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

Tewder said:
.. and to underscore your illogical thinking here you are approaching the idea of a 'mall aesthetic' from the box-store/power centre perspective
Click to expand...

No I'm not. You're just reading that into my argument.

adma said:
Can the armchair Marxism--if that were the case, then 3/4 of that the heritage movement were concerned with out there is an oxymoron.

Shoppers' World, Framingham, MA (1951-94). If you think its demolition was to be welcomed on grounds of "natural capitalist forces", then you deserved to be bludgeoned by the heritage buffs out there. All the more so from a 2010 rather than 1994 perspective...
Click to expand...

Malls are so purely and uniquely tuned to market forces, there's no way you can convince me of the merits of preservationism here. There's nothing sacred about them. That's the essence of Mall-ism. That's why people like them. I'd sooner preserve a casino in Vegas. Or a sandcastle.
 
Last edited:
Malls are so purely and uniquely tuned to market forces, there's no way you can convince me of the merits of preservationism here. There's nothing sacred about them. That's the essence of Mall-ism. That's why people like them. I'd sooner preserve a casino in Vegas. Or a sandcastle.
Click to expand...

While I don't advocate that malls and indeed Eaton Centre be treated as "sacred", I think this take is rather shallow. So, if "market forces" decides that filing in the entire galleria is a desirable course of action it should be allowed, in spite of it being one of the best quasi-public spaces in Toronto?

AoD
 
Tewder said:
Yes it does, actually. Sorry. You know, from the vantage of architectural 'expertise'.
Click to expand...

What architectural expertise? You guys base that on what other so-called experts say. And just because someone who wrote a book said it does not make it doctrine. I know what's been said but I have a mind of my own and I dont' always agree with what's been said before. C'mon guys this is art or architecture, we all project our own stuff onto art and buildings. Have a debate, dont' shut things down by calling people ignorant. this is the kind of thing that makes me despair of ever participating in our site.
 
Oh I'm not claiming you alone are ignorant. I would consider myself fairly ignorant on these matters too... However, when it comes to heritage I will at least recognize that we should be listening to those who are informed and educated, right? Not all opinions are equal.
 
Tewder said:
Oh I'm not claiming you alone are ignorant. I would consider myself fairly ignorant on these matters too... However, when it comes to heritage I will at least recognize that we should be listening to those who are informed and educated, right? Not all opinions are equal.
Click to expand...

Oh, how generous of you. I feel so much better now.

I think a lot of you guys are full of yourselves. You've reached a concensus among yourselves and when you're confronted with a difference of opinion that threatens this concensus or you don't have a good answer to, you refer to the gods of architecture. Give me your own answer not something you've memorized from one person's book. Remember, in all academic endeavours, there are many opinions. You've made your own choice among those opinions but don't seem to recognize that. Don't present yourselves as these all knowing types when in fact you have no real opinions of your own that you are able to defend intelligently and don't recognize that debate in academia on any subject is an ongoing thing. One writer may say that the Eaton Centre is a brilliant piece of 70's architecture; others will say it is a run-of-the mill seventies mall with one or two notable features. Just don't deify the writers and commentators. They all have their biases like we do.

Who's right among writers and commentators? Who knows but the debates are fun as long as you don't dismiss someone outright and engage them in any real way.
 
I agree with urbanvillageboy. I have been on the receiving end of one of Adam's 'tutorials', which was incredibly insulting. It's a subject he's passionate about - but not because he's passionate about preservation. No, no. Adam's passionate about insulting people and what better era of architecture than one with its fair share of detractors. Fresh meat pops up all the time and he's more than happy to feed them through his grinder. This isn't an opinion or theory, as he's admitted as much. Talk of disemboweling people and choking them with their own entrails. It's his 'technique' and I'd be perplexed as to how he feels it helps his cause, but that's moot, because he really doesn't care beyond satisfying his disgusting need to belittle.
 
Last edited:
AlvinofDiaspar said:
While I don't advocate that malls and indeed Eaton Centre be treated as "sacred", I think this take is rather shallow. So, if "market forces" decides that filing in the entire galleria is a desirable course of action it should be allowed, in spite of it being one of the best quasi-public spaces in Toronto?

AoD
Click to expand...

Yes. And it's not a quasi-public space. It's a private space. Brought to you by Cadillac Fairview.
 
concanne.jpg


Optimum heritage perspective: an essential work of the Modern Movement in Toronto, whose worthiness of retention and preservation (as affirmed in the literature) is self-evident.

Condovo-esque perspective: despite whatever the Peter Dickinson/Dominion Modern fetishists might claim, a tired, dated lump that's no Lever House-level masterwork, and sorely in need of a makeover--or better still, replacement by Lumiere II. (Of course, note that it's Lumiere I referenced, not RoCP. IOW, I'm bowing to the style-over-schlock argument.)

Take your pick.
 
^^ Says who? I like Continental Can and appreciate its worth for Toronto. And it's not a mall so the parameters of debate are different. (The buildings on the other three corners can go.)
 
Last edited:
urbanvillageboy said:
Oh, how generous of you. I feel so much better now.

I think a lot of you guys are full of yourselves. You've reached a concensus among yourselves and when you're confronted with a difference of opinion that threatens this concensus or you don't have a good answer to, you refer to the gods of architecture. Give me your own answer not something you've memorized from one person's book. Remember, in all academic endeavours, there are many opinions. You've made your own choice among those opinions but don't seem to recognize that. Don't present yourselves as these all knowing types when in fact you have no real opinions of your own that you are able to defend intelligently and don't recognize that debate in academia on any subject is an ongoing thing. One writer may say that the Eaton Centre is a brilliant piece of 70's architecture; others will say it is a run-of-the mill seventies mall with one or two notable features. Just don't deify the writers and commentators. They all have their biases like we do.

Who's right among writers and commentators? Who knows but the debates are fun as long as you don't dismiss someone outright and engage them in any real way.
Click to expand...

"Concensus". Tee-hee.
 
condovo said:
^^ Says who? I like Continental Can and appreciate its worth for Toronto. And it's not a mall so the parameters of debate are different. (The buildings on the other three corners can go.)
Click to expand...

What's your problem with malls? Sounds to me like hack anti-capitalism. You know, like, "bubblegum music sucks, maaan", as if Lester Bangs meant nothing.

Heck, in an ironic way, I'd argue that thoughtfully viewing malls as having historic/heritage worth is actually a more perfect punking of the apparently "expendable" logic behind them than any sophomoric boilerplate in the name of Marx and Naomi Klein can provide. (Sophomoric, that is, in not recognizing how apparent critique can, by adding another layer to the discussion, paradoxically enshrine the object of critique.)
 
I value the expendability of malls which is why I don't expect/accept their preservation. Preservationism is antithetical to what they're all about. Nothing to enshrine here.
 
Yes. And it's not a quasi-public space. It's a private space. Brought to you by Cadillac Fairview.
Click to expand...

I don't see you so eager to accept say the private sector right not to have anything done on their private properties at say the Bloor Street Revitalization (in fact you railed on an on against it), so really, your argument runs rather hollow. Besides, if you suggest private equates to not worthy of preservation, then I hope you are ready to part with a good chunk of architecturally significant buildings in the city.

AoD
 
Last edited:
You must log in or register to post here.

Back
Top