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

[Zephyr]

Yet one wouldn't blithely *discard* the Nashville Parthenon because it's not the "real deal"...

I would agree, they are not likely to discard it.

When I was in Nashville about two years ago, visiting friends at Vanderbilt University, we went down to this Parthenon - along with a number of others - to take a look-see. It looked a bit yellowish in the twilight, and up close there was all manner of graffiti on the columns. I asked the Vandy people, who came from the surrounding area, what they thought about all this, and they were quite convinced that the structure would be torn down before too long. Why? Because they believed that no one really cared about it anymore.

That structure has been there over a hundred years now, so I think a tear down is unlikely - it has acquired a perceived historical value in recalling a state's 100th birthday when it was completed in the late nineteenth century, and that city's pride in proclaiming itself the 'Athens of the South'. This Nashville Parthenon is part of a strange duet in Tennessee - the other being the more recent Memphis Pyramid (just knew that association with its namesake in Egypt would inevitable translate into this).

These two structures are not too far removed from a country in the Far East, recreating selective parts of Venice, including St. Marcos. Or nearer still in the garish nods to the past in neon and laser lights in Vegas (Robert Venturi's embrace aside). Or the recreation of ancient Chinese buildings, and French Landmarks in Disney World. Or on our doorsteps in a certain building which is Robert Stern's recent speciality, and the subject of this thread.

The last may recall another era in a quasi-generic way, but in the final analysis it will fall short. I see it becoming a long-term dogged reminder of what we will settle for here, and not what we can aspire. The spoils of nostalgia of this type will not age well.

 

[Urban Shocker]

Let's not confuse the "heritage-worthy" status bestowed on Edwardian Baroque by adma, and on the Nashville Parthenon - merely the result of their having survived for a century - with the celebration of innovative design. Art Nouveau buildings, such as those by Gaudi, are a reflection of the creative avant garde of that era, whereas Edwardian Baroque ( Stern-esque faux retreads of their day ) isn't. Preserving a quirky copycat structure simply because it survives, and preserving something because it has originality and artistic merit, are two quite different things.

 

[Tewder]

...yet you argue that Clewes' rehashing (and bastardizing) of modernism is somehow 'cutting edge' and 'never-seen-before' innovative design. It isn't. It is the current fashion and that is all. This isn't a crime though. Fashions do speak to us and of us. The fact that Georgian England and Colonial America were inspired by the classicism of Ancient Greece says as much about them and their generation as the original version thereof does about the Greeks. There is no shame or dishonour in revivalism, and in being inspired by the past. This is common in all the arts. Whether the style serves as inspiration for a new perspective or approach to the original, or whether it is merely expertly executed reproduction, there is merit... and there is room on the skyline for all of this, if done with integrity.

 

[Zephyr]

...yet you argue that Clewes' rehashing (and bastardizing) of modernism is somehow 'cutting edge' and 'never-seen-before' innovative design. It isn't. It is the current fashion and that is all. This isn't a crime though. Fashions do speak to us and of us. The fact that Georgian England and Colonial America were inspired by the classicism of Ancient Greece says as much about them and their generation as the original version thereof does about the Greeks. There is no shame or dishonour in revivalism, and in being inspired by the past. This is common in all the arts. Whether the style serves as inspiration for a new perspective or approach to the original, or whether it is merely expertly executed reproduction, there is merit... and there is room on the skyline for all of this, if done with integrity.

I suppose that your post is directed toward Urban Schocker. But if I may, I have critiqued Clewes' X Condominium for the rehash already. The relevant post was on that Clewes' thread for you to read, and it was prompted by one of this current group that is misrepresenting what is being stated about Stern here.

And in a generic sense, Urban Schocker has already indicated that Modernist architecture can result in poor architecture by copying, just a few posts back. Is that relevant, or water over the bridge? He and I may disagree about whether Clewes is an offender or not, but the principle still remains.

On the subject of Revivalism, I will only speak for myself. Because currently, my views on this are considerably more complex and probably differ from many others lumped onto one or the other side of this discussion, by one or the other side of this discussion. I do agree that Revivalism can be a legitimate avenue to bring back a style. But this form of it, in my opinion, is not legitimate. That's the reductionalist summation.

That allusion to non-skyscrapers relating to revivalism is all fine and good, but skyscraper history on this score is considerably different.

 

[Urban Shocker]

As I've pointed out several times on this thread, Tewder, classical revival was of its time, culturally, but we're not living in the eighteenth century any more. I've never said there is anything wrong with being inspired by the past, merely that nobody in Toronto's creative community is apparently channelling Vitruvius or Phideus these days. If they are, correct me. There's no actual law against producing faux - it is the comfortable and nostalgic architectural comfort food of our day - but why make a fetish of trying to pass it off as something more important than it is? To all intents and purposes it is irrelevant as a creative force, and Zephyr is right to question the legitimacy of the form of "revival" that 1 St Thomas represents: PoMo had about five minutes of originality but once it abandoned any sense of irony it deflated pretty quickly into a deadeningly dull catalogue of stylistic retreads of the sort used in this building.

 

[adma]

Let's not confuse the "heritage-worthy" status bestowed on Edwardian Baroque by adma, and on the Nashville Parthenon - merely the result of their having survived for a century - with the celebration of innovative design. Art Nouveau buildings, such as those by Gaudi, are a reflection of the creative avant garde of that era, whereas Edwardian Baroque ( Stern-esque faux retreads of their day ) isn't. Preserving a quirky copycat structure simply because it survives, and preserving something because it has originality and artistic merit, are two quite different things.

Yet there's no legitimate heritage body or sensibility out there that's prepared to hew so utterly narrowly to such criteria as "the celebration of innovative design".

Though I do agree that a peril of the raw, undifferentiated, one-size-fits-all heritage *label* is one of, in US's words, passing something off as "more important than it is". Which isn't an argument against the imperfect and less-than-innovative, rather it's an argument against "raw, undifferentiated, one-size-fits-all". The "heritage" merits of the Nashville Parthenon have nothing to do with claims to its being the equal of its model, or with claims to its being the equal of, say, the AEG Turbine Factory. In fact, such claim-mongering in practice just amounts to so much silly penis-measuring--and any heritage body worth its salt knows it.

So, can the unyielding pro-Modern hot air. It reminds me too much of Damion Augustus' separatist blather over on the Canadian political forum...

 

[Zephyr]

Let me see if I understand this adma.

If I take what started this turn, on this thread, a remark by buildup, and bring it down to your parting comment, the last one made yesterday mind you, I seem to have the following train of thought. The real problem with this thread is a minority of 'unyielding' people filled with 'hot air,' spontaneously posting the same things 'over & over', without provocation. And they are the pro-Modern crowd, and the pro-Modern crowd only.

(I won't even touch on that reference to another thread which you made, except to acknowledge that I did read it in your response, and I am aware of what you are trying to compare.)

Quite frankly, I think that if this is your joint view, or some facsimile thereof, it seems to be out of character for you, it is obviously unbalanced in its perception, and it is intolerant of those that have another opinion. The problem, if you want to call it a problem, is that there are two, strongly held views, that are also in direct opposition. Compounding all this, there exist at least two distinct levels to this discussion - informed dialogue and kneejerk reaction. Neither side is making progress, and each side believes they are correct. The building is already up so that is no longer something that can be changed.

Perhaps what looks 'unyielding' to you, is consistency and conviction. What is repeated 'over & over' to buildup, is what is not being understood or even listened to, lending to inevitable mis-representation. And what seems like elitism to yyzer, are people attempting to use their brain to understand what they are reacting to in Stern's building. That is how I see it at least.

In the meantime, let's hope that dissent does not disappear on this building or any other for that matter. That is because dissent, as I am sure you are already aware, mirror views that are held outside this forum by a number of disparate groups. Despite the sparks that will inevitably fly, the moment valid and informed opinions no longer appear in this discussion, it will mark an unhealthy environment in which to discuss Architecture of any kind, or any other subject that might wander into these confines to be examined by these members.

 

[TrickyRicky]

"There's no actual law against producing faux - it is the comfortable and nostalgic architectural comfort food of our day"

Do you mean faux or pho?

 

[buildup]

Unfortunately I lost track of this thread over the last few days, although a quick skim of recent posts would suggest that Zephyr is grudgingly coming around on this project. Does than capture your position?

I think you were caught in an awkward position immediatley above the rabble (just myself) who unapologetically like this building, and see it as one of the most distinctive, original, playfull buildings in the city - is there anything else like it US?

Then there is you and US. US's posts are obscure, elitist, playful and gay. Yours are highyl academic but serious. Deadly serious. Both of you are downright annoyed that some stubbornly like the building. Maybe that is why you are so annoyed, because many refuse to accept your expert opinion? (I will say that in all honestly I do admire and respect the learning you bring to this thread.)

Then there's the truly enlightened crowd (neither you nor I, sorry) who don't hide behind obscure metaphors (like US), who communicate in plain english, are open to this building and not asking it to be something which it is not attempting to be. The generous, non-threatened view. To paraphrase, 'if Stern chooses to reference the past, somewhat eclectically, its not the end of the world. Other architects will explore other paths'.

"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...I can say that after the due diligence of looking at Mr. Stern's work over the years...and having a prior history of reading and writing about him, examining the arc of his career...If you've noticed, I have begun to discuss Stern, the man...that expansion of a critical perspective toward Stern will slowly emerge throughout these threads"

This sounds like a lot of misdirected energy. Spend your energies on faceless developers who don't even bother to hire an architect and just erect one slab, or glass box, after another. Was it you who said earlier that you go out of your way not to walk by the building? I'm confused.

 

[Andrew3D]

What's not to like?

​

 

[Hydrogen]

Generally, I find nothing "wrong" with the building overall. However, some of the detailing is a bit odd (the high black-white contrast, for example). Also, I find the columns and doorways to be very fussy-looking, if not a bit pompous.

But that's just my opinion.

For those of you really like this project, all I have to say is: "enjoy."

 

[adma]

Perhaps what looks 'unyielding' to you, is consistency and conviction.

Not so much that, as consistency and conviction drawn so tight that it squeaks.

Look; my beef isn't just with the "unyieldingness". After all, I, too find a lot of the defense here of 1 St. Thomas to be, well, a bit on the naive side. Like, frank as it may be, the statement "what's not to like" and a series of photos of the joint makes for too soft and off-the-mark a shot at the building's detractors. At least, whatever may pass as my own defense of its present-and-future landmark qualities is based in large part more on broad-pictured historical (not stylistically, but "real-time") and phenomenological factors. It's like taking a worm's eye at all sorts of "consistencies and convictions". To use trendy prefixology, I'd rather be meta.

Scratch away the surface, and you may find me to be an abject slobbering anarchist at heart who recognizes something like this as a deeper aesthetic experience than either Clewes modernism or Stern traditionalism

...and knowing that, as well as the pitfalls thereof, I can return to Clewes or Stern, recognizing the folly and vanity of either side taken as "good design" dogma.

Yet in my heart, between those two, I'll still choose Clewes. But perhaps with friends like me, Clewes (or Stern, for that matter) don't need enemies. I guess that's where the "abject slobbering anarchist" comes in, then...

 

[Andrew3D]

Not so much that, as consistency and conviction drawn so tight that it squeaks.

Look; my beef isn't just with the "unyieldingness". After all, I, too find a lot of the defense here of 1 St. Thomas to be, well, a bit on the naive side. Like, frank as it may be, the statement "what's not to like" and a series of photos of the joint makes for too soft and off-the-mark a shot at the building's detractors. At least, whatever may pass as my own defense of its present-and-future landmark qualities is based in large part more on broad-pictured historical (not stylistically, but "real-time") and phenomenological factors. It's like taking a worm's eye at all sorts of "consistencies and convictions". To use trendy prefixology, I'd rather be meta.

Sorry Adma, I actually got off my ass yesterday went out and took pictures of the building to show off the architects attention to detail and top notch craftsmanship. Some people in this forum need to take something to combat their verbal diarrhea. I don't need to come on here and post long winded tiresome remarks when as the saying goes a picture is worth a thousand words.

 

[jaborandi]

Yet in my heart, between those two, I'll still choose Clewes. But perhaps with friends like me, Clewes (or Stern, for that matter) don't need enemies.

or But perhaps with friends like me, Clewes (or Stern, for that matter) don't need friends

 

[Zephyr]

Sorry Adma, I actually got off my ass yesterday went out and took pictures of the building to show off the architects attention to detail and top notch craftsmanship. Some people in this forum need to take something to combat their verbal diarrhea. I don't need to come on here and post long winded tiresome remarks when as the saying goes a picture is worth a thousand words.

Nice to know as the cliche goes that a picture is worth a thousand words. But I wonder what those words would be for each of us? "What's not to like?" while not long winded is certainly tiresome.