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

[Urban Shocker]

What extinct styles has Clewes pillaged to create Spire, or 18 Yorkville, or MoZo, pray tell? He used a string course, subtly, in MoZo - but other than that little nod to the nineteenth century I can't think of any other examples, of late.

 

[Zephyr]

Take note buildup.

I am not at all surprised at how swiftly the Stern supporters have responded since my last post. And if their views are not a collective rehash, or repeat, or whatever synonym you wish to use, I don't know what else one can call it. There is at least a score of pages already on this thread that we could use to demonstrate how the current arguments are being recycled. So if you are going to declare one side guilty, be fair, and call the other side guilty as well. A higher position would be welcomed at this stage, but I haven't seen any of these discussions turn in that direction.

Oh, and the name-calling has also reappeared. Less strident than before, but carelessly thrown into the mix, like a lit match among the dry timbers.

So now I am a reactionary, or my position on Stern and his architecture 'feels reactionary'. I shall remind those that have forgotten, this is a decidedly pejorative word when used in any discussion. What is more, it would take quite a bit of redefinition to make it fit any challenge to Stern's architecture, or his well known efforts to politicise the architectural field in the past. One St. Thomas is not a revolutionary piece of architecture, and to say so is not reactionary. To question Stern's behaviour in the past is not reactionary either.

 

[scarberiankhatru]

As for retreading, you dredged the argument back up, Zephyr.

 

[Redroom Studios]

arguing about architectural fashion is a priviledge for the well fed. Really fashion is just a pretense... Money makes the world go round. There was an opportunity for various interested parties to make money here. They pursued that opportunity, the tower is built, people are moving in, money changes hands, the world turns. There is a whole other way to look at this... its the only white building in the area... its a different shape than other buildings in the area... so what if it looks like L.A. city hall?

 

[scarberiankhatru]

arguing about architectural fashion is a priviledge for the well fed.

Perhaps it's urban heresy to say this, but I ultimately agree, especially since all buildings are disposable commodities.

 

[yyzer]

I actually feel sorry for Shocker and for Zephyr...because, if they can't see the beauty of this building, then their appreciation of beauty has surely died in some architectural-elitist dogma-induced haze...

I never realized what a mental straitjacket the world of architecture was in, until reading these debates...there is nothing "faux" about the Stern building, it talks to people in an emotional way that glass boxes never will. It has beauty and grace, and the workmanship is impeccable. To argue that architecture must reflect someone's narrow view of reality is really nothing but an intellectual conceit. To say that you deliberately avoid walking by this building is a strange admission - would you deliberately avoid the Arc de Triomphe, because it is 'faux' for its era?

To suggest that architects must guide the unwashed public, with the implication that the public doesn't know what is good for it, is elitist, and frankly, repugnant.

I am beginning to think that architecture is too important to leave to the architects. That's why the real artists today are iconoclasts- the Libeskinds, Calatravas, they don't give a damn what some pencil-neck academic defines as 'proper'.

 

[Redroom Studios]

yep, I must agree ... I recently got to see the building up close for the first time and the materials and workmanship are absolutely top notch. And there is a great deal of romance in this building... the upper story set backs and terraces evoke images of another time (and place)

 

[Urban Shocker]

Equating this thing to the Arc de Triomphe - which was built by a French Emperor to celebrate military victories in an age of absolute monarchy and dictatorship, when leaders like Napoleon and Catherine the Great modelled their empires on those of ancient Greece and Rome and the leading architects and artists drew on that past for inspiration - is ludicrous. Who nowadays, in Toronto's creative community, is channelling Vitruvius or Phideus?

Better, indeed, to avert one's gaze and hurry past when faced with such pastiche - it has little connection to our world, unless you're one of Stern's Cheddingtonista adherents, with their nostalgia for another time, another place.

 

[CanadianNational]

It's a polygot age, m'dear - Hellenism a-go-go is still the order of the day in this zany world of multiple choices, mercantilism, styles and affections. Stately purity was suspect for at least three thousand years before Mies Van DerRohe presented his plans for the Reichsbank to the unhappy monomaniacs ruling Germany.

Loving A does not rule out B. Or C. Or the rest of the alphabet...all at once, and simultaneously, if you like.
Mr. Stern`s recent confection is every bit as modern as anything else going up at the same time in this city. Same technology. Same materials. Same cultural basis regarding proper architecture. Two slightly different branches on the same very present tree. Whoop-dee-do-eye-aye.
The difference between this building and anything modernistic are only skin deep. Checked out the price on really high-end minimalism lately (those snooty pastiches of the Seidlungen)?

 

[Urban Shocker]

Stern's skins, as with the skins that our local fauxmongers produce, are lifted from a nostalgic style-catalogue of greatest hits from past centuries. They're often loud, self-important, pretentious, showy, cringe-worthy, crowd-pleasers. The cultural basis that enables them is heavily marketed-to bourgeois middle class good taste - "proper architecture" indeed. That's a million miles away from the quiet simplicity and modernity of the buildings our best local architects are now producing, in a style that has evolved directly from Toronto's strong Modernist traditions - and it's amusing to watch the culture of marketing, aided and abetted in this case by a famous American such as Stern, trying to shill their product as though it were their cultural equal.

 

[TonyV]

Stern's skins, as with the skins that our local fauxmongers produce, are lifted from a nostalgic style-catalogue of greatest hits from past centuries. They're often loud, self-important, pretentious, showy, cringe-worthy, crowd-pleasers. The cultural basis that enables them is heavily marketed-to bourgeois middle class good taste - "proper architecture" indeed. That's a million miles away from the quiet simplicity and modernity of the buildings our best local architects are now producing, in a style that has evolved directly from Toronto's strong Modernist traditions - and it's amusing to watch the culture of marketing, aided and abetted in this case by a famous American such as Stern, trying to shill their product as though it were their cultural equal.

Amen.

 

[Urban Shocker]

I'll be signing glossies in the lobby after the show.

 

[junctionist]

Stern's skins, as with the skins that our local fauxmongers produce, are lifted from a nostalgic style-catalogue of greatest hits from past centuries. They're often loud, self-important, pretentious, showy, cringe-worthy, crowd-pleasers. The cultural basis that enables them is heavily marketed-to bourgeois middle class good taste - "proper architecture" indeed. That's a million miles away from the quiet simplicity and modernity of the buildings our best local architects are now producing, in a style that has evolved directly from Toronto's strong Modernist traditions - and it's amusing to watch the culture of marketing, aided and abetted in this case by a famous American such as Stern, trying to shill their product as though it were their cultural equal.

If there's a music analogy here, then this building is like the tribute band that attempts to capture all the nuances of the original. For some it's nostalgic, but others who didn't get to experience the original can get a taste and enjoy. It's like the tribute band "Comfortably Numb". All the details of the originals have to be there. This may be the first building to do a decent tribute.

There is a modernist tradition in our high rises which is a key part of heritage. But we need some new vocabulary, because people equate the modernism of 40 years ago to what is modern today. Stern wisely moved away from the postmodern label, because what was postmodern is now modern. People are not hesitant to use ideas from different times and cultures in argument and the new architecture reflects this.

 

[Zephyr]

As for retreading, you dredged the argument back up, Zephyr.

Very creative blame game. If you disagree you are dredging it up. Give me a break.

I actually feel sorry for Shocker and for Zephyr...because, if they can't see the beauty of this building, then their appreciation of beauty has surely died in some architectural-elitist dogma-induced haze...

Having fun yyzer? Let me make myself plain - I am nobody's fool, and certainly not yours.

For someone so willing to call my position elitist, you are quite the paternalist in an insincere way. Isn't that the type of behaviour that one associates with elitists, a group you so otherwise find odious. What makes my disagreement about Stern so tantamount to being unable to appreciate the beauty of this building? The original argument from my point of view was never about beauty, but over what the architecture represents to Toronto. I am sorry but I have never wavered from that position, and I have been accused of repeating it, over and over. And now it should be obvious the reason why it must be repeated. What you have done is falsely represent my views and proceed to go on the attack of the straw man.

I never realized what a mental straitjacket the world of architecture was in, until reading these debates...there is nothing "faux" about the Stern building, it talks to people in an emotional way that glass boxes never will. It has beauty and grace, and the workmanship is impeccable. To argue that architecture must reflect someone's narrow view of reality is really nothing but an intellectual conceit. To say that you deliberately avoid walking by this building is a strange admission - would you deliberately avoid the Arc de Triomphe, because it is 'faux' for its era?

The faux argument is as legitimate as any applied to Stern's architecture. If you don't see it, is that the fault of the people who have detailed it in other Robert Stern buildings, and in other kinds of architecture beside Mr. Stern? I believe we went over this before on this thread. Just look back iwhen you get a chance. If you insist it is not there, there are some readily available essays and books that you can get into. In the meantime, I'll just treat this as a failure to understand what is meant by 'faux'.

Moreover, the rejection of Stern's high-rise architecture does not automatically leave one with glass boxes. I believe I am on record as liking most of Jeanne Gang's work, and Mr. Calatrava, and I can add to that an appreciation of Classicism in its time, not in its attempted revival via Robert Stern. Then there is the Egyptian architecture that I am interested in, and De-constructivist architecture, etc. Most of this has nothing to do with glass boxes. But perhaps the narrowness you are foistering onto those that reject Stern, may be a form of projection.

To suggest that architects must guide the unwashed public, with the implication that the public doesn't know what is good for it, is elitist, and frankly, repugnant.

I am beginning to think that architecture is too important to leave to the architects. That's why the real artists today are iconoclasts- the Libeskinds, Calatravas, they don't give a damn what some pencil-neck academic defines as 'proper'.

Do I detect a new group to attack as elitists - the Architects? I suspect you really meant the Architecture critics, or a related group, maybe those who don't think 1ST is the cat's meow. You'll have to clarify that at some point.

What is interesting to me is that you then drop on us Mr. Calatrava and Mr. Libeskind. And how did you put it - "real artists' such as these 'iconoclasts'. and you must have known that this would leave your reader wondering about where that places Mr. Stern. He certainly is not an iconoclast in creating 1ST, and after spending time in your post, commenting on Mr. Stern's craftsmanship, how does he hold up on the 'real artist' score?

While it is true that Santiago Calatrava Valls started out as an artist, he now has two Ph.D's: one in architecture, and one in engineering. He has written in academic journals of the most esoteric kind, early in his career. And in case you didn't know, he comes from an aristocratic Spanish family that goes back several generations. I guess your 'pencil-neck' image vs the real artist is not a black-and-white picture - it often isn't.

We will have to save Mr. Libeskind for another day.

 

[Hydrogen]

I have to admit that I am a little surprised that, of all buildings presently going up in the city, this one has illicited such strong reactions. While I am not a big fan of faux stylings, there does not appear to be anything particularly offensive with this building (in my opinion).

I agree with Shocker that things like the Cheddington are the worst cases of this architectural longing for the past. And I agree with Zephyr that this building - and by extension the architect - has done nothing new in attempting to revive a particular style. While I respect both these points of view (because I think they have some merit), I personally don't find this building to be an eyesore. I am certainly not blown away by it either; but can also see the reasons why some people really like it.

If this building does contribute one thing, it's contrast. The somewhat modern take on an older style will serve nicely to highlight the more contemporary designs that have gone up, or will be going up, in the general area.