phyllis Lambert), who understood a thing or two about investing in good design. They chose Zeidler's design for the same reason they chose Mies for the Seagram Building and TD Centre...good design might cost more up front, but it will pay dividends in the long run. It also makes fiscal sense, as it is cheaper to simply maintain good design, than to keep replacing it every few years.

But CF is now run by a pension plan that has zero interest in architectural heritage or the value of its integrity...they have a Walmart attitude. That is why they will actually spend $120 million to destroy something they own that is valuable, and replace it with generic junk, setting an expensive precedent that will require them to keep doing that every few years. It's like taking a space designed by Jean-Michel Frank, ripping it all out and replacing it with something that resembles a Pottery Barn store. Sounds absurd, but this is exactly what happens. You don't have to look far to see other examples of this...CF will quite happily take another unique, timeless masterpiece of retail design...the Mies Concourse at TD and completely ruin it. I'm sure if TD Bank ever gave up the banking pavilion, it would rip the entire interior out and turn it into an Apple store.

But alas, the poor old TEC has been a victim of a death by a thousand cuts for a while now anyway...that's why people don't think a "railing" is a big deal. Why would you, when so much damage has already been done.
 
^ Well said. I was in their the other day for the first time in a couple of years and was immediately depressed by the utter blandness and the lack of greenery. Why they ever took out all of the plants and trees is beyond me. The whole thing struck me as architectural plastic surgery on an attractive patient worried about a few wrinkles.
 
You must log in or register to post here.

Back
Top