News   Nov 18, 2024
 1.4K     1 
News   Nov 18, 2024
 685     0 
News   Nov 18, 2024
 1.7K     1 

Toronto Style Architecture

B

Bogtrotter

Guest
I'm no historian or architect but I thought I'd give it a shot..?

The 'Toronto Style' is a form of residential highrise architecture. The style formed in the decades following the introduction of American International Style architecture to Toronto in the 1960's and 70's. The AIS, a favoured form of architecture for office buildings, marked a pivotal point for architecture in Canada's new Financial Centre. While the ‘Toronto style’ draws heavily upon American IS office buildings, it also has significant roots in post WWII Toronto residential highrise architecture. Such highrise buildings were based on early modernist residential buildings in Europe- which called for a new kind of ‘rational’ social housing. This form became very popular in Toronto in the post war decades as it provided affordable and easily constructed housing during a period of significant growth. Thus, paradoxically, the ‘Toronto style’ has emerged as a symbol of American Capitalist wealth, yet also embodies the form of ‘socially progressive’ housing of earlier decades- functional, inexpensive architecture that is consistent with mass production and uniformity.

True to it’s International Style roots, the ‘Toronto Style’ adheres closely to IS ‘purist’ principles. Therefore Toronto Style buildings tend to have cubic shapes, flat roofs, and frequently smooth façades. Typically there is a rejection of decorative detail and ornamentation. One of the criticisms of the style is that it adheres too closely with IS principles, and is therefore too indifferent to location and site.

Building form:

1. Typically a square or rectangular footprint
2. Simple cubical massing with geometric forms meeting at ninety degrees.
3. facades typically formed in horizontal rows, sometimes forming a grid
4. Facade angles are typically 90 degrees.
5. Unadorned flat rooftop - sometimes with extending cornice
6. hmmm...

MAybe if we draft an appropriate definition- it can be put on Wikipedia :) Thus becoming a Wikieality.
 
Two other elements:

a) Principle facades with extensive glazing in repetitive, rectilinear elements.

b) Secondary facades, often clad in precast, brick or stone exhibit irregular fenestration through slot windows.

AoD
 
Toronto Style:

1. Typically a square or rectangular footprint

2. Simple cubical massing with geometric forms meeting at ninety degrees.

3. Facades:
(i) Facade angles are typically 90 degrees
(ii) Principle facades formed in horizontal rows, sometimes forming a grid
(iii) Principle facades have extensive glazing in repetitive, rectilinear elements
(iv) Secondary facades, often clad in precast, brick or stone exhibit irregular fenestration through slot windows

4. Unadorned flat rooftop - sometimes with extending cornice
 
Well Ijust whipped this off. Maybe if a few people with more knowedge- BB, tudarms, Archivist etc would chime in on it we can could post it to Wiki...? It might be total crap for all I know. I'm just trying to generate some dialog...come up with an acceptable definition :\
 
A good start.

I think we have to put these early buildings in context too. The 1950's, when Modernism began to eclipse historical revival styles, was an optimistic time in Toronto.

The city was growing rapidly, innovations in concrete and steel construction allowed architects to experiment and express themselves more freely, supported by the work of engineers, and there were less complex technical requirements to restrain them.

Labour costs were higher here than in some other countries and that created local stylistic differences based on what was economically feasible to build.

To take two examples, the work of Peter Dickinson and John C. Parkin reflected two strains of local International Style:

*Dickinson employed a lighter, more expressive and populist look ( O'Keefe Centre, CNE Queen Elizabeth Building, Benvenuto Place apartments ) and used outside consultants.

*Parkin produced institutional buildings ( the original Terminal One Aeroquay at Pearson, Bata headquarters, Don Mills Centre ) with a multidisciplinary office.

Other significant early buildings and structures of that time are as varied as the Cleeve Horne residence ( Clifford & Lawrie, 1956 ), in Claremount Ont., and the Bulova Tower ( George Robb, 1955 ).

And we have to talk about the landscape, because Toronto has lots of it, compared to crowded European cities. Our buildings have reflected that difference: the Ontario Science Centre for instance ( Moriyama and Teshima, 1965 ), and Scarborough College ( John Andrews, 1963-69 ) are both buildings that sit in nature.

And we have to talk about our weather, and the effect it has had on the kind of buildings possible here ...
 
I guess what's really the best way to define the Toronto Style is to get the architects designing the buildings we see as the "Toronto Style" (the "Toronto School") to help us define it. Architects of historical architectural styles have produced literature (books, manifestoes, magazines, etc.) and great quotes ("form follows function", "less is more", "less is a bore", etc.) which really help people define historical styles. Unfortunately, the Toronto School architectshave produced little in the area of literature, and I don't see how we can turn to flip-flopping architectural critics like Chris Hume for definitions.

As architecture fans, if we want to get a definition of the Toronto Style, we should send out questionnaires to the Toronto School architects to get them to tell you how they define the style (if they think there is one). Better yet, organize a conference where they come up with a manifesto for the Toronto Style. A magazine that focuses only on Toronto buildings and Toronto architects would be very very helpful with generating a definition.
 
Great idea Wylie.

Bogtrotter: Thanks for continuing on with this discussion, and for offering a great definition.

Just to throw a thought out there, my sense is that one of the characteristics of the Toronto style may be that it includes an ever so slight subversion of the International style from which it is derived. As Babel cites with Dickinson, there is a populism in the work that takes it away from a pure international style to one that is still recognizable as such, yet still feels different.

Also, looking at the buildings of the current wave of the Toronto style there seems to be a slight relaxation of some of the strictures of pure international style: variations in roof design away from the flat boxtop, slight variatons away form the four-square-corner footprint, subtle variations in cladding, more of a consideration of context, etc. Any thoughts on this anyone?
 
This all seems good. The style seems to have mutated to a more urban context than its 1950's predecessors, since most of what is being built currently, where there is a lot of room to build it, is decidedly not-TS. Whereas the best examples of Toronto Style are in fairly tight lots. Perhaps that's a distinguishing feature from modernism.

Some purely decorative elements, such as 18 Yorkville's roof grid, seem to be allowable, though this has not been stated.

The definition might clarify whether, by Toronto style, we mean primarily high rise residential buildings (which is what most of our examples entail), or whether office buildiings are simply not being built in enough numbers by historical accident to include in the style. Also, are there Toronto style houses that will meet our definition? Maybe 48 Heathdale Road? Core's Wendigo Way house is more FLWrightish that TS, whatever their other structures are.
 
"Toronto Style:

1. Typically a square or rectangular footprint

2. Simple cubical massing with geometric forms meeting at ninety degrees.

3. Facades:
(i) Facade angles are typically 90 degrees
(ii) Principle facades formed in horizontal rows, sometimes forming a grid
(iii) Principle facades have extensive glazing in repetitive, rectilinear elements
(iv) Secondary facades, often clad in precast, brick or stone exhibit irregular fenestration through slot windows

4. Unadorned flat rooftop - sometimes with extending cornice"

So far, all that has been descibed is international Neo-modernism, not unlike what is being produced all across the globe in this style. Nothing listed is unique to Toronto. To date, no one has been able to point out actual stylistic differences between neo-modernism being done here and being done elsewhere.
 
Without re-hashing past discussions, I think Alkay's point is certainly a valid one. Can I suggest for the moment that we make a decision that the Toronto Style is not, in effect, a style that distinguishes buildings in Toronto from buildings elsewhere (because that is jumping too far ahead) but that we are merely trying to say something about some of the best buildings in the city right now that share some characteristics. In other words, we won't try and prove the assertion that the opposition we are setting up is "Toronto Style" vs. "Could be anywhere", but rather "Toronto Style" vs. "Non-Toronto Style".

If we arrive at a shared understanding of what we mean when we say Toronto style then we might be able to indentify cross-cultural affinities with other styles. Given that we have American, British and German architects building stuff in our city right now, it would be surprising if the Toronto style didn't contain similarities with other styles.

I think the term "Toronto style" might be inappropriate, suggesting as it does a single Toronto style (bayngable?) and a style that distinguishes us from others. What about the more precise "Toronto New-modernism", which suggests to me a specific brand of architecture without overstating the matter?
 
You might just have something there Archivist! Perhaps the monicker 'Toronto Style' is a little too far-reaching, and a little too general. It presupposes there is only one possible style in Toronto which many here, adma and alklay included, have cautioned is not the case.
 
That's it exactly. The use of the term 'Toronto-style" is intellectually dishonest as it implies a style that unique to Toronto and/or originates here.

What I think we have is a few local architects doing international neo-modernism (and they all seem to have individual, as opposed to a unifying, take on this style). Until somebody actually points out what is similar, local and unique about what is being done by these architects (besides neo-modernism), lets be honest and call these buildings what they are: neo-modern (for lack of a better term).
 
I've posted it before, but once again, to add perspective and focus on stylistic specifics...

The birth of Toronto Style
Forget the Gehry fanfare and the Libeskind hoopla. Mega-projects don't reflect what's really exciting about architecture in the city, writes LISA ROCHON. The new homegrown modernism that is redefining our buildings is equally worthy of attention

LISA ROCHON
6 November 2004
The Globe and Mail

Much ink has been spilled over the superstar architects called to arms to rebrand Toronto. Frank Gehry's AGO addition, Daniel Libeskind's ROM redevelopment and Will Alsop's OCAD annex have awakened even the most unlikely Torontonians to the power and possibilities of architecture. And now new international stars are being added to the roster: the great Indian architect Charles Correa has just been commissioned to design the Ismaili Centre in Don Mills, and Japan's acclaimed Fumihiko Maki will design the Aga Khan Museum next to the Don Valley Parkway.

The Sensational Six -- which also includes Norman Foster, who designed the new Leslie L. Dan Pharmacy Building at the University of Toronto -- are a formidable force. Nobody with an abiding interest in the making of a vibrant metropolis would begrudge them producing here.

But here's what isn't being talked about, even though it's equally significant: Toiling under the shadow of the Six are a cadre of Toronto visionaries responsible for a homegrown school of design that deserves just as much attention. Some call it the Toronto Style, though it has less to do with the fleeting monikers of lifestyle, like sugared-up Martinis and low-cut jeans, and more to do with architecture that is human-sized, human-complex, human-warm.

The new modernism that's redefining the public and private face of Toronto -- you can see it in the new Wellesley Community Centre in St. Jamestown and in Queen Street's new Camera theatre and bar, which shares space with the Stephen Bulger Gallery -- has an agenda: humanizing the strict religion of modern architecture.

This isn't an entirely new approach: For decades, the design thinkers in this city have been creating buildings that sit comfortably in Canada's largest metropolis, reflecting the tolerance and generosity of a unique civic society. The work is published internationally. It is regularly awarded provincial and national awards. But the recent spate of new designs makes it worthy of attention -- as Governor-General Adrienne Clarkson demonstrated last month by presenting the Toronto firms Kuwabara Payne McKenna Blumberg Architects (KPMB), Shim-Sutcliffe Architects and Ian MacDonald Architect with Governor-General Medals in Architecture for 2004.

The Toronto Style is both elegant and livable. It deserves our full attention.

What are the hallmarks of this new modernism? Three themes are emerging here that build on the legacy of modern architecture, and consolidate it. The new modernism delights in natural light, editing it tightly like the early modernists did but combining it with the seductive gesture of the glass curtain wall. It reveals a special reverence for wood: A favoured device is to create screens or fences of thin horizontal strips of cedar or Douglas fir. (This decorative trope drives some detractors crazy, but I'll take it any day over vinyl siding.) And it pays particular attention to the building site: More than ever, architects are playing with the site, manipulating space, through pinched and released entranceways, for instance, and setting up surprise views of the outside so that visitors become extra aware of how they're moving in and out of a building.

The sensibility of new modernism has been adopted for the residences of the elites and for modest back lane houses. Stephen Teeple Architects has created a new portfolio of libraries, in west Toronto and Ajax, with aggressive roof lines that point toward the community they're trying to seduce.

Creating a lantern effect to dazzle passersby during the day and night is a strategy commonly used by the practitioners of the new modern style in Toronto. Another is to take the floating planes -- walls, ceilings, partitions -- and emphasize them to a greater extent than the earlier school of European modernists once did. Brick or stone walls in Toronto might be juxtaposed over tiles or stucco -- it's a play on surfaces to create extra visual delight.

Several cataclysmic events in Toronto helped to shape new modernism in this city. Back in the 1960s, Ron Thom, a Vancouver architect with a deep, lugubrious West Coast sensibility, won a competition to design Massey College at the University of Toronto campus. Vincent Massey, scion of the Massey-Ferguson farm machinery enterprise and the first Canadian to be appointed Governor-General during the 1950s, spearheaded the need for the graduate, multi-disciplinary residence. In the competition brief he insisted that the building should possess qualities of "dignity, grace, beauty and warmth" -- music to the ears of Toronto's dedicated architects. Massey College pleases the senses of touch, smell and sight.

When it opened in 1963, it introduced the city to the way that beautiful materials -- limestone window mullions, wooden ceilings and leather sling chairs -- could be combined to make for a humanized version of modernism on a modestly scaled downtown site. Thom created a refuge using large planes of brick that dip in and out like separate walls dancing along the property line.

Carefully edited views of the courtyard landscape with its reflecting pools and mature trees come by way of slot windows. The sound of gushing water penetrates the main lounge through a generous, north-facing wall of glass.

Mies van der Rohe, the German giant of modernism who arrived in Toronto at about the same time Mr. Thom was designing Massey College, was another defining influence. His works incorporated monumental slabs of travertine, granite flooring and brown English oak. A few extraordinary materials defined the Miesian space. That sublime minimalism stuck among Toronto's practitioners, infiltrating the minds of Shim-Sutcliffe Architects, among others. Bruce Kuwabara's house for Gerald Sheff and Shanitha Kachan in Rosedale is an essay of both solidity and openness to the outdoor courtyard and the ravine beyond.

New modernism is about a city of immigrants and travellers. Windows and doors matter tremendously. Louis Kahn, the American modernist who enjoys a cult status among some Toronto practitioners, has a lot to do with the reverence in this city for deep wooden frames on windows or sliding glass doors. KPMB's Woodsworth College, built in 1992, was the first project in Toronto to introduce Kahnian wooden windows, and the rest has been history.

It's also a celebration of old and new textures. Barton Myers and Jack Diamond trained a generation of architects to carve out courtyards for private homes and commercial developments. Through their efforts, architecture in Toronto tapped into an important collective memory.

Nineteenth-century architecture has since been carefully stitched into new developments; it's understood as a beautiful texture rather than as a thing that might be confused with moldiness.

Toronto's young generation of architects has come to respect the history of the city and ways of accommodating tight urban sites, under the intellectual stewardship of Eric Arthur, Blanche van Ginkel and George Baird, the new dean of the University of Toronto's Faculty of Architecture, Landscape and Design. In his writings and professional practice, Dean Baird has insisted for decades on the need for urban architecture rather than buildings designed as autonomous creatures.

Will Alsop's addition to the Ontario College of Art & Design -- a rectangular building that gets hoisted nine storeys into the sky on brightly coloured steel legs -- lends a genuine frisson to Toronto. It's a welcome intervention.

But it does not a city make.

Camera Bar

and Theatre

Siamak Hariri, Hariri Pontarini Architects

The hardware store that once occupied this address is long gone. Entrance doors scaled like totems lead slowly, deliberately from the street into a cinematic space, the dream of director Atom Egoyan and film distributor Hussain Amarshi of Mongrel Media, whose offices are on the second floor. The entrance to the digital screening room feels like a long, high rite of passage. The great sliding doors running along the front façade are in oak and teak. When the weather co-operates, they can split apart so that Camera Bar blurs into the Stephen Bulger Gallery, the two main-floor occupants, creating a dialogue between two creative forces that totals something a lot wider than seven metres. At long last, a new horizontal line has been offered as an alternative to the pinched Victorian scale of the Queen Street storefront.

Garden Pavilion at the Frum Property

Shim-Sutcliffe Architects

The late Barbara Frum and husband Murray engaged Ron Thom to renovate their suburban house -- a project that extended over 15 years to become a gentle coercion between interior and exterior space. Howard Sutcliffe worked as Mr. Thom's assistant on the last landscape interventions on the property; after his mentor's death in 1986, Mr. Sutcliffe and his partner Brigitte Shim took over. The new garden pavilion at the bottom of a hill just beyond a green-on-green shade garden that Ms. Frum carefully tended has clarity and warmth; surface and structure -- skin and bones -- are jigsawed into an exquisite composition. The wooden doors of the house open generously to the L-shaped reflecting pool, and the resilient Ipé wood flooring extends seamlessly from the interior to become the exterior decking.

U of T's School of Continuing Studies

Jason and Raymond Moriyama, Moriyama & Teshima Architects

This project is a major renovation of an existing four-storey, 1954 building that, bizarrely, presented a blank brick façade to St. George Street and undermined the school's motto: 'Open to learning. Open to you.' The building measures only nine metres wide and 36 metres deep, but it now owns a significant street presence. The architects replaced the brick front façade with a double-height glass curtain wall. An atrium café is easily visible from the street along with pendant custom-lighting and an elegantly detailed wooden wall. A trellised sun shade wraps around the top of the glass pavilion, providing dynamic lift to the boxy volumes of the building.

Wellesley Community Centre

MacLennan Jaunkalns Miller Architects Ltd., with Zawadski Armin Stevens Architects Inc.

In St. James Town, an extremely dense neighbourhood of 25,000 people living in high-rise towers, a public library and community centre were desperately overdue. The architects used a broad curtain wall of glass that fronts onto Sherbourne Street and makes a right angle onto Wellesley. The building plan pinwheels around a central meeting area and two-storey-high slot with skylight that cuts north-south through the building. A multipurpose gym, daycare for 60 children, public library with some Tamil books, kitchen and workout room are all included in the centre. Making something out of nothing -- elevating the modest budget of $175 per square foot into something of visual interest -- takes intelligence and design savvy. Concrete block is cheap but stained concrete block is cheap and interesting to look at.
 
The problem with that very well written article is that neo-modernism all over the world is "has an agenda: humanizing the strict religion of modern architecture." You could easily use that whole article to descibe, as just one example, Renzo Piano’s Morgan Library...which is not in Toronto:

9readingroom.jpg



7morganlibrary.jpg



6morganlibrary.jpg


5morganlibrary.jpg

EzCode Parsing Error:][

4morganlibrary.jpg


3morganlibrar.jpg


2morganlibrabry.jpg


1morganlibrary.jpg


I usually agree with almost all her pieces but this piece just doesn't seem to take into account what is going on with neo-modernism elsewhere.
 

Back
Top