Well, I don't quite understand the Tate/old Bata HO argument. The Tate Building is a huge shell that is housing modern to contemporary art. Much of which was made the last 50 years from within industrial buildings; the enormous shell allowed them to create Turbine Hall (imo, the best art space in the world). I can't quite see a similar connection between Islamic art and the old Bata HO. As well I can't see the old Bata HO staying without being drastically modified from within (and, imo, gutting its soul). Hence my remark of the possibility for the building to be used for office space for the museum or Ismali Centre.
My point was less about the specific kind of projected purpose/conversion required--after all, Bata could have been kept for functionally-appropriate administrative purposes, with minimal drastic modification necessary,
exactly as you say (so what's the big problem?)--than about architectural imagery. That is, compared to most of its modernist corporate-office contemporaries, Bata projected a monumentality that could have translated quite well into cultural/museological symbolism--at least of a generic sort: it's the most "templar" building around these parts. (Though yes, I agree and have expressed as much before: when it comes to Islamic art, Bata's imagery may be too "Greco-Roman" for comfort.)
Besides, if one were to be real picky about drastic modifications and gutted soul, to the point of ruling out even an administrative-office conversion, you might as well suggest that *no* so-called sympathetic conversion of Bata is possible, not even by a client that's not Aga Khan, i.e. once Bata left, that was soul-gutting enough, unless Sonja decided to move her shoe museum up here, you have to euthanize. And perhaps that's truer to the unsentimental modernist spirit; once the time comes, the time comes (maybe that informed Sonja Bata's POV in selling out?)
I can tell your quite passionate about the Bata HO but if the city said, 'no, you have to leave this building intact' there's a very good chance the foundation would look for another city. Just like they did when London didn't allow them to modify a building (if I recall right) on the South Bank; they decided to look at they're second choice, Toronto. So, if you had the choice to make, which would it be: keeping the old Bata HO or allowing the Aga Kahn foundation build a museum and cultural center? Unfortunately, I believe this was the choice.
I'm only passionate enough insofar as there *is* an argument, however hypothetical, to be made, and too many of the counter-arguments have a week-kneedness to them. Besides, other than the fact that it was offered at all, why would the Foundation have been so beholden to this specific site, and *only* this site? And on top of that, if you're asking me why I'm so so-called passionate t/w Bata, I might as well ask, why are *you* so passionate re Aga Khan? Because it makes us look ooh-aah-world-class? It's like with Olympics and World's Fairs; if the Foundation chose another city, would we be *that* much worse off? So, Aga Khan decides to pass Toronto by. Big deal; it won't make us go down the tubes.
Okay, that last argument is a touch on the flippant side, and I'll agree that there's a weak-kneedness (however understandable) to plenty of those making the heritage argument as well, i.e. there seems to be little or no regard to what's replacing Bata, institutionally *and* architecturally. It's all about Bata, Bata, Bata, and what's replacing it might as well be akin to what's replacing Inn On The Park. (Whereas the more astute heritage proponents recognize that
had Bata had been specifically earmarked for retention rather than redlined for removal from the start, we might not be going through this fuss, Bata would have registered as opportunity rather than obstacle, Aga Khan might have found a means to "adapt", there'd been room for Correa and a Maki as well, we'd have our cake and eat it too, everybody'd be happy bla bla bla. Instead, we have the most illustrious case of sacrificing a landmark on behalf of a landmark since Carrere & Hastings' Bank of Toronto fell for the T-D Centre over 40 years ago...)
) But I do know that I had to go to other cities to get an appreciation for Islamic art; and what I saw at the Louve (where the AKC is temporarily) is a collection that I've only seen in museums such as the British Museum, Louve, and MET. I don't know about this 'world class' thing--all I know is that you don't hear this term in reference to a city outside of Canada.
