Toronto Toronto City Hall and Nathan Phillips Square | ?m | ?s | City of Toronto | Perkins&Will

[Parkdalian]

Taste is subjective. To someone that building posted above could be gorgeous even if the execution is poorly done.

The problem with this claim is that it means that there's no point in even giving opinions - since all are equal, all are equally worthless. If that's true, everyone should probably just not talk.

The truth is, all opinions are subjective, but some opinions are built on more thought, insight and understanding than others. We talk about them to discover who has more understanding - and to learn. The knee-jerk rejection of informed opinions that disagree because they are "snobby" is just populism masquerading as relativism.

 

[adma]

I'm curious to know what the reaction would be if a building like the Sheraton Centre or a pedestrian bridge like the one that connects it to NPS were proposed and built today. Would anyone rejoice? Would anyone be excited? I would venture that most here would protest.

Though technically, one may say the same about the destruction of Carrere & Hastings' Bank of Toronto--Mies or no Mies, most here would protest. Just being fair here.

In practice, the "what if xxx were proposed and enacted today" argument is yahoo-tripwired.

 

[Earth Heals Herself]

The problem with this claim is that it means that there's no point in even giving opinions - since all are equal, all are equally worthless. If that's true, everyone should probably just not talk.

The truth is, all opinions are subjective, but some opinions are built on more thought, insight and understanding than others. We talk about them to discover who has more understanding - and to learn. The knee-jerk rejection of informed opinions that disagree because they are "snobby" is just populism masquerading as relativism.

I understand what you're saying. Yes, some people have more knowledge than others in certain fields but that doesn't mean they can use their expertise to justify that their opinion is worth more than Joe Schmoe's. Relative to the topic of City Hall, aesthetics judgements can't be accessed by the scientific method because the beautiful like the good cannot be scientifically proven.

 

[to-enthusiast]

Though technically, one may say the same about the destruction of Carrere & Hastings' Bank of Toronto--Mies or no Mies, most here would protest. Just being fair here.

To be ultra-fair, no one's talking about demolishing the Sheraton Centre.

 

[to-enthusiast]

In practice, the "what if xxx were proposed and enacted today" argument is yahoo-tripwired.

Also, I'm not arguing that they should have never been built. I'm simply wondering how sought-after this specific style is among modern day architects (welcoming insight from any angle about how a nearly identical building is being or would be received these days).

 

[Parkdalian]

I understand what you're saying. Yes, some people have more knowledge than others in certain fields but that doesn't mean they can use their expertise to justify that their opinion is worth more than Joe Schmoe's. Relative to the topic of City Hall, aesthetics judgements can't be accessed by the scientific method because the beautiful like the good cannot be scientifically proven.

Not really saying anything about the scientific method. But if you pop into a forum filled with preservationists and say that NPS should have a major aesthetic facelift - and that your support for this position is because "taste is subjective" - this is sort of the definition of trolling. Maintaining NPS's look is pretty much at the top of the list of generally agreed-upon Things Toronto Must Do, so if you are going to argue against it, you should provide some strong support for your argument - and your argument should be based on as non-subjective datum as possible - or face the flak for presenting yourself as willfully ignorant.

 

[to-enthusiast]

Though technically, one may say the same about the destruction of Carrere & Hastings' Bank of Toronto--Mies or no Mies, most here would protest. Just being fair here.

And setting aside the undeniable tragedy of the old Bank of Toronto's demolition, let's take a moment to contrast the modernest, modular beauty and quality of Mies van der Rohe's TD Centre to the Sheraton Centre. While both arguably draw from the same inspiration, one has weathered considerably better than the other. I think this kind of test of time is a good indicator of how likely a style and method of building is to be revived.

Thoughts?

 

[Urban Shocker]

I understand what you're saying. Yes, some people have more knowledge than others in certain fields but that doesn't mean they can use their expertise to justify that their opinion is worth more than Joe Schmoe's. Relative to the topic of City Hall, aesthetics judgements can't be accessed by the scientific method because the beautiful like the good cannot be scientifically proven.

No, but it can be perceived and appreciated. It is a product of the talent put into the design of the building. And some designers are more talented than others, and you can't draw more out of a design than was put into it. And there are varying degrees of visual literacy in seeing what is there.

 

[Urban Shocker]

How is he wrong? It's his opinion. You guys are such snobs. Just because you and many other forumers think this building is ugly that doesn't make it a fact. Good luck proving it. You know, people think differently, that's what makes them interesting.

Again, I think you're coming at this from the wrong angle. Products of the creative imagination - be they architectural, sculptural, literary, symphonic, operatic or whatever - express themselves with varying degrees of creative merit. It isn't a question of everything existing on a level playing field of equal creative talent, and it isn't a matter of picking and choosing what you happen to like on the assumption that everything is equally significant.

 

[adma]

Also, I'm not arguing that they should have never been built. I'm simply wondering how sought-after this specific style is among modern day architects (welcoming insight from any angle about how a nearly identical building is being or would be received these days).

If that were criterion, then we'd be embracing Yonge & Gould Reynolds Block aesthetics as an exemplar of new construction. You have to remember: those lamenting its destruction aren't necessarily a monolith of Prince Charles/INTBAU reactionaries--indeed, there's plenty of "modern day architects" who'd rather see something like the 70s Eaton Centre aesthetic than something retro-Victorian on the now-vacant Yonge + Gould plot, even if they wouldn't have dared demolish (or welcomed the destruction of) the authentically Victorian Reynolds Block for such a thing...

 

[Northern Magus]

And setting aside the undeniable tragedy of the old Bank of Toronto's demolition, let's take a moment to contrast the modernest, modular beauty and quality of the Sheraton Centre to Mies van der Rohe's TD Centre. While both arguably draw from the same inspiration, one has weathered considerably better than the other. I think this kind of test of time is a good indicator of how likely a style and method of building is to be revived.

Thoughts?

Speaking as someone who generally likes Brutalism, the Sheraton is mediocre Brutalism at best.

I think the two biggest problems with NPS are (a) the concrete elevated walkways, and (2) the fact that their bare concrete doesn't age very well. The walkways cut off a view of city hall from the street, and especially from the streetcar. You have to cross under them into the square before you get the full effect of viewing the buildings.

As for the Sheraton, I find that Brutalist buildings are incredibly dependant on their context: put them in a sea of concrete -- especially aged concrete or crumbling asphalt -- and they seem to become exponentially more cold, barren and detatched. But surround them with structures made of "warmer" or not quite so barren-feeling materials, and they come alive. So walkways + Sheraton + crumbling sidewalks = cumulative aesthetic disaster. Change the materials of one or two of them, and you'll find a dramatic reversal in the overall impression.

So for these reasons I hope that the sides of the NPS walkways will be reclad in glass, just as I hope that the podium of the Sheraton will one day get a facelift. But City Hall itself is outstanding period architecture that's more than worthy of preservation and should be treated as reverentially as possible.

 

[freshcutgrass]

Though technically, one may say the same about the destruction of Carrere & Hastings' Bank of Toronto--Mies or no Mies, most here would protest. Just being fair here.

Ah...true....but we could employ the old "gotta break a few eggs" idea here. We accept the fact that reality means architecture and progress/commerce/profit go hand-in-hand. We're ok with this generally...as long as we are trading up in terms of architecture. With TD, I think we traded up. What we got in place of the Temple Building...not so much a trade-up (and oddly enough the next door neighbour to Sheriton Centre).

The walkways cut off a view of city hall from the street, and especially from the streetcar. You have to cross under them into the square before You get the full effect of viewing the buildings.

Hmmm....a process I actually like better than having City Hall hang out there all naked. A sort of teaser to motivate you. Besides, the purpose of the elevated walkways is their effect on the square is for when you are IN it...not when you are OUT of it.

Altering the elevated walkways by making them more transparent, is an even crazier idea than putting mirrored windows on the towers. The walkways are a continuation of the architectural elements of the rest of the complex...it's what gives continuity. They define the square without there being "walls" at ground level. Without the 4 feet of solid concrete sides, the walkways would lose visual weight, and fail in this function. This is exactly the same reason the new glass railings in the Eaton Centre are an absolute disaster.

Then...there's the simple idea that you don't $%^ with other people's design. I mean really...who are YOU to take someone's work...and start changing it? It's a masterpiece...leave it alone. Why don't you just go change the smile on the Mona Lisa instead?

 

[to-enthusiast]

But City Hall itself is outstanding period architecture that's more than worthy of preservation and should be treated as reverentially as possible.

Absolutely agree.

 

[Urban Shocker]

The walkways are visual punctuation delineating the Square, and I don't see them as barriers to appreciating the towers. There's also a psychological change that happens when you walk beneath them into the Square and become a part of that inner realm. They're intended to set up this transitioning process and I think they accomplish it rather well; all buildings change and reveal themselves as you move around and towards them.

 

[Northern Magus]

Altering the elevated walkways by making them more transparent, is an even crazier idea than putting mirrored windows on the towers. The walkways are a continuation of the architectural elements of the rest of the complex...it's what gives continuity. They define the square without there being "walls" at ground level. Without the 4 feet of solid concrete sides, the walkways would lose visual weight, and fail in this function. This is exactly the same reason the new glass railings in the Eaton Centre are an absolute disaster.

Then...there's the simple idea that you don't $%^ with other people's design. I mean really...who are YOU to take someone's work...and start changing it? It's a masterpiece...leave it alone. Why don't you just go change the smile on the Mona Lisa instead?

Who am I indeed?

"On the south edge, the concrete side walls will be replaced in some areas with glass in alignment with the reflecting pool, which opens up views to the skating rink and reflecting pool."​

I guess I'm someone who's read a little and doesn't go on knee-jerk rants.