In the case of both 48 Abell and my hypothesis re the Temple now-vs-1970, it's an element of "social history" (somewhat in tandem with the embodied-energy anti-demo arguments) that's come to the fore--and really; to those of us who've experienced Chicago-style architectural tourism, isn't that part of the awe of the Rookery or Monadnock or what have you? Buildings as more than just textbook photos, as living, breathing, oh-so-tenanted entities? That's surely something which the 401 Richmond cult has played off of--and it's a reason why I'm very qualified about labelling Confederation Life as a survivor, because the shell is all that's left. And it's also why I like to invoke the Ryrie Building at Yonge + Shuter for the loss of its Sam Spade-ian light-court interior on behalf of Context-ual yuppie-ism. Such is architectural conoisseurship in the Doors Open era--whereas our "received narrative" for edifices such as the Temple remains largely doors-closed. Except in cases like various churches and Osgoode Hall, "doors closed" was the normal approach back in the 60s.
Though to try and tie this all back into the *ahem* thread subject, it leads me to wonder if the Temple had survived, it might have become an fascinating component of the "City Hall precinct" (even if it faced away from City Hall)--perhaps, even, housing subsidiary municipal offices, maybe related to culture and all of that. (Or, imagine if the Centre for Social Innovation came about a generation earlier, as a more directly municipally-sponsored entity under Mayor Crombie or Sewell...)
