A
alklay
Guest
All one has to do is flip through the leading architectual magazines to see that Toronto, unfortunately, is largely ignored (except when some starchitect builds here).
|
|
|
A
AlvinofDiaspar
Guest
Actually there is one way to differentiate Toronto "style" - the materials used generally speaking isn't of top quality but everyday stuff.
AoD
AoD
B
Brighter Hell
Guest
You could argue that the humanized, elegant modernism that Rochon describes is more common in Toronto than in other cities, especially with residential architecture, and it's here that the style is being advanced the most. That type of modernism seems to be the rule in Toronto where in other cities it's more the exception.
A
alklay
Guest
"Our look"?
S
spmarshall
Guest
I can't wait for the Toronto-themed casino in Las Vegas, with our world-distinctive look.
At least we've got a 145-year old street railway with streetcars. And the CN Tower.
At least we've got a 145-year old street railway with streetcars. And the CN Tower.
A
alklay
Guest
I think one would be hard pressed to say its the rule in Toronto (I wish it was, but they keep building those faux-Victorian townhouses and green-glass and precast condo towers) or that a lot of modern stock in, lets say New York, is not 'new modernism.' This is certainly being done all over North America and is the present 'fashion.'.
B
building babel
Guest
I agree, Brighter Hell. There is creative hegemony, a critical mass of neo-Modernism created by leading local firms, that crowds out the work of others. Just as Diamond spawned KPMB, so is another generation - architects such as Adam Thom perhaps - being spun off to keep the faith.
Also, if similar buildings pop up occasionally in other cities, what's not to say that our established style has influenced architects elsewhere?
Toronto is a major creative centre in North America. Our artists and designers are influential. Surely the work of our leading architects is no less so?
Also, if similar buildings pop up occasionally in other cities, what's not to say that our established style has influenced architects elsewhere?
Toronto is a major creative centre in North America. Our artists and designers are influential. Surely the work of our leading architects is no less so?
B
building babel
Guest
Several of our best local firms are building in other countries, exporting our local look, and introducing foreigners to it.
A
Archivistower
Guest
I think its fair to question whether the Toronto neo-Modernist style is unique to Toronto, or has elements in it which are unique, and to wonder whether we influence others, or have been more influenced by others. I would tend to plead with you to set that issue aside for now, because I think it will be unsatisfactorily answered one way or another. It would be absurd to assert that Toronto's architects are not influenced by trends elsewhere, that there are no neo-Modernist structures outside Toronto, or, indeed, to deny the possibility that architects outside Toronto are not picking up on our styles. All this would be impossible to prove.
But I do think there is utility in defining what we mean by Toronto new-Modernism without requiring firm answers to those questions.
But I do think there is utility in defining what we mean by Toronto new-Modernism without requiring firm answers to those questions.
B
building babel
Guest
I agree. Creativity is about expression.
B
Bogtrotter
Guest
Surely Toronto is the only NA city that has embraced so fully the International style- it defines our downtown skyline and much of our suburban highrise clusters. I think there is perhaps more historical precedent in Toronto (from postWWII- late 70's) than in other NA city, a trend that continues today in the dozens of highrises that are going up. Are there other cities that are continuing this trend as much as Toronto- I think the Toronto cityscape is more unique in this regard.
We obviously have to find common elements between buildings that are descriptive beyond basic neo-modern geometric forms. Rochon’s article presents some fine Toronto examples of Toronto new modernism using three broad themes: Toronto style ‘delights in natural light’, there is a reverence for wood, and pays particular attention to building site. Does this have some historical precedent in Toronto- in the TD centre perhaps: “monumental slabs of travertine, granite flooring and brown English oak...†? Perhaps these themes are not exclusive to Toronto but are more characteristic of Toronto Neo-modernism architecture.
But I think a legitimate definition of a ‘Toronto Style’ would also have to include some unique, or prevalent use of materials and/or speak to the Toronto landscape and climate in some way.
We obviously have to find common elements between buildings that are descriptive beyond basic neo-modern geometric forms. Rochon’s article presents some fine Toronto examples of Toronto new modernism using three broad themes: Toronto style ‘delights in natural light’, there is a reverence for wood, and pays particular attention to building site. Does this have some historical precedent in Toronto- in the TD centre perhaps: “monumental slabs of travertine, granite flooring and brown English oak...†? Perhaps these themes are not exclusive to Toronto but are more characteristic of Toronto Neo-modernism architecture.
But I think a legitimate definition of a ‘Toronto Style’ would also have to include some unique, or prevalent use of materials and/or speak to the Toronto landscape and climate in some way.
A
Archivistower
Guest
The trouble (for us) with LR's article is that it focusses on non-residential, smaller scale buildings. I think her criteria are wanting in many of the buildings we've discussed. (Wood? 18 Yorkville?) Though not in this building:
B
building babel
Guest
I just tracked down a nice little quote from Michael Prokopow, a curator at the DX.
In referring to Modernism he says, "In the late fifties and early sixties, Toronto was internationally well regarded as a laboratory for distinct and aesthetically significant building." ( quoted from the Globe and Mail Nov. 26th 2005 ).
Why not explain the evolution of Toronto Style this way:
1) The post-WW2 creative scene in Toronto, including the kind of local architecture indicated by the quote above.
2) The Reform Movement of the 1960's and 1970's and the effect it had on planning and built form.
3) The brief allure of post Modernism, followed by the reconnection to our Modernist past.
In referring to Modernism he says, "In the late fifties and early sixties, Toronto was internationally well regarded as a laboratory for distinct and aesthetically significant building." ( quoted from the Globe and Mail Nov. 26th 2005 ).
Why not explain the evolution of Toronto Style this way:
1) The post-WW2 creative scene in Toronto, including the kind of local architecture indicated by the quote above.
2) The Reform Movement of the 1960's and 1970's and the effect it had on planning and built form.
3) The brief allure of post Modernism, followed by the reconnection to our Modernist past.
B
Bogtrotter
Guest
Indeed Modernism/ Neo Modernism in the city is broad and encompasses all kinds of buildings -highrises, lowrises, civic centres, schools, private residences, commercial skyscrapers. I think Wylie was on the right track. Perhaps we should be looking at the leading Toronto architects /firms over the past 50 years and try to find a common themes in their approach. For there to be a ‘Toronto style’, or unique form of Neo Modernism in the city, there surely should be common threads of thinking among the leading local firms. So maybe we should rather be concentrating on identifying a ‘Toronto School of thought’ on architecture.
T
tudararms
Guest
Once again though, maybe 'Toronto Style' is too grandiose a label? Toronto Neo-Modernism may be more appropriate a term, in the same way that we might refer to say Toronto Bay & Gable which indicates a Toronto context or specificity withough appropriating Victoriana in general.