Toronto L-Tower | 204.82m | 58s | Cityzen | Daniel Libeskind

interchange42 said:
Dugmor: have you been inside the O'Keefe/Hummingbird/Sony? I ask because I understand that there are those who aren't turned on by 60s modernist exteriors... but some part of me thinks "he can't possibly have seen York Wilson's mural 'The Seven Lively Arts' that graces the lobby if he doesn't care whether the place is preserved or not". There are other elements of the interior to recommend it besides the mural, but still, it's what makes me wonder. So, have you been inside?

42
Click to expand...

Years ago. I saw a Fred Penner concert there back in the 80s. I have no recollection of how it looks inside.

I just looked up The Seven Lively Arts and am not impressed. I've never liked that type of artwork. Though it's not as pretentious as Pollock's work.
 
Mike in TO said:
That is exactly the kind of thinking that brought Toronto oh so close to knocking down Old City Hall and Union Station in the 1960s - after-all the buildings were hardly 'old' at that point and would have been replaced by rather forgettable designs.

The above image doesn't due justice to how bad the street level plan was - The queen & bay intersection was to be replaced with a highway type overpass in the heart of the city... the Union Station plan was even worse...
Click to expand...
Um...I kind of like it, aside from the ridiculous, token retention of Old City Hall's 'peace tower,' which surely was a concession to community pressure/nostalgia. These kind of ballsy, tabula rasa, un-Jane Jacobs visions certainly have merit. Contextualism/preservationism is inherently reactionary and often overrated. Seems to me that those defending the O'Keefe/Hummingbird/Sony Centre, or TD Centre, ought to be at least marginally sympathetic to this scheme. Besides, had it been built, wouldn't it be heritage by now too?
 
Last edited:
Mike in TO said:
That is exactly the kind of thinking that brought Toronto oh so close to knocking down Old City Hall and Union Station in the 1960s - after-all the buildings were hardly 'old' at that point and would have been replaced by rather forgettable designs.

The above image doesn't due justice to how bad the street level plan was - The queen & bay intersection was to be replaced with a highway type overpass in the heart of the city... the Union Station plan was even worse...
Click to expand...

It is clear from this image that shadowing was not a concern back then. You have three supertalls (given that the New City Hall east tower is almost exactly 100m tall, those three buildings must be well over 300m in height) right next to the future NPS. Evidently shadowing was not yet the horrifying atrocity that it is now perceived as.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
Dugmor said:
19th, early 20th century buildings were far more beautiful than the structures of the 60s and 70s. I guess we should make the Sheraton Hotel a heritage structure as well. I don't understand the fascination with the 60s/70s era design in this city. It was probably the most stale time for architecture.
Click to expand...

Actually, it was one of the most vibrant times for architecture, producing an extremely wide variety of interesting buildings both in downtown and the suburbs. Things were done in this era that were impossible in the 19th century, producing highly original and creative new forms. More people are starting to realize this and the heritage designations are logical, not only for the architecture but the significance of the buildings as representing the bold era of transition from provincial town to modern international city.
 
You're discussing this with a guy that last saw the interior of the Sony Centre at a Fred Penner concert in the 80's. He was 4 at the time?
 
Dugmor said:
They didn't have to be old to be significant at the time. Their physical beauty alone was reason enough to maintain their presence. We shouldn't try rectifying our past mistakes by saving bland structures just for the sake of preserving a part of our past.
Click to expand...

The point is in the 1960s, Old City Hall and Union Station were not considered beautiful by many people. They were considered, out-dated, out-style and the prevailing attitude was to knock 'em down and bring on the new. An effort should be made to preserve some aspects of Toronto's history from all era's and generations including the 1960s...
 
Dugmor said:
They didn't have to be old to be significant at the time. Their physical beauty alone was reason enough to maintain their presence. We shouldn't try rectifying our past mistakes by saving bland structures just for the sake of preserving a part of our past.
Click to expand...

It's already been said a few times, but it worth repeating: the old architecture we love today was likely despised in the 50s/60s/70s.

Attitudes towards architectural beauty are constantly evolving. Tearing down our ugly-architecture-de-jour is a big reason why Toronto lost so much. The feelings you're expressing are on par with the thinking from that time: "This older style of architecture clashes with my current understanding of architecture's purpose and beauty. Don't preserve the old examples, it's not worth it."



Edit: perhaps this topic deserves its own thread before this thread gets even more off-track.
 
Last edited:
Also keep in mind that many older buildings are very nice to look at but may not be that appealing on the inside and may not be especially functional. Modern buildings may not be as postcard-picture perfect from the sidewalk but what are they like on the inside? Many Modern buildings are meant to be explored, not just looked at.
 
Which'd make you well into your 20s now (30s?). So we're not dealing with an under-formed adolescent here--and besides, keep in mind that it's this kind of 20/30something generation which ordinarily tends to be most, not least, accepting of the idea of modernism-from-before-they-were-born being cherishable as heritage.

IOW Dugmor's behind the game.
 
I don't understand how smothering the northern part of the ROM with the crystal is acceptable but the boot on top of the Sony Centre was unwelcome?
 
You must log in or register to post here.

Back
Top