Evocative Images of Lost Toronto

[Bogtrotter]

The old Williamsburg Armoury in Brooklyn has been used for quite a few things over the years- more recently repurposed for movie/theatre productions- such as Jesus Christ Superstar. It's a huge beautiful old stone building- sadly the Toronto Armoury looks like it was even more grandiose with its ornate castellations.

 

[adma]

We can; and we should, rebuild it.

A couple of heritage sites in Europe were completely reconstructed.

Its expensive, but it can be done; the public owns the land; it would be a worthwhile investment.

We can't recover all our lost heritage, just as we won't daylight every buried stream.

But in both cases, with public support and political will we can get some back; and we should make it happen.

Frankly...why? What's done is done; and as with many such demolitions, it really must be understood within the context of its well-over-a-half-a-century-ago time. And besides, even if we may regret the Armoury's loss *today*, its fait-accompli replacement doesn't exactly inspire loathing for *its* architecture; indeed, it's a valid work for its own time (and, one might say, integral in its mid-60sness with New City Hall), to the point of having *its own* not-unearned heritage listing.

https://www.toronto.ca/legdocs/mmis/2007/te/bgrd/backgroundfile-8735.pdf

Under such circumstances, better to leave things be--particularly at a moment when these "resurrecting old architecture" crusades are getting to be associated with alt-right reactivism...

 

[Northern Light]

Frankly...why? What's done is done; and as with many such demolitions, it really must be understood within the context of its well-over-a-half-a-century-ago time. And besides, even if we may regret the Armoury's loss *today*, its fait-accompli replacement doesn't exactly inspire loathing for *its* architecture; indeed, it's a valid work for its own time (and, one might say, integral in its mid-60sness with New City Hall), to the point of having *its own* not-unearned heritage listing.

https://www.toronto.ca/legdocs/mmis/2007/te/bgrd/backgroundfile-8735.pdf

Under such circumstances, better to leave things be--particularly at a moment when these "resurrecting old architecture" crusades are getting to be associated with alt-right reactivism...

You are entitled to your preference, and I to mine.

***

However, the suggestion that my preference is any way associated with anything alt-right is beyond extreme, deeply offensive and absurd.

I wouldn't make such ridiculous suggestions about the preferences you hold; kindly don't do so about mine or anyone else's.

 

[adma]

You are entitled to your preference, and I to mine.

***

However, the suggestion that my preference is any way associated with anything alt-right is beyond extreme, deeply offensive and absurd.

I wouldn't make such ridiculous suggestions about the preferences you hold; kindly don't do so about mine or anyone else's.

NB: I'm not insinuating that about *your* preference. Rather, I'm reminding you of where that kind of "resurrect what once was" impulse *has* gone in recent times.

Look: the University Ave Armoury might have been magnificent, but it wasn't loaded with the same kind of symbolism as, say, the Dresden Frauenkirche, the kind that could justify the resurrection of something on *that* scale in a manner that transcends petty ideology.

I mean, you'll have no problem at all finding a clear critical mass of thoughtful urban-minded people who'd much rather that we kept the Armoury instead of demolishing it--and that'd even include a fair number of those who admire its replacement. And *that* isn't any more of a reactionary cause than any on behalf of "Lost Toronto". (Indeed, had it lasted even a decade longer, it'd probably still be with us in some form or another--and only the most utter throw-out-the-old dolt would propose wiping it out.)

However, when it comes to wiping out its replacement on behalf of a spare-no-expense resurrection of the original, you'll find that whether you like it or not, a whole lot of that "clear critical mass" is going to steer clear. And those whom you *will* have in that camp will be heavily populated by the homegrown version of alt-right-architectural-Twitter reactionaries with a hate-on for all modernism...and that'll be enough to stink up the whole cause.

It's not about you; it's about "them". And they'll be *salivating* at the prospect of bringing back something so monumental.

How the Alt-Right Infiltrated Architecture Twitter — And Turned Notre-Dame Into a Political Lightning Rod

As the once-magnificent spire of Notre-Dame de Paris burned last week, some on Twitter lamented that the moment marked the end of Western civilization. Unsurprisingly,...

melmagazine.com

 

[Richard White]

Thank you for the correction. I got things mixed up.

Even still.. why would you rebuild it? It would never be a CAF facility again nor do we need another armoury in Toronto.

I understand the need for heritage and respect the opinion of @Northern Light but it has been gone for decades and not many people know it was even there anymore. There are better uses for the space.

 

[Northern Light]

Thank you for the correction. I got things mixed up.

Even still.. why would you rebuild it? It would never be a CAF facility again nor do we need another armoury in Toronto.

I understand the need for heritage and respect the opinion of @Northern Light but it has been gone for decades and not many people know it was even there anymore. There are better uses for the space.

For me personally, the question is largely an aesthetic one. I think the City would be more visually interesting and appealing with this building, than without.

The function of the building can be modified, if desired.

But it could also be an armoury.

I would love to get rid of the Moss Park one which I see as unfortunate, not to mention occupying space better suited to a replacement community centre and expanded park.

But I digress.

It could be a museum, a gallery, a recreation centre, or office space.

I also see some tourism value; though I certainly wouldn't over-state that.

 

[Richard White]

For me personally, the question is largely an aesthetic one. I think the City would be more visually interesting and appealing with this building, than without.

The function of the building can be modified, if desired.

But it could also be an armoury.

I would love to get rid of the Moss Park one which I see as unfortunate, not to mention occupying space better suited to a replacement community centre and expanded park.

But I digress.

It could be a museum, a gallery, a recreation centre, or office space.

I also see some tourism value; though I certainly wouldn't over-state that.

I agree about Moss Park but realistically if they ever did rebuild it, it would be best suited as a museum of Toronto.

 

[Tasmanian Tiger]

I’ve always thought — assuming that the armouries survived — that they would would have made for a beautiful and dignified home for the Toronto Maple Leafs. This might have been possible by extending the vaulted roof further toward City Hall.

 

[adma]

For me personally, the question is largely an aesthetic one. I think the City would be more visually interesting and appealing with this building, than without.

Again, this is more of a "had it remained" matter.

Realistically speaking, if the present provincial courthouse had to go on behalf of something "more visually interesting and appealing", it'd likelier be a contemporary starchitect gesture (not unlike Renzo Piano being retained across the street) than a resurrected Armoury.

All alt-right invocations aside, those who'd be hankering for a resurrected Armoury would be the same sort who'd wish the "bleak concrete" expanse of Nathan Phillips Square would be replaced by a traditional trees-and-grass forecourt.

 

[Northern Light]

Again, this is more of a "had it remained" matter.

Realistically speaking, if the present provincial courthouse had to go on behalf of something "more visually interesting and appealing", it'd likelier be a contemporary starchitect gesture (not unlike Renzo Piano being retained across the street) than a resurrected Armoury.

All alt-right invocations aside, those who'd be hankering for a resurrected Armoury would be the same sort who'd wish the "bleak concrete" expanse of Nathan Phillips Square would be replaced by a traditional trees-and-grass forecourt.

Again, your entitled to your preferences; but I would ask to stop deriding other people's and ascribing linkages, political or otherwise to those preferences for which you have no evidence.

You can disagree with me; that's fine.

But you wouldn't appreciate if I drew negative linkages from your views for which I have no foundation.

(ie. anyone who opposes rebuilding the armoury would continue to support destroying what little heritage remains) or other such nonsense.

I don't hold such views.

I simply believe nothing is written in stone; so to speak, where the laws of physics permit.

All decisions are subject to reconsideration.

Buried streams have been lifted.

Elevated highways have been torn down.

Historical buildings lost to demolition have been resurrected.

Sometimes, it okay to say your parents or grandparents generation got the decision wrong; and/or circumstances have changed allowing reconsideration.

If you don't wish this sobeit, but kindly don't cast aspersions on others with a more open mind.

 

[adma]

Again, your entitled to your preferences; but I would ask to stop deriding other people's and ascribing linkages, political or otherwise to those preferences for which you have no evidence.

You can disagree with me; that's fine.

But you wouldn't appreciate if I drew negative linkages from your views for which I have no foundation.

(ie. anyone who opposes rebuilding the armoury would continue to support destroying what little heritage remains) or other such nonsense.

I don't hold such views.

I simply believe nothing is written in stone; so to speak, where the laws of physics permit.

All decisions are subject to reconsideration.

Buried streams have been lifted.

Elevated highways have been torn down.

Historical buildings lost to demolition have been resurrected.

Sometimes, it okay to say your parents or grandparents generation got the decision wrong; and/or circumstances have changed allowing reconsideration.

If you don't wish this sobeit, but kindly don't cast aspersions on others with a more open mind.

Well, look at it this way. The way I see it, you're pandering to those who'd be of this POV.

Boston City Hall should be torn down - The Boston Globe

Boston City Hall was an atrocious waste of space when it first rose above the grave of Scollay Square in the 1960s. It’s been that way during all of Mayor Tom Menino’s 20 years in office, and the building won’t be any kinder to the person who replaces him in January. Boston’s next mayor should...

www.bostonglobe.com

Which, in its way, is a "parents/grandparents generation got the decision wrong" POV.

Instead, *this* happened*

Boston City Hall renovation preserves "straightforward honesty" of brutalist building

LED lights illuminate the gridded concrete structure of Boston's brutalist city hall, which has been renovated by local firm Utile.

www.dezeen.com

And IMO, we're better off for it--even from a heritage standpoint.

Or, may I clarify, a next-generation-*still* heritage standpoint

 

[LPCI]

 

[LPCI]

 

[LPCI]

I can’t believe the amount of fill required. I have looked at this section of Bloor on good old Google Earth, and there is a dip in the road, and the side streets go downhill, but nothing now indicates how much fill there was. Mind boggling.

 

[Towered]

I can’t believe the amount of fill required. I have looked at this section of Bloor on good old Google Earth, and there is a dip in the road, and the side streets go downhill, but nothing now indicates how much fill there was. Mind boggling.

If they hadn't filled it, we'd have some pretty cool hilly roads in the area. Maybe it should have been left the way it was.