News   Jul 17, 2024
News Roundup for July 17, 2024
 419     0 
News   Jul 17, 2024
Don Valley Floodway
 920     0 
News   Jul 16, 2024
Minto Submits Modifications to Grand Park Village Plan in Mimico
 1.1K     2 

1 St Thomas (Lee Development, 29s, Stern)

What's your opinion of 1 St. Thomas?

  • Total voters
    33
  • Poll closed .
While I am all for preserving good to exceptional historical designs, I am generally not in favour of creating what amounts to a copy of that design, as we plunge into the twenty-first century. You need to pick-and-choose when to exhume this style in this manner, but let me suggest the following exceptions.

If this building were on a block or in a district where a historical design of some sort predominates, and/or some famous, well respected, work from the past happens to reside nearby, maybe I would have to give this effort a pass. That pass would be rooted in either contextual respect and/or homage to a great work - both of which are normally ego-deflating reasons for most other architects, even if it is not for Mr. Stern. Can you make a case for any of that here? If your case is strong enough, I shall gladly back down.

Otherwise, in my opinion, this design is just too safe, and that means too predictable, however well executed that design might be. With few exceptions, this kind of thing often ends up contributing to the dull edge of skyscraper development, which Toronto does not seem to mind. The label substituted for "dull edge" by Torontonians is "conservative," no doubt less connotative, but also a bit self-congratulatory in a peculiar way. In the meantime we must also recognize that well-executed buildings, with the proper historical pedigree, are being demolished on a regular basis, and this includes not only art deco, but several other styles as well. Respect the past while pushing the envelope; or destroy the legitimate past and live, for the most part, in the faux-past or slightly behind that dreadful "bleeding edge". I prefer the former approach for Toronto because I believe that the net result is honest, good to great architecture, that does not take a backseat to any other city. I also understand that the so-called conservative approach, is more likely to be on top in the near term.
 
I agree with much of what your'e saying, particularly the latter paragraph, but haven't architects throughout the ages borrowed design elements from the past- Palladianism has been around for centuries, as have other movements. The early 20th century International style seems quite perisitent as well, indeed isn't CondominiumX just a recreation of the Seagram building that was built over half a century ago? Stern caters to a clientele that wants buildings that deliberately echo the past. He tends to be very good at it, frequently with an attention to quailty and materials that well surpasses the norm. I don't advocate this kind of deliberate emulation as the standard but I see nothing wrong with it from time to time if it is well executed and works contextually.
 
I also agree in principle with the bulk of Zephyr's argument, and I normally bristle when buildings like this are proposed. The way that 1 St Thomas has turned out though has mostly put me in a forgiving mood. I'm not happy with all of its details, but enough of the project has been executed quite well, that my low expectations have been bested, and at times when I catch the building in the corner of my eye I do think that it cuts a dashing figure on the uptown skyline.

That said, historicist exercises like the (unfinished, so maybe this is unfair) Regency and the Scar of Downtown are what normally result when the average architect looks back to the past on behalf of their nostalgic clients, and that mounting pile of evidence will continue to have me bristling for years to come.

42
 
All excellent points Bogtrotter, but let me lightly respond to why this building still bothers me, since there is no severe disagreement between us based on what you wrote.

Stern does cater to a clientele that likes this, there is apparently a sizeable clientele for him, and his execution is well done in detail and materials. All of which I agree. How can I seriously object to the fact that there are existing clientele waiting for their preferred, "classic" design, well worked (although we really can't say updated)?

Add to this that residential skyscrapers typically will lag behind office buildings and also a selective group of public buildings in taking on riskier design innovations, that allow a given city to surge ahead in areas of creative architecture.

But I look over at Mississauga, and see Absolute World, to Chicago and see Chicago Spire, or Aqua, or The Contemporaine, or over to the Turning Torso building in Malmo. Sweden - all residential buildings. And all of these buildings can potentially generate new clientele, among people that never considered this option to say nothing of people not even from that given city or province/state/region or even the country that these buildings are in, or will be in.

Stern's building(s) will grow on you, as any design that is well executed. But its also a distraction from what could be out there as well or instead. Yes it is just one of a few, and that collectively these should do no worse than fill in the skyline with well done architecture. Better that than a modern hoax, or worse yet a vacant lot. But I question any and all things that don't raise the bar in urban design. That's impatient and rude but we need to challenge sometimes, rather than just accept. This building is there now, but there will be others. We need to encourage something that strives to be new and greater and iconic, rather than something that is tasteful and safe and well-done.

(Sorry interchabe42, your post was out there before I could get this in.)
 
It is reasonable to conclude that people who buy condos in 1 St Thomas are more interested in that horrible thing called "good taste" - which is a product of marketing, fashion and received opinions - than in good contemporary design.
 
But it is a contemporary design. It's not a pastiche of another building, it is a building of its time, using the vocabularly and grammar of architecture that has been vital for two and a half millennia.
 
Looks like pastiche to me - it certainly doesn't grab art deco by the scruff of the neck and do anything original with it - which would be the case if we were living in an age where the leading creative talents were drawing inspiration from the 1920's.

This isn't the Renaissance rediscovering Classical Greece, nor is it mid-Victorian England drawing on the past to revive Gothic as a house style for an expanding, evangelical Christian empire either.
 
So if an architect follows a fashion it's the Renaissance, but if an architect does something against prevailing fashion it's the result of marketing and received opinion?
 
It was called the Renaissance because it was a rebirth of Classical learning, art, architecture, and literature that informed and fundamentally changed Medieval Europe. Sticking a few doodads and pippypoos on a faux 1920's condo isn't the equivalent ... it is an expression of superficial fashion.
 
So was the Victorian Era when faux gothic facades were slapped on everything and yet you approve of that - isn't that really the issue? What you like is genius, and what you don't must therefore be crap?
 
I love it when you raise your voice.

There was a reason for Mock Goth - it was of its time however irritating I personally find the style and the fact it was applied to everything and ran out of creative steam pretty quickly. Everything runs out of creative steam eventually and the world moves on; our Royal Conservatory of Music is the last gasp of High Victorian, which was an offshoot of mock Goth, and it didn't begat anything.

Creative people can plunder the past for inspiration but when net consumers of culture treat building styles like clothes in a big closet of styles - and are pandered to by style marketers - you know it'll end in tears ... or 1 St Thomas.
 
Urban Shocker said:
It is reasonable to conclude that people who buy condos in 1 St Thomas are more interested in that horrible thing called "good taste" - which is a product of marketing, fashion and received opinions - than in good contemporary design.
Click to expand...

Most contemporary design being neo or even faux modern, of course.
 
Toronto is so closely connected to its post-WW2 defining style in time and influence, and PoMo - which was supposed to bury Modernism - had so little impact hereabouts and created only a few hiccups such as Mississauga City Hall, that there is a strong continuity with Modernism in contemporary Toronto buildings.

Hariri Pontarini's McKinsey building reaches further back and takes Prairie Style for inspiration but doesn't treat it in a faux manner.
 
You must log in or register to post here.

Back
Top