Toronto Aga Khan Museum + Ismaili Centre | ?m | ?s | Aga Khan Dev. | Maki and Associates

Were those two photos (well, the parking lot one, at least) meant to be *deliberately* unflattering?
 
^
I think so. They actually made me feel a little guilty for being on his side. haha

Good point, walli.
\/
 
While they may look unflattering, there was no special effort made. That is what the main entrance of Bata looks like, and that is what the parking lot looks like. These are both things I've talked about in the past, but the others who have posted pictures have been spinning things themselves by only posting certain views. At least now we all know what it looks like all the way around.

Walli, if you're trying to use this to debunk the "heritage" argument, you're ignorant regarding such matters.

First...what does the parking lot have to do with *anything*, heritage-wise?

And second, what, specifically *is* the fatal problem with the main entrance? Sure, disused and behind demolition fencing and in a blurry/overexposed distant snapshot view, it may look unbecoming--and, as you've suggested, its "blankness" presupposed future addition and extension. But given those circumstances, it's hardly a hostile, brutal "eyesore" alibi to condemn Bata in toto; Parkin's design effort is no less evident here, and it was clear when the building was fresh and in use (though that still wouldn't have precluded adding onto this side in case it was decided to keep the building). And sure, the main entrance front isn't the "show front" in the way the DVP/Eg elevation is; but it isn't like it's the only such case in architectural history.

Look: in the rawest terms (i.e. factoring out Aga Khan and all that), if you tried to depute against Bata's heritage value on these amateurishly flimsy grounds, you'd be greeted with heritage-community horselaughs. Sure, you might convince a few self-styled well-meaning "heritage-friendly" politicians (y'know, the sort who think the Nathan Phillips Square walkways are anti-urban eyesores to be swept away), but...

And, above all--this is *not* an argument against Aga Khan's superior replacement. Not at all. In fact, I might as well speak from a perspective that accepts Bata's fate, and is even willing to take Sonja Bata's side on this count.

And from that perspective, may I say this: your attempt to debunk Bata's heritage value isn't worthy of Aga Khan, or Sonja Bata. In fact, it's more insulting to them than it is to the building. It's a jerkwater argument. You might as well be arguing on behalf a standard commercial spec developer.

Now, if you want an *un*-insulting non-jerkwater argument, it wouldn't be debunking Bata's heritage value; it'd be acknowledging it, front, back, all around (but *not* the parking lot, silly); yet also acknowledging that it "had to go". We're not talking about a defective building being replaced by something finer; we're talking about a fine building being replaced by something finer still. And even if it's fated not to stay, the preexisting "fine building" merits proper commemoration et al.

Get that straight? With friends like you, Aga Khan doesn't need enemies...
 
Valium-(Pillpopper%5D.jpg


...don't worry, I have plenty. And I know pictures are calming as well.
 
:confused: Never said it had anything to do with it. This thread is about a project, and I posted pictures of the land the project is going to be on. No one had put pictures of that part of the land.

:confused: Again, never said it had any fatal problem. The picture was posted because that building will be replaced as part of the project. The project is what this thread is about, and given that reality, I don't see why that picture has made you so upset.

Adma, putting words in other peoples mouths and then arguing against them is not going to help you. Furthermore, I would highly recommend that the thread focus on this project. There are other threads to discuss these other issues. That doesn't belittle your concerns - it just provides the correct forum for them.

First of all, the Bata building jag *is* focussing upon the project, because the whole heritage/demolition/replacement/(presumed) commemoration thing is part of the story, subtext, etc behind the project. So, why must those issues be separated, unless it somehow, er, upsets you? It isn't like it's the only such thread where such "other issues" are integrated into the mix--and AFAIC they're better off for such integration; otherwise, the forum would be painfully dry and dull and drab.

And secondly, what offends me is this quote of yours justifying your pictures
but the others who have posted pictures have been spinning things themselves by only posting certain views. At least now we all know what it looks like all the way around.
Listen. That reads to me that you're implying Bata's photo-posting defenders are unfairly "embellishing" their pro-heritage argument, and the "all the way around" views are meant to "dis-embellish" it, so to speak (and why only those two? maybe because they feed into your prior debunking-esque comments about the building being incomplete and the parking being an unsightly waste of space--as if that had anything to do with the heritage argument?). Well, if that's what you're trying to imply, it doesn't work; the rear/entrance elevation is no fatal architectural/heritage strike against Bata, all things considered, and the parking doesn't figure in anything other than "existing conditions". And above all, if you've only previously seen "certain views" posted here or presented elsewhere, it's not a matter of spin; it's a matter of pure happenstance. Heck, a Flickr type with a touch of the urban-explorer intrepid about him/her could have posted images like yours in a wistful/knowing *pro*-Bata spirit.

Maybe the whole problem is that to you, Bata is, or ought to be, meaningless. It's a mere dotted line on a map marked "existing building", and IYO other than being earmarked for removal, it has nothing to do with the Aga Khan project. As for the "heritage" arguments (even those that do not preclude the building's removal), they get in the way, and are there to be plastered away. Which IMO is a fate worse than demolition; it reduces the building to the status of an architectural "non-person".

Though then again, if one wanted to debunk Bata, one might bring up its status as an arguably watered-down derivative of SOM's Emhart HQ in Connecticut
emht3a.jpg

...which was itself demolished in 2003 BTW.

And so what if it's a so-called watered-down derivative. Nobody'd argue for knocking down Old City Hall because it's a so-called watered-down derivative of HH Richardson's Allegheny County Courthouse...
 
I think what Walli was trying to get at is that most of the individuals on this thread have indeed posted certain views of the Bata building ( primarily the front views and the views of it's great architecture.

And what I'm trying to get at is: don't read too much into the views that've already been posted, nobody's trying to "spin" anything, the back/entrance side doesn't detract from the "great architecture" argument, and only an idiot or hardcore "From Bauhaus To Our House" modernism-doesn't-work zealot might claim otherwise.

Besides, I haven't been among the Bata view-posters, so I bear no responsibility for what has or hasn't been posted.
 
Bata building picture

Hi all,

I am new to this forum and have been lurking here for a long time.
Thanks so much for all of you for having this forum and discussing urban issues of Toronto.
Just want to say that I simply cannot understand decision to destroy building of artistic and architectural importance even if it is going to be replaced with something with equal or greater value.
Here is the photo that I took at fall 05 for all of you that like this building.
Boris
 

Attachments

  • Bata Building Fall_05x.jpg
    Bata Building Fall_05x.jpg
    74.3 KB · Views: 463
Just want to say that I simply cannot understand decision to destroy building of artistic and architectural importance even if it is going to be replaced with something with equal or greater value.

Well, at this point, I'm resigned to its fate--but hey, as has been mentioned, even Sonja Bata, who was not only client but all but a collaborator in its design, gave it the go-ahead.

Keep a couple of things in mind, though: (a) she's from a heroically unsentimental generation and design culture, who might very well find an inapt bathos about today's tendency to cling to and overfetishize "modern heritage" in this way, and (b) there's a secret subtext of business and family politics, all related to the turmoil in Bata's Canadian operations--in a way, selling out to the Aga Khan was a brilliant best-face-forward golden parachute moment. If you got to let go, let go on behalf of *that*...
 
Here's a shot of the "back end" of Bata. This is not elegant?
 

Attachments

  • %20a.jpg
    %20a.jpg
    51.2 KB · Views: 424
Yes, but you're cheating w/that close-up shot. In walli's words, you're "spinning things yourself by posting a certain view";)

Though actually, I do find that porte-cochere a bit clumsily stapled-on--perhaps because it was a quasi-temporary feature pending future addition...
 
Ah yes, the future.... too bad Bata never completed their plans for the property... this city might not have to loose one of its best and most elegant buildings ever.

I've attached another shot of the interior (clocks).
 

Attachments

  • IMG_0089a.jpg
    IMG_0089a.jpg
    71.3 KB · Views: 402
I have updated demolition photos but cannot post them as they are too big? Anyone know how to make the files smaller so I can upload them here for everyones benefit?
 

Back
Top