News   Jun 25, 2024
10 Storeys Proposed to Float Over Annex Heritage Building
 1.4K     1 
News   Jun 25, 2024
Madison's Alias Ascending with Height Bump into Downtown Skies
 1K     0 
News   Jun 25, 2024
How Toronto Is Responding as the Fastest Growing City in North America
 1.7K     3 

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

What's your opinion of 1 St. Thomas?

  • Total voters
    33
  • Poll closed .
Zephyr said:
For young Joe Canuck in 2040, he'll think this building was from 1940 something. He may say. "I love the way this city continues to preserve its past," looking up the sides of One St. Thomas. If I'm alive and there to witness some facsimile of this, I shall probably not have the heart to tell him the truth.
Click to expand...

In 2140, no one other than exactly 4 architectural historians will care that a few decades separates it from 'the real thing.'

Tewder said:
Why is one 'neo'-modernist rather than pastiche, while the other is pastiche rather than neo-deco?
Click to expand...

Don't ask questions like that...your head will explode!
 
In 2140 this building will probably be long gone. Or perhaps it will be abandoned and inhabited by squatters... or perhaps monkeys.
 
Just so long as the apes don't blow it up first - like they did the Statue of Liberty.
 
I figure the black will blend in perfectly when the precast/stone darkens from age/ being weathered.

And I just noticed that they have covered the concrete balcony facings which is nice, because it looked awful as exposed concrete.

Nice updates!
 
Faux-lovers on this forum will be delighted to learn that there is a street-level portico with Greek columns, tucked into the north east corner of this building and barely visible from the street: now they can simultaneously worship at the altar of two styles - neither of which is an expression of the Modernist tradition that defines post-WW2 Toronto, nor is part of the new generation of buildings that express the possibilities of computer software, nor is a creative reinterpretation of styles from the past. I see the presence of the portico and Greek columns as a value-added, loyalty-program, style-reward for the status obsessed "good taste" victims who will live here.
 
"For young Joe Canuck in 2040, he'll think this building was from 1940 something. He may say. "I love the way this city continues to preserve its past," looking up the sides of One St. Thomas. If I'm alive and there to witness some facsimile of this, I shall probably not have the heart to tell him the truth. "

I'm no architect but only an fool would think this building was actually built in the 1920-30s. It resembles what it is - a 21st century building inspired by earlier periods. Stern ain't trying to fool anyone.
 
buildup said:
"For young Joe Canuck in 2040, he'll think this building was from 1940 something. He may say. "I love the way this city continues to preserve its past," looking up the sides of One St. Thomas. If I'm alive and there to witness some facsimile of this, I shall probably not have the heart to tell him the truth. "

I'm no architect but only an fool would think this building was actually built in the 1920-30s. It resembles what it is - a 21st century building inspired by earlier periods. Stern ain't trying to fool anyone.
Click to expand...

There may be plenty of "fool(s)" out there - as you may define that word - since I had an experience like that with a young couple from Indiana pointing to a Stern building as recently as a week ago in New York City. They seemed well-educated, and I didn't assume they were fools - as I would define that same word - simply coming to their conclusions based on visual inspection only. Incidentally, these two were the source for my mythical Joe-Canuck-in-Future comment - this particular Joe Canuck is not a fool either, just unaware that the historical look of the building does not mean that the building is in fact historical.

How does 1ST resemble a 21st century building?: not in its taper, it uses setbacks; not in window design, all derivative; not in detailing, the precedents come from many decades ago; not in style evoked, this is a form of classicism; one can go on for quite some time in that vein. This building is steeped in the past, not just inspired by it, the latter would likely translate into more "updates" to the form than we can see here. Be assured, whatever is 21st century will be largely invisible to those who buy into it.

I hasten to add, as I've done at every turn, this is not a poorly done building, but rather represents a distraction, via the faux historical choice. I shall, for one, not attack 1ST for being bad architecture, just the wrong architecture, in the long run, for a city that may be behind the curve in balancing modern with other types of skyscrapers. Just an opinion, but one which I will continue to support.

_________

And although you have not said it, there is a recurring theme here that architecture critics and/or snobs exist only on the modernist side against such people as Stern. I've put information out there already that this label better fits Stern and other postmodernists if one were to examine history. Remember how Paul Goldberger phrased it, with his friend Stern during his less mature period - "excessively polemical". There were many postmodernists that had access to Universities, the media, architectural publications and the like to confront what they collectively termed "modernist". The fairest position is that the elitist argument is not the sole property of modernists, but leans both ways, and probably more emphatically toward those that reject modernist styles.
 
Going further west, some dumb cluck might mistake the Household Sciences building for something out of Playfair's Edinburgh...
 
Zephyr said:
I had an experience like that with a young couple from Indiana pointing to a Stern building as recently as a week ago in New York City. They seemed well-educated, and I didn't assume they were fools - as I would define that same word - simply coming to their conclusions based on visual inspection only.
Click to expand...

Why should quality architecture be dumbed down so that it is instantly recognizable to the uniformed and the non-professional? Just because three people without knowledge or training can't guess the age of building is no reason not to build using time-honoured forms.
 
Not every eye is a trained eye, and the visually illiterate should be protected from subterfuge of the faux kind.

Archisnobbery doesn't lie in living in the present and appreciating the usefulness and simple elegance of contemporary design, but in feeding the public's worst instincts for pretension and the mistaken belief that styles copied from the past bestow status, fashionability and good taste.
 
As opposed to the mistaken belief that styles from the present (Wallpaper magazine) bestow status, fashionability and 'hipness'?

As much as I do not respect this faux architecture (but not because it supposedly feeds the public's worst instincts and that the the public simply does not know what's good for it or what is 'should' appeciate), I have to admit that the entrance and doorway picture on the other page, is quite nicely done. When compared to the entrance of 22 Wellsley, its hard not to see why people reject the modern and gravitate towards faux like this.
 
I doubt that the sight of a bit of chipped precast at 22 Wellesley will send buyers rushing to 1 St Thomas in droves.
 
You must log in or register to post here.

Back
Top