Toronto Eaton Centre (Ongoing Renewal) | ?m | ?s | Cadillac Fairview | Zeidler

And a fundamental issue here is: *was* Eaton Centre losing out, really--at least, in the places for architectural "show"? Like, the food courts (which seem to be primary nodes in the Eaton-Centre-is-a-dated-dump arguments) are pretty minor and expendable elements from that standpoint. But when it comes to the upper levels, I swear that the raw presence of something like the Apple Store does more to alleviate the "losing out" factor than raw railing replacement. Maybe, rather than architecture etc, it's all about "the tenancy, stupid"--and I highly doubt potential tenants (even high-level ones) would be so obtuse as to avoid the Eaton Centre because it's too "dated 70s looking". And if suburban kids are increasingly opting for suburban malls over the Eaton Centre, it isn't like new railings would draw them back; it's more that it's a hassle to get to (esp. by car), and it's redundant. In which case, if the Eaton Centre were in trouble, it'd require an overall reprogramming, not these cosmetic issues. And it doesn't seem to be in *that* degree of trouble--methinks too many are reading it through the prism of many a failed imitator out there, Brampton, Guelph, wherever...
 
But it's a mall. Reasonably attractive though it may be, it ain't no civic or architectural masterpiece on par with Galleria Vittorio Emanuelle II or Galeries Lafayette. Not even close. It's just a mall from 1977 in downtown Toronto that looks tired and dated, potentially at its peril. That's it. No more. No less. Oh, and replace the roof too, please. Damn thing leaks.
 
Last edited:
condovo said:
But it's a mall. Reasonably attractive though it may be, it ain't no civic or architectural masterpiece on par with Galleria Vittorio Emanuelle II or Galeries Lafayette. Not even close. It's just a mall from 1977 in downtown Toronto that looks tired and dated, potentially at its peril. That's it. No more. No less. Oh, and replace the roof too, please. Damn thing leaks.
Click to expand...

Er...it isn't "just a mall". If you go to the architectural-and-otherwise literature of the day, you'd realize that it's an icon of 70s Zeidler-tech and urbanism, of local, national, even international importance.

And besides, the "not on a par" argument is a yahoo argument, not unlike those which have destroyed or threatened virtually anything and everything in Toronto that's been either destroyed or threatened.

And if you'd rather replace the roof with a, uh, "cleaner, more contemporary design", I'd gladly rip your intestines out and wrap them around your neck.
 
Last edited:
... in other words the Galeries Lafayettes was just a store once too, plain and simple. Union Station is just a train station. St. Lawrence market is really just a market hall. If we view heritage in this way, well how does heritage develop at all really?

Lets not be too quick to scrub the 'recent' built form. Future generations will hate us for it.
 
Ultimately, what Condovo's attitude betrays is a double-barrelled abject ignorance and/or hostility: (a) to the 70s architectural, etc. narrative in Toronto and beyond, and (b) to what today's real and latent parameters of "heritage" consist of. And while the latter needn't involve freezing the Eaton Centre in amber, it can encourage a little, shall we say, "preemptive thinking"...which, in the end, might indeed lead to a more disarmingly creative and constructive approach to the situation at hand. And all the more so given how the threat to Ontario Place has awakened a little Zeidler-tech sympathy out there--why not apply it here, too?

I suppose, it'd be like approaching Eb Zeidler's work in a Margie Zeidler way. In which case, if anything's truly "tired and dated", it's Condovo's short-sighted dismissiveness.

Though I must emphasize that a certain degree of informed perspective is everything, i.e. to recognize how the Eaton Centre isn't just "any old mall", and why the case for it is valid in a way that, say, the case for late-70s enclosed incarnation of the Don Mills Centre wasn't (though it would've been otherwise had the latter retained its 50s open-air form into recent times)
 
Good examples of architecture from all eras and styles must be respected. While I am generally not a fan of brutalism and hope it never makes a comeback, I am 100% in support of maintaining the buildings we have, as they are. They are all important parts of our history, and thus heritage that must be protected. Such things go beyond personal preferences, and to advocate demolition or disfigurement through short sighted attempts at "updating" is, as adma wisely says, ignorant and uninformed.

That being said, I can picture a future owner of the Eaton Centre in 50 or so years investing in restoring it to its original historic splendour.
 
condovo said:
The Eaton Centre has no "original historic splendour." Its merits are being vastly overblown here.
Click to expand...

Offer your heritage credentials (especially, but not exclusively, re the recent past), and then you'd have a leg to stand on.

In the meantime, let me offer an across-the-street metaphor...

11_957_1122a_ryrie_bw_lg.jpg


The Ryrie Building at Yonge + Shuter, which is now Context HQ and got a spiffy exterior restoration (albeit at the expense of the Silver Rail--and the cornice wasn't reinstated, either; but, whatever). However, until a decade ago, it had an astonishingly atmospheric light-courted internal Sam Spade-ish rabbit warren of doctors offices, jewelry merchants and whatnot. While ill-acknowledged in any "reasons for designation" out there (probably in part because of the inertia from not-so-broad preservation parameters back when Ryrie was originally listed in the 70s), to virtually anyone with a soul who witnessed it t/w the end, especially--it was essential. Unsung, but essential.

It no longer exists. Context (yeah, beloved condo-developers-of-quality Context) gutted the place.

Of course, according to Condovo logic, said interior might have been grimy, dusty, tired, dated, and no civic or architectural masterpiece on par with the Rookery or Buffalo's Ellicott Square Building...
 
The renovations Context made to the Ryrie building (on ONE floor only) now allow that building to support a 21st century, open-plan office, something it could not have done before. I witnessed the before and after, have a soul, and can tell you the end result provided drastically better spaces and a much more efficient place, both for people to spend their days, and to conduct business in.

Buildings (and cities) can be preserved but only if they are able to adapt effectively and intelligently to changing uses. Trying to preserve everything in brine is completely unfeasible, and it is the sensitive reuse and adaptation of the old that make cities exciting.

The Eaton Centre is changing. That building is there to make money for its owners and tenants and they want a decor change. If it were a museum (It could make a great space for a museum one day) it would also need to be adapted as buildings do and have done since the beginning of time. Take the Musee d'Orsay, for example... all that 80s PoMo galleries inside the train station are as much a part of that building functioning as a museum as the original train station housing it.... and is now just as much a part of the building's history as the original structure.
 
adma said:
Ultimately, what Condovo's attitude betrays is a double-barrelled abject ignorance and/or hostility: (a) to the 70s architectural, etc. narrative in Toronto and beyond, and (b) to what today's real and latent parameters of "heritage" consist of. And while the latter needn't involve freezing the Eaton Centre in amber, it can encourage a little, shall we say, "preemptive thinking"...which, in the end, might indeed lead to a more disarmingly creative and constructive approach to the situation at hand. And all the more so given how the threat to Ontario Place has awakened a little Zeidler-tech sympathy out there--why not apply it here, too?

I suppose, it'd be like approaching Eb Zeidler's work in a Margie Zeidler way. In which case, if anything's truly "tired and dated", it's Condovo's short-sighted dismissiveness.
Though I must emphasize that a certain degree of informed perspective is everything, i.e. to recognize how the Eaton Centre isn't just "any old mall", and why the case for it is valid in a way that, say, the case for late-70s enclosed incarnation of the Don Mills Centre wasn't (though it would've been otherwise had the latter retained its 50s open-air form into recent times)
Click to expand...

Get over yourself. It's a mall. And it's changing, despite all your " expert architectural "huffing and puffing. Cities evolve and change and the general aesthetic has moved on from the seventies. And you know some of us like the change and it doesn't make us philistines or "ignorant."
 
condovo said:
The Eaton Centre has no "original historic splendour." Its merits are being vastly overblown here.
Click to expand...

I remember when the Centre was first planned and then announced. It generated excitement and pride for Torontophiles in a similar way that the transformational condo/cultural building boom generates interest today. You sensed that Toronto was emerging on another level, and the city was being redefined before our eyes. This thing was happening right here, and the rest of the world was interested. And I was proud that this project was in Toronto. Those of us old enough probably remember what the new city hall meant to Toronto as well. The Eaton Centre today is a great part of this city's PATH. It was a game changer for Toronto when it was built, a real tourist attraction. Suburban Mall is too harsh a term for this somewhat eclipsed retail star. In her time she was a knock out .
 
To be honest though, the changes to the interior of the galleria is minor compared to the intrusive (and insensitive) additions on Yonge - there wasn't even the attempt to at least emulate the original design philosophy in that case.

AoD
 
urbanvillageboy said:
Get over yourself. It's a mall. And it's changing, despite all your " expert architectural "huffing and puffing. Cities evolve and change and the general aesthetic has moved on from the seventies. And you know some of us like the change and it doesn't make us philistines or "ignorant."
Click to expand...

Yes it does, actually. Sorry. You know, from the vantage of architectural 'expertise'.
 
You must log in or register to post here.

Back
Top