Hume on Bay Street

Bay Street is awash in banality



MICHAEL STUPARYK/TORONTO STAR
The Liberties at 717 Bay St. is a building you want to get past as fast as possible, according to Condo Critic Christopher Hume.


You don't have to get far north of Queen St. to go from distinguished to dispiriting buildings
Apr 05, 2008 04:30 AM
Christopher Hume

Every generation looks back and sees evidence of a time when everything was better. It may not be true, but in this regard we are no exception.

Still, it's hard to wander around this city and not become convinced that the quality of architecture has deteriorated badly in recent decades. That's not to say there aren't spectacular things being built; it's more that the level of design of the non-landmarks, the background buildings, of the urban fabric has never been worse.

Perhaps it's that only the best of the past survives, but by contrast the bulk of work done by architects today is appalling. Let's be honest: Most people dislike contemporary architecture passionately and often for good reason.

Bay St. is as good a place as any to see firsthand how this profession has lapsed into banality. Starting at Bay and Queen St., of course, we have two of the most distinguished buildings in Toronto – New and Old City Hall – but by the time we reach Dundas St. a couple of blocks north, the landscape has devolved into one of architectural mediocrity and civic indifference. By the time Bay meets Gerrard St., it has become a contemporary wasteland, the kind of downtown neighbourhood desirable for everything but what it has become.

The template here is the tower sitting on a base with a canopy at grade. Nothing wrong with that, but it's surprising how something so simple and straightforward can be messed up in so many different ways. For the most part, the architecture here is artless and devoid of any spark of imagination. It is clumsy, dull and apparently built by architects and developers who couldn't care less. The materials are cheap, the façades monotonous and the results deadly.

Interestingly, this same culture of indifference applies to corporate, institutional and residential buildings. The last remnant of architectural self-respect comes in the form of a row of two-storey houses that extend west from Bay on the north side of Gerrard. These aren't fancy structures, but they were clearly conceived with something larger in mind, namely the city and the idea it represents, civilization itself.

To a great many contemporary architects, this must seem precious and all rather beside the point. Their job is to deliver their client's bidding as cheaply and painlessly as possible, and to hell with the rest.

And the city, why should they worry about that, it's not their concern?

Condo critic

THE LIBERTIES, 717 BAY ST.: This nasty slab sums up the ethos of a generation of architects that may be well trained, but was certainly poorly educated.

There isn't a single element of this complex here that engages us at any level; more disturbing, there wasn't meant to be.

It comes to us as one of those poor architectural creations unloved by those who gave it birth. Its justification is strictly an economic one.

Indeed, architecture here involves little more than a series of mechanical calculations, the sort of things a machine could do – and probably better.

The miserable green metal columns that support the glass canopy clutter the sidewalk and the building. You just want to get past it as fast as possible.

The frontage on Bay and Gerrard Sts. has been broken up into a series of bays that reach up from a four-storey base.

The bricks are beige and the results aren't pretty.

GRADE: D

WHAT DO YOU THINK? Email us at condocritic@thestar.ca

chume@thestar.ca

I think Hume has been a bit harsh on the Liberties. I know this building and have been in it a number of times, as a friend used to live there. The units are fairly small and I think the building has a lot of singles. It seems to be a popular place for nurses who work at the nearby hospitals.

The architecture is a bit banal but not nearly as bad as many. I like the fact that the exterior is all brick, with little or no precast. We should be so lucky with some other buildings. The "bays" that Hume seems not to like are a good feature IMO. They break up the walls of this fairly large building, while still maintaining a "streetwall", in harmony with the tone of the Bay Street canyon. The building is a bit humdrum but not bad at all, and I would not have given it a D.

And like LuCliff across the way, in a way it merits being viewed in the context of its period. Hume's critiquing something that's about 20 years old now--why that, and not RoCP next door, f'rexample?

Sure it is ugly. But I know this building *very* well.

And Hume doesn't mention that it was built nearly 20 years ago when there was no such challenge needed. Back then, this building was neighboured by parking, parking and more parking.

At least The Liberties looks like it was built in a contemporary style. The condos from the 1980s generally look out of fashion these days and bland. He definitely should have discussed RoCP. RoCP is recent but has not exactly turned out stunning.

I totally agree with Hume. I don't care what conditions existed at the time it was built. Parking lots are not an excuse for bad design.

But why criticize this when RoCP is right next door? I think Hume's hands are tied and this building was as close as he could get to RoCP due to some sort of shared interests between The Star and some company or individuals involved in the development/marketing/construction of RoCP. Nearly all of his criticisms could apply to RoCP. His photographer even captured RoCP in the background!

This is like an editorial criticizing Preston Manley for some moronic deed in the '80s instead of criticizing Stephen Harper in light of the Chuck Cadman affair.

if only it were taller....

no denying this is a real clunker. the more I think about Toronto, the more I realize that it is the people and the vibrancy of life downtown that gives the city so much appeal, as opposed to its architecture and urban planning. But, I still love it - what else can you say...

The Liberties is not that bad. The retail in the base is decent and contains a large number of narrow units.

I disagree with Hume when he says "The template here is the tower sitting on a base with a canopy at grade. Nothing wrong with that". I really do believe that the canopy and act of setting the retail and entrances back behind columns is a large part of why Bay is so unappealing.

Redroom Studios said:

if only it were taller....

no denying this is a real clunker. the more I think about Toronto, the more I realize that it is the people and the vibrancy of life downtown that gives the city so much appeal, as opposed to its architecture and urban planning. But, I still love it - what else can you say...

Click to expand...

The architecture does give it a lot of appeal. People do come to see the architectural landmarks. Even the top world cities don't have stunning and bold buildings lining every street. While few people would likely say that they went to downtown Toronto for the urban planning, seeing University Avenue's grand boulevard introduction of Queen's Park, or the intimate look of streets with many heritage blocks and height restrictions definitely makes the experience more appealing.

It's trickled-down 80s contextualism. You can tell by its midriseness, its running up against the streetfront, its "picturesque" ranks of bays and orange brick

junctionist said:

At least The Liberties looks like it was built in a contemporary style. The condos from the 1980s generally look out of fashion these days and bland.

Click to expand...

I can't say it's any more "contemporary" looking than its 80s Bay St contemporaries; the cheesy god-awfulness of 1001 Bay is in fact more the exception than the rule, and you find that 80s orange brick flanking Bay + Irwin, or btw/Charles and Bloor W side.

If anything of that rough period is redeemable through "contemporary" appearance, it's the Bay/Charles complex...

Although I'm not always in agreement with him, I think Hume has a point about contemporary architecture. It seems that there is less variety with it, less distinction and fewer curves and flourishes. Saving money is one thing, but you'd think the architects could at least come up with a few ways of leaving their mark on the project (and improving their portfolios). The contemporary stuff is usually flat, cold and uncreatively geometric. A few places stand out, but far too many don't. Not to say that past styles didn't have their own issues, but a look at the downtown skyline seems to confirm that contemporary architecture is dominating it through size, not through distinctiveness.

I don't agree with Hume on this, but frankly, these reviews are highly beside the point anyways. If you cut through his blather, then this is the sum total of what he actually addresses about this building:

The miserable green metal columns that support the glass canopy clutter the sidewalk and the building. You just want to get past it as fast as possible.
The frontage on Bay and Gerrard Sts. has been broken up into a series of bays that reach up from a four-storey base. The bricks are beige and the results aren't pretty.

The rest could really be about any building anywhere. I do agree that the green metal columns are unfortunate (and we've discussed that a lot here), but I find his statement that you want to get past it as fast as possible to be bizarrely overstated. I have no problem with the brick colour, and find that throwaway comment thoughtless.

As for the row of four houses that survived nearby - they were boilerplate in their own time. The developer who put those up made a row of houses did more or less what every other developer did at the time, in the same style, with a profit motive. Sometimes I find Hume weirdly sentimental, without thought.

Myself, I would say that this building does a reasonable job of what it needs to do. It provides retail along both Bay and Gerrard in a way that is quite useful, it defines the street with its mass, the entrances for cars are as discreet as they can be, it acknowledges that it is on a corner with its rounded edge on the second floor and its angled window treatment.

It sort of reminds me of a Berlin loaf. Of such things are cities built.

I find the bit about Bay Street as a whole to be far more interesting than the individual condo review. I think he's dead-on about the street.

Imagine Bay St would have been developed 100 years ago. Why is modern city building so unsatisfying?

Funny, but it is the relative "sameness" of those buildings that make the street in that photo a success. Too much of Bay is a hodge-podge of failed designs and poor street frontage.