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

The renovation includes a "new and extensive greening and tree-planting program", so we will see greenery in there again. Typically that is the last part of any renovation program to be completed.

42
 
I think the new railings and fixtures devitalize the place. The original railings helped enliven and define it - these new ones are just made to see past. The "pop-nautical" and space-age victorian feel of the place has been steadily reduced, and this last makeover has been a hollowing blow. Surely there must have been a better way to revitalize the railing components and freshen the place up?

Seeing the greenery gone from the upper level is lousy, too. I hope they bring that back, fast - along with more greenery elsewhere, as well. The interior is made to have extensive plantings, and would do better with them.
 
This is not...I repeat, not and April Fools Joke. The lighting fixture is gone! I guess it was up for testing.
 
Is this the sculptural element they mentioned? If so, I have to say I'm a bit disappointed by this sneak peak. However I will reserve full judgment until it is fully installed and I've seen it in person.
 
Urban Shocker said:
The most significant degradation-by-renovation since Royal Bank Plaza.
Click to expand...

...but unlike RBP, it's part of the internets-message-board era. Thus, we're witnessing the reaction in real time; whereas RBP happened with nary a peep...
 
from http://www.builtheritagenews.ca/current.cfm (Mar11/11)
9. Eaton Centre: Renovation or Destruction?
Tye Farrow and Sharon Vanderkaay
When the Toronto Eaton Centre opened in 1977 it immediately drew huge crowds of local and international origin.
Today it remains one of Toronto's top tourist destinations, attracting more than 50 million visitors each year, while holding the distinction of best-performing centre in Canada in terms of sales per square foot.

For the first time in its 34-year history, the interior of this grand urban space is undergoing a major renovation. Begun last July and scheduled for completion in the summer of 2012, the $120-million revitalization project will, according to owner Cadillac Fairview, “reinvigorate the retail experience†and “reaffirm the well-known landmark’s position as Canada’s premier urban shopping destination.â€
Within the main galleria space, the new environment will be sleek and transparent: handrails, escalators and elevators will be finished in glass and stainless steel, floors will be granite tile in various shades of grey, and a custom light sculpture will be suspended over the iconic fountain.
It’s what’s being lost that is troubling. Designed by renowned Canadian architect Eberhard Zeidler, Toronto Eaton Centre literally redefined the urban shopping mall. It was a revelation: an bright, airy, truly exuberant interior shopping street. The design details—strong vertical pipe handrails, exposed structure and mechanical systems brought the strong, unifying industrial details of the city inside.
At this point it is worthwhile stopping to reflect on the reasons for this building’s iconic status. Charles Eames, the eminent American designer wrote, “The details are not details – they make the product. It is, in the end, these details that give the product its life.â€
What made the design of Eaton Centre so powerful? It was the sum of many details, where each element, no matter how apparently insignificant, was carefully designed to complement other elements and contribute to the greater whole. For example, the railings were not standardized assemblies, but rather specifically designed as sculptural elements to harmonize with the steel space frame of the galleria overhead and to elegantly integrate with the floors and walls. Their perfect proportions emphasized the vertical thrust of the space and were complemented by floors of crystalline white terrazzo trimmed with warm-toned Welsh quarry tiles and pebbled aggregates. The tiles were carefully arranged to visually compress the expansive floors to a human scale. Those design details were intrinsic to Zeidler’s creation and thereby to its overwhelming popularity and financial success.
Unfortunately, these railings and other details that added up to this bold Canadian innovation have been eradicated by the mall’s revitalization project.
How big a leap of faith was the design of Eaton Centre? In May, 1977, Eb Zeidler said in Canadian Architect, “If the downtown area of the city is its heart then the building of Eaton Centre can be compared to open heart surgery and like such (an) operation is not without danger.’’
This risky intervention was undertaken with gusto and led to building a culturally significant icon that many shopping centre designers have tried to imitate without success.
Let’s consider how other countries regard their culturally significant structure? Would citizens of Paris condone a facelift of the decorative grillwork of the Eiffel tower? Or replacement of their Art Nouveau subway entrances with an updated structure?
There is a vast difference between renovations that serve evolving functional needs, and making changes that alter the design’s essence. This is not a clear issue of what is right and wrong. However, in the same sense that we have come to expect a vigorous design review of proposed waterfront buildings, future renovations to modern designs such as Ontario Place deserve a healthy dialogue regarding what has lasting value.
Why does our society demand that noteworthy designs of a hundred years old or more be preserved, while modern architecture is routinely being destroyed? In fifty years’ time, it is conceivable that Eaton Centre will undergo a major restoration to bring back the celebrated original impact.
As a society we need to engage in a larger discussion regarding the essential elements of an enduring design. Increased visual literacy can help us bypass the “oops†step of performing unnecessary surgery that threatens the building’s life.
Click to expand...
I have a hard time comparing the Eiffel Tower to the Eaton Centre but, melodrama aside, they have a point.
The renos look pretty good so far but it's hard to say if it's real progress or just a trendy update.
 
I visited Eaton Centre yesterday, and I will make one minor observation -- the original painted railings are chipped and otherwise missing paint in various spots, and even the relatively well-maintained sections tend to feel sticky and unpleasant. The brushed metal railings are likely to look better longer, require much less maintenance, and likely won't have problems with the surface becoming tacky due to an interaction of the paint with hand oils and other contaminants. It is important to remember that the railings are not just, or even primarily, an architectural element -- they serve a very functional purpose that involves the public directly interacting with them. The new railings are better suited for this purpose.
 
Tulse said:
I visited Eaton Centre yesterday, and I will make one minor observation -- the original painted railings are chipped and otherwise missing paint in various spots, and even the relatively well-maintained sections tend to feel sticky and unpleasant. The brushed metal railings are likely to look better longer, require much less maintenance, and likely won't have problems with the surface becoming tacky due to an interaction of the paint with hand oils and other contaminants. It is important to remember that the railings are not just, or even primarily, an architectural element -- they serve a very functional purpose that involves the public directly interacting with them. The new railings are better suited for this purpose.
Click to expand...

$120 million buys a lot of paint and cleaner.

Look...it really isn't an argument about which is "easier" to maintain...it's a question of do you maintain design integrity...or do you not.
 
My point is that this is not just about design, but also about functionality -- these are not just architectural flourishes, but features the public interacts with directly. It may be well be that the original vision could be preserved better in the renovations while maintaining such functional improvements, but in the interior of a public building, where the public interact directly with the structure, such functional considerations should be paramount.
 
If that's the case, then trash the similar railing elements at Ontario Place. Which is another way of telling you to shove that "functionality" argument up your *cuckoo cuckoo*.
 
OK, perhaps we can reduce the heat a bit -- what kind of change, if any, would you feel is not inappropriate? Or do you feel that the interior and all its features should be preserved as originally created?
 
Tulse said:
My point is that this is not just about design, but also about functionality -- these are not just architectural flourishes, but features the public interacts with directly. It may be well be that the original vision could be preserved better in the renovations while maintaining such functional improvements, but in the interior of a public building, where the public interact directly with the structure, such functional considerations should be paramount.
Click to expand...

I just don't buy your argument (and CF's) that the original was more design than function. I'd say they were the perfect combination of both. Your complaints about chipped paint and sticky railings represent a flaw in maintenance...not design. And I suspect all that glass will require just as much maintenance to keep it clean.

So, the replacement doesn't really represent any improvement in functionality. Where it fails is that it is definitely not an improvement in design. What the original railings, light standards and planter/water feature elements did was give weight and definition to the levels in the galleria, as well as tie it in with the overall High Tech design of the architecture. The whole place had a good feeling on context (and let's not forget smaller details that also fit in like the benches and signage).

With everything now gone, and replaced with glass, it's just a big empty void now. Not only has it lost integral design context, it has lost the "street" feel that was the entire point of the design in the first place.
 
freshcutgrass said:
I just don't buy your argument (and CF's) that the original was more design than function. I'd say they were the perfect combination of both. Your complaints about chipped paint and sticky railings represent a flaw in maintenance...not design. And I suspect all that glass will require just as much maintenance to keep it clean.

So, the replacement doesn't really represent any improvement in functionality. Where it fails is that it is definitely not an improvement in design. What the original railings, light standards and planter/water feature elements did was give weight and definition to the levels in the galleria, as well as tie it in with the overall High Tech design of the architecture. The whole place had a good feeling on context (and let's not forget smaller details that also fit in like the benches and signage).

With everything now gone, and replaced with glass, it's just a big empty void now. Not only has it lost integral design context, it has lost the "street" feel that was the entire point of the design in the first place.
Click to expand...

Well stated. Brilliant post, I couldn't agree more. I'm keeping an open mind until it's complete, but I don't have a good feeling about this at all.
 
You must log in or register to post here.

Back
Top