News   Dec 22, 2025
Biidaasige Cityscape
 287     0 
News   Dec 19, 2025
Guest Column: Frank Gehry’s Forma: A True Architectural Landmark on Multiple Levels
 1.7K     0 
News   Dec 19, 2025
Concert Advances Standalone Phase 1 Plan at Sunnybrook Plaza
 1.2K     0 

Toronto Style Architecture

If you haven't seen, I've made a series of five polls to determine if different buildings are Toronto new-modern. I'm actually finding the results interesting, because I deliberately chose a few buildings that straddle the lines (including an Aa building (and if there is any firm that had a TNM pedigree, it would be Aa)).

Results are closer to my own feelings than I expected.
 
If we look at Lisa Rochon's three themes of Toronto modernism - wood, light and site - then most of the buildings that we are considering TNM are demonstratably lacking two of the three. Most of the buildings have ample expanses of curtainwall, which could be accounted for in the "light" criteria she identified. But that hardly defines neo-Modernism, because so many newer buildings - curved and all - employ this technique. In fact, all of CityPlace is basically one big expanse of curtainwall, and in this regard, the approach of 18 Yonge is hardly distinguishable.

Wood we can essentially write off from the beginning - but it hardly seems to me a requirement of new-Modernism, or particularly strongly associated with it. One of Rochon's three examples - the Wellesley Library / Community Centre - has none that I can think of. In fact, I'd be more tempted to say that ceramic tiling is more predominant in new-Modernist buildings, and has a greater link than wood does with the modernist tradition.

And site - well, it's kind of vague. Most of the buildings do fit their sites quite tightly, but it's hard to see any meaningful similarities between 18 Yonge's approach to Yonge and Zed's approach to Bathurst, or differences from many other buildings.

I think the problem in using LR's criteria is that they are not primarily intended for tall, multi-unit residential buildings, and don't survive the transition that easily.
 
I get the impression that in discussing Toronto Neo-modernism, we're really just talking about highrises or multi-level buildings. What time period are we talking about- post 90's?
 
Rochon identifies several characteristics - a lantern effect at night, reverence for wood, use of horizontal screens, floating planes, surprise views of the outside, context of site, pinch/release at entranceways, play of surface textures and colours - that are part of the language of the style. I don't see them as being restricted to either high or low rise, commercial or residential.

The recently published, Substance over Spectacle - Contemporary Canadian Architecture includes the work of several Toronto firms, including four examples by aA. Here's part of what aA has to say:

"Housing makes cities. Theory's rediscovery of the city, and its reification of urbanism over the past three decades, has been inversely proportional to practice's involvement in mass housing. While residential construction constitutes over 80% of building activity in North America, this activity occurs beyond the purview of the salon.

The housing problem was once a fundamental project of the Modern Movement. Reeling from the failures of post-war urban renewal initiatives, and recently discredited as a valid policy issue by neo-liberalism, housing has been left to the vagaries of the market place. The hegemony of the development industry and the commodification of dwelling have silenced design culture. At the present moment, housing has lost its architectural cachet."

aA goes on to say, "We enjoy the scale, ambition and essential optimism of developers. In no small part, the general awfulness of our cities is due to the studied refusal of committed architects to involve themselves in their dreams."
 
Once they've brought our residential sector within the fold of design culture, I hope the committed architects of the Toronto School move on to colonize the world of office buildings - which seem to be stuck in The Land That Time Forgot.
 
Frankly, it's developer built rowhouses and detached houses that need the most attention just now. We've made such progress in high-rises over the past 10 years. Offices are in a time warp, yes, but any perusal of the city will show that low-rise residential is almost without exception horrific.

One thing that made me want to cry when I was in San Diego was the vocabulary they had developed for low rise residential. Given the reliance on stucco, possibly not transferable to Toronto, but lovely, colourful, urban buildings abounded.
 
San Diego Style, I guess ... Not ours.

I believe it was more common, back in the 1950's and 1960's, for Torontonians to deal directly with architects to have their homes custom designed. I heard some time ago that Shim-Sutcliffe were given a dreadful time after they designed a house - somewhere around York Mills and Bayview I think - and the faux-dwelling neighbours of their client objected to the clean lines and neo-Modernist minimalism of their design, trying every trick in the book to prevent it from being built.

People with "Good taste" are a real pain.
 
Who can give some good examples of low-rise multi-unit housing? I can think of

- Radio City rowhouses on Mutual
- 474 + King Street East in Corktown (with rounded windows)
- Row on Bloor West near railway tracks (don't recall the address)

Even these three are really pared down examples, and hardly breathtaking.
 
How about the buildings on Henry Street, just north of Baldwin? I've always admired them.
 
Thanks Ed and borgos, both good suggestions. The Henry Street buildings have an interesting story behind them. Yes, they are pleasant. I should add the CityPlace rowhouses to TOBuilt as well.
 
So, how are we doing in defining Toronto Style?

*Rather than being a catch-all phrase covering everything being built in Toronto, it is one that defines the best work of leading firms who share stylistic similarities. It is design lead.

*These stylistic similarities, which can be enumerated, might best be described as Comfy Modernism.

*With a meagre local PoMo heritage, it was easy for the young architects of the mid- and late-1980's to reconnect with the defining style of post-WW2 Toronto: Modernism. The short list for the Kitchener City Hall competition announced their arrival, as a collective force, and the symbolic end of PoMo.

*The civic reform movement in Toronto in the late 1960's and 1970's, which reined in the influence of the development industry and made Toronto known internationally as the "city that works", helped set ground rules for the re-emergence of neo-Modernism in the late 1980's.

*Because Toronto embraced International Style more than other North American cities, there is a correspondingly high critical mass of neo-Modernist buildings now, expressing a connection to that past.

*The style is visually modest and does not seek to impress with ostentatious use of materials, as befits the character of the city.

*One firm, Architects Alliance has created an evangelical manifesto, of sorts, saying that the design of residential high rise buildings - so long abandoned by design culture - should no longer be seen as a safe haven for lazy architects. They have lead the way in moving into this realm.

*Academic and cultural institutions have been major clients so far, with high rise residential buildings following later in increasing numbers. Smaller architectural firms have undertaken the design of single family homes and there has been a small amount of row housing. Office building design has not followed the trend so far.
 
Good work Babel. Some thoughts on a few of your points:

"*The style is visually modest and does not seek to impress with ostentatious use of materials, as befits the character of the city."

I agree with what you're saying in terms of the aesthetic assessment of the style as 'modest', but get stuck on the balance of the point which seems more stylistically judgmental than objectively descriptive. In some finer examples of the style certain natural materials used, whether stone or wood etc., are in fact very luxe, and could be considered ostentatious. It also seems problematic to assert within the narrow confines of this definition what may or may not befit the character of the city, which is to suggest that in another context an exuberant reaction against minimalism could theoretically be as equally in line with the city's character.

*One firm, Architects Alliance has created an evangelical manifesto, of sorts, saying that the design of residential high rise buildings - so long abandoned by design culture - should no longer be seen as a safe haven for lazy architects. They have lead the way in moving into this realm.

Agreed. It may also be interesting to note that this was simply logistics, that in the absense of any office development of any significance the leading architects of this generation had little option but to turn to the expansive and highly competitive highrise residential sector, where they were more eagre to push the envelope.

*Academic and cultural institutions have been major clients so far,... Office building design has not followed the trend so far. "

Again, could simply be a lack of office building development, relatively speaking?
 
Nicely done, it provides a good historical foundation for how Toronto Neo modernism became popular among leading firms.

Just wondering. Are there reputable architects not adhering to this style in this city?
 
You must log in or register to post here.

Back
Top