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

[buildup]

Yes, I understand what you're saying, I really like this building too. Pretty hard to find unanimity on anything but I suppose near-overwhelming approval is eviden there with those not liking it essentially repeating there point over & over.
When Minto and 77 Charles come on line this area will be eclectic with something for everyone.

 

[junctionist]

I can't say I dislike this building, as it brings ornate architecture in an area characterized by just that. It'll blacken with time and will convince many that it came from before the 21st century. The building does nothing for our current heritage, it and isn't cutting edge. But it's the kind of building that will likely be admired and desirable 20 years from now. And eventually, people will stand up for it as a heritage building. It looks like the attention to detail is an honest tribute to a past style because they didn't have to take it to this degree of detail (look at Regency Yorkville).

 

[Zephyr]

Yes, I understand what you're saying ... but I suppose near-overwhelming approval is eviden(t) ...with those not liking it essentially repeating (their) point over & over....

I am humoured by your declaration that those in opposition to 1 St. Thomas have been particularly repetitious, and perhaps boorish - the last implied but not stated - in light of the overwhelming support for this building. Consider for a moment that this may be the net result of responding to the equally repetitious acclamation on the other side of this fence. Make no mistake, as long as this thread continues, and I am on this website, I will challenge this supposedly overwhelming support, as often as is necessary.

Personally, there is no building on the UT board that I am now more passionately against than 1ST, and for that matter its architect, Robert A. B. Stern. Regardless of whether this opposition to a building that will be here for some time is a minority position of a few on this forum, or it became a minority position of one - namely myself - I would still feel justified in questioning this type of architecture for Toronto. I shall spare you a redux of past arguments, but I can say that after the due diligence of looking at Mr. Stern's work over the years, not just the photos, but firsthand, and having a prior history of reading and writing about him, examining the arc of his career - not in an insular fashion only, but also in relation to others in his profession - I think I can come to this forum with an informed perspective, not just a collection of groundless opinions.

If you've noticed, I have begun to discuss Stern, the man, through the Richard Meier thread in another section. I have also researched the evolution of Stern's Comcast tower, that at first looked like a departure in design, but that masked another story about what was intended versus what had to be built. I cannot rightfully bring all that detail to this thread, but it is proof that your conclusion that repetition is all you see in the opposition at this point, is at best confined to this thread only, even when it comes to this indivdual. If you are in for the long haul, that expansion of a critical perspective toward Stern will slowly emerge throughout these threads, and I believe that it will come from several people, not just the handful you are getting on this building thus far.

 

[adma]

Matter-of-factly speaking, I'd nominate it as "heritage" on a count of its being Stern's major work in Toronto.

And, detractors take note: if we wanna go Godwin on this, built relics of the Third Reich are considered heritage-worthy, too...

 

[Tewder]

I Personally, there is no building on the UT board that I am now more passionately against than 1ST, and for that matter its architect, Robert A. B. Stern. Regardless of whether this opposition to a building that will be here for some time is a minority position of a few on this forum, or it became a minority position of one - namely myself - I would still feel justified in questioning this type of architecture for Toronto. I shall spare you a redux of past arguments, but I can say that after the due diligence of looking at Mr. Stern's work over the years, not just the photos, but firsthand, and having a prior history of reading and writing about him, examining the arc of his career - not in an insular fashion only, but also in relation to others in his profession - I think I can come to this forum with an informed perspective, not just a collection of groundless opinions.

Those of us who 'like' this building are not necessarily advocating this style as the new lingua franca of architecture for the city, and though your extensive research is admirable it does feel a little reactionary. This is a pretty building, well done with nice materials. That's all. There are all kinds of other buildings, minimalist or cutting edge or otherwise sprouting up all over this burg, and One St. Thomas is hardly the death knell of innovative design and architecture that many alarmists seem to consider it to be.

 

[scarberiankhatru]

Hardly? The fate of the western world rests in Stern's hands!

 

[alklay]

I agree with Tewder. Stern is hardly the anti-Christ and this is certainly not the worst building built in the last few years.

I wish it represented a contemporary vocabulary but I respect the fact that it succeeded in doing what it wanted to do: represent a vocabulary of the past.

Well executed and well designed. This is more than I can say for so many other condos in the city, which do represent a contemporary vocabulary.

 

[Urban Shocker]

Given the context of what is happening in contemporary architecture, the stylistic rear view mirror approach of a building like 1 St. Thomas is about as relevant as Edwardian Baroque was in the age of Art Nouveau, regardless of which big name American architect did it or how lavish the materials used. Given the nostalgia-based pastiche it embodies, I'm not even sure the word 'design' could properly be used to describe the process that produced something like this.

 

[ganjavih]

Given the nostalgia-based pastiche it embodies, I'm not even sure the word 'design' could properly be used to describe the process that produced something like this.

Can you use the word 'design' for all the rehashed glass boxes we get that all pretty much look the same?

 

[Urban Shocker]

Everything that is rehashed exists in a design-free zone. That's what gave Modernism a bad name - all those faux-Mies boxes that weren't designed by Mies and missed the point of what he was doing. But I think there's a special place in hell reserved for architects who pander to Cheddintonistas by creating demand for nostalgia-based faux fakery and then supplying it.

 

[ganjavih]

But I think there's a special place in hell reserved for architects who pander to Cheddintonistas by creating demand for nostalgia-based faux fakery and then supplying it.

Why?

Incidentally, I don't think they create the demand, I think the demand is there. It's probably a reaction to the simplicity and minimalism of comtemporary design. Perhaps it was refreshing at first, but it does get boring after a while. It's unfortunate that most faux historical developments look fake and are of much poorer quality than the originals they mimick, but I guess for many, it's better than nothing.

 

[Urban Shocker]

Though nothing beats living in the real world. Fakery is inherent in faux historical developments - when was the last time we saw a local architect take a style from the past and does something new with it? The McKinsey building, which is a take on Prairie School but not a copy of it, maybe.

I seem to remember the "glass box" diversionary argument being brought up earlier on this thread, but the fact remains that Cheddintonista-style ( and 1 St. Thomas is surely the deluxe, ne plus ultra example of this look, locally ) retreads are consistently shut out from serious critical acclaim and disavowed by the design community when time comes to publicly recognize what has creative merit. Hence my earlier point that we're talking less about design, and more about the culture of marketing - and the nice, toasty, freshly-stoked briquette lounge chair that creators of this nonsense will relax in, in the afterlife.

 

[Redroom Studios]

anybody have a spare dictionary? ^^^^

why bother arguing with detractors at this point? its built and there aint nothing that can be done about it... short of a terrorist act.

 

[scarberiankhatru]

I don't see anything wrong condemning 1 St. Thomas for a lack of theoretical or practical 'progress' in the field of architecture or design or whatever else (even though it most certainly is as much of our time as anything else currently getting built other than Libeskind/Gehry/Alsop creations) while at the same time acknowledging that, since most modern architecture is an urban failure, we might as well have some more or less successful buildings thrown in for good measure. Those that say it isn't attractive are mostly the same people that hand out awards. What 1 St. Thomas means to Stern and what it means to Toronto are not the same thing. Boiling the argument down to essential elements, we're only talking about different kinds of cladding, anyway...and cladding really doesn't matter that much.

 

[Tewder]

It is an exercise in futility to attempt to condemn Stern yet phrase Clewes. Both are pillagers of the past. One's aesthetic happens to be the fashion right now while the other's is not.