News   Jan 09, 2025
 404     0 
News   Jan 09, 2025
 292     0 
News   Jan 09, 2025
 574     0 

Barber: Get Rid of Redpath

I never made that claim in this case; in fact, I fundamentally agree w/JMM on the sign point. While "bold, red-blooded" may be a florid way of putting it, the old sans-serif lettering *was* integral to the overall architectural impression, as it often is w/such architecture (think Dessau Bauhaus, etc)--and trashing it altogether was definitely a lunkheadedly shortsighted move.

And again, the owners could have stuck a T&L logo alongside/beneath the red lettering, as a compromise, if they were so hung up on "corporate branding" (cf. the whole Fairmont Royal York sign controversy). Now if JMM were to gripe about *that*, it might be going a bit too far, as you say...

Unfortunately, such is the nature of Redpath that the entire ensemble is the architectural point of the place; to merely save a fragment (say, the shed--or even just the whale mural) would be as misguidedly wan as the Normal School fragment within the Ryerson quad. So yes, if there were some creative Montreal-silo-esque way to reuse it all whenever Redpath pulls out, that'd be the best solution. And yes, that'd include restoring those big red letters...
 
Thinking of it more deeply, it may be best to consider the old Redpath lettering as the 50s equivalent of the Tip Top Tailors sign
234749-79630.jpg

258059251_b1474b33c8.jpg

...which, from an urban-landmark perspective, might give incentive to its restoration/reinstatement...
 
The silly word-spacing - that great yawning chasm between REDPATH and SUGAR - was art school Typography 101 treason and reason enough to remove the sign.
 
Sorry to misinterpret you, Adma. And I don't want to get into an angels-on-the-head-of-a-pin kind of argument; I understand that the sign has cultural value.

But it's signage, on a building which itself is realistically pretty much doomed. (Unless somebody starts selling Redpath Lofts... 90-foot ceilings, anyone?) Are there not more important things to worry about?

Modern preservation isn't a popular cause here. And this sort of undiscerning nostalgia does not open people's eyes. (See also: mourning the T2 parking garage.) It just invites ridicule from the unconverted.
 
What is the economic contribution of Red Path? How many people work there? Do the big ships coming in pay large port fees to the city? Is there any economic good to keeping them?
 
I say keep it forever.

Better to have this...

234749-79630.jpg



instead of another this...

building_front.jpg
 
Modern preservation isn't a popular cause here. And this sort of undiscerning nostalgia does not open people's eyes. (See also: mourning the T2 parking garage.) It just invites ridicule from the unconverted.

Except that the T2 parking garage Spacing link you offer actually (IMO, anyway) *disproves* your theory about "not opening people's eyes"--though it helps that it's S. Micallef doing the musing rather than J. Martins-Manteiga, so it's more reflective than reactive, so to speak. (And not really about strict "preservation" per se, except in a meta-sense.) Like, if you feel that particular piece "fails" because the object of reflection isn't worth reflecting on, you're more behind than ahead of the curve, as I see it; if this is "undiscerning nostalgia", better that than *over*discerning. Heck, it's on a different level altogether--maybe a level that comes more "naturally" to those of, er, the Spacing generation + ethos. So if it made your eyes roll rather than open, maybe you're just either too much of a style snob, or on the wrong side of an urbanist generation gap out there.

And as far as "ridicule from the unconverted" goes; at this point, it's looking more and more like a red/blue divide issue anyway, so the ridicule is mutual, and it's more about who pulls and rallies whatever political levers et al. We're in an age of style-culture segmentation; the best we can hope for is a creative, disarming openness to *all* that surrounds us (as embodied by, well, that T2 piece).

Oh, and ironically, if I know Martins-Manteiga well enough, he'd probably *agree* with you that it'd be better to put Redpath out of its misery altogether than disfigure it (even as "Redpath Lofts"), or keep only fragments, etc...
 
The top "this" is actually gone in part. Hence much of the discussion on this thread.

The bottom "this" is unlikely.
 
Of course, if you want "undiscerning", think of how the bottom "this" has so often been used as ammunition against *any* waterfront condos or development.

Slightly more valid ammunition (at least in that it reflects a token modicum of still-valid post-Crombie/Jacobs streetfronting ideal) might be the 80s Huang & Danczkay yellow-brick boners (Harbourpoint, Maple Leaf Quay)...
 
"In the meantime, the Redpath regulation is frustrating neighbouring property owners and preventing them from building what the market really does want -- apartments -- the construction of which can be leveraged to yield amenities such as a continuous waterfront promenade, new parks and gathering places."

Like the Union train shed, I definitely don't think Redpath is untouchable because it meets certain historical criteria. I guess this is where a design or planning department with some teeth is needed. I have visions of this hulking mass sitting empty for decades like the Canada malting silos while plan after plan falls through.
 
it's more about who pulls and rallies whatever political levers et al. We're in an age of style-culture segmentation; the best we can hope for is a creative, disarming openness to *all* that surrounds us (as embodied by, well, that T2 piece).

Adma, this is exactly my point. That "openness" is a sensibility that very few people share. And Shawn Micallef is never going to convince the average (boomer) powerful Torontonian that the T2 parking garage is worthy of preservation. In any case, there is zero chance of that happening, under any circumstances. In what role could you preserve it? In this case he is purely wanking to the converted.

Politics IS what matters. If people who care about modern preservation actually want to make a difference, they should be focusing on serious activism -- and a discourse that will open the eyes of the "unenlightened" by speaking in terms they can understand. History. Famous Architects. A Fine Example of Mid-Century Modern Design and Craftsmanship.

John Martins Manteiga's focus on trifling things, I fear, doesn't help build bridges.
 
some thought went into its aestetics but it is still a rather commonplace parking structure - a few pictures on record is more than enough
 
The only Redpath sign of any typographical interest - the distinctive one on the side of the building in cursive script - remains.
 
Adma, this is exactly my point. That "openness" is a sensibility that very few people share. And Shawn Micallef is never going to convince the average (boomer) powerful Torontonian that the T2 parking garage is worthy of preservation. In any case, there is zero chance of that happening, under any circumstances. In what role could you preserve it? In this case he is purely wanking to the converted.

Except that you're missing his (and my) larger point--it's not about preservation per se. Note this paragraph in particular...

Though there is no need to strike a Save Terminal Two Committee or chain hippies to the concrete to block the wrecking ball, this old parking garage and terminal will be missed a little. When a place this big suddenly ceases to be a place, it’s a strange thing, and leaves a bit of hole in the psychogeography of the city. Two years ago we flew out of Montreal’s Mirabel Airport during it’s dying days — it had a similar feeling of mass abandonment. You can almost hear the buildings say “I used to be somebody, I used to be a contender.â€

You see, he's not arguing for its preservation; he's arguing that it's worthy of creative reflection. Big--and enlightening--difference. Even a lot of "average (boomer) powerful Torontonians" could open their eyes to that, I'll betcha.

But I do understand what you're getting at; there's a certain cramped mindset out there that gets reactive at any such "creative reflection" (i.e. "hey, you like it? you wanna preserve it? then fork over eleventy jillion bucks and find a place to move it!"). Like, it may be deemed an obtrusively sentimental reflex in the way of progress; a more passive-aggressive tributary of the same old "preservationist impulse" perhaps--but is that bad, necessarily?

And besides, a couple of other points...

(1) frankly, if it's so-called "undiscerning nostalgia" that pains you, modernists don't claim exclusivity--think of the 48 Abell flap, which some may argue is out of all proportion to the address's merit and design and physical integrity, et al. Yet, maybe there's a deeper message, which is why the address has become such a powerful emblem--anyway.

(2) for all of JMM's (or, I guess, Shawn Micallef's) focus upon "trifling things", TBH I highly doubt a more discerning professional/professorial realm can do any better in building bridges, converting skeptics, etc; indeed, they may be even more strongly stigmatized on that count, pigeonholed as complicit in the sins of our elders--consider, once again, the Boston City Hall issue. Or, heck, consider Babel's arguments on behalf of 77 Elm, the 4SC, etc, on this board--I mean, *I'm* fundamentally on-side (sorta), but...

So, re the business of "History. Famous Architects. A Fine Example of Mid-Century Modern Design and Craftsmanship"; yes, but. A bigger key here might be, yes, in those so-called "trifling things"--that is, a constructive, inclusive pushing of the bar beyond a stiff canon, toward the everyday. Maybe the trifling *isn't* so trifling--although it helps when it forms part of a bigger picture, and is not made to seem more "important" than it is (in which case, I understand the point of your criticism). Anyway, it's a bit of an organic cultural process, and it has happened before, with other stylistic periods--and conversely, be aware of how an excessive focus upon "fine examples" can be misused and abused (y'know, "not as good as H. H. Richardson", et al).

It's a matter of breaking down so-called "style snobbery"--and unfortunately, we're talking about a design idiom that's been terribly stigmatized by said "snobbery". And doubly unfortunately, it's the kind of thing that can be better achieved by a de facto network of so-called trivia/everyday-chasers like John M-M, Shawn Micallef, Dave LeBlanc, than by Babel tying the style-snob strings too tight on "typographical interest", et al. Really.

Incidentally, speaking of Spacing...
 
a constructive, inclusive pushing of the bar beyond a stiff canon, toward the everyday. Maybe the trifling *isn't* so trifling--although it helps when it forms part of a bigger picture, and is not made to seem more "important" than it is (in which case, I understand the point of your criticism).

Yes, that's part of what I'm getting at. To sell modern preservation more widely (including to some members of the preservation field) calls for clear thinking... and a certain degree of perspective about what's worth defending. Which is not everything.

It is valuable and important to expand the canon, as you put it. The problem is that Shawn Micallef on T2, or John M-M re Redpath, aren't doing that. They're not really making an argument -- aesthetic, historical, geographical -- that will defend what they like, or convince people to rethink how they see the city.

Dave LeBlanc I think is the best of the "trivia-chasers" you mention, because he's actually interested in explaining why people should care about Don Mills, or whatever. That's useful.

Shawn Micallef isn't really a preservationist, and the Spacing crowd doesn't seem inclined in that direction -- even though they're smart and effectively polemical on public-space issues.

I guess I'm basically making this point: Personal musing is not rhetoric. Talking about "psychogeography," or fussing about doomed signs, is nice, but there are more useful things to be said.
 

Back
Top