Toronto 2 Carlton | 251.1m | 73s | Northam | Arcadis

I find the obsession w/buildings such as this, like many of the Dickinson works a bit baffling.

They were the 50's/60's beginnings of big box architecture.

None of the detailing seen in earlier styles such as Deco or Victorian etc.

At best, I would describe this building as forgettable.

At worst, quite blah verging on genuinely unattractive.

I realize that is seen as an out of place view by some at UT who just adore this architectural period........

***

For those asking by the way: Building is 1959, last reno'd 1994
 
Last edited:
I have always really likes this building actually, has a nice 50s-60s modern look to it.

@Northern Light That's because its decor is in the structure, not tacked on ornament that could be placed anywhere. Not saying you have to like it, but I think having a diversity of historical architecture is a benefit to the city.
 
Last edited:
Couple more from the mid 90s:

s1465_fl0517_it0007.jpg



s1465_fl0520_it0005.jpg


s1465_fl0520_it0006.jpg
 
Definitely remember that Pizza Hut - and there was a Baroli (sp?) at that corner before Shoppers snapped it up.

Weird to see it in a sort of mild sepia tone when it's recent enough to have a Starbucks (still extant) across Yonge. That, and the "fashion" at the time.

AoD
 
Last edited:
Regardless, the city will require at least some replacement of the office space. This proposal is dead on arrival.
 
Northern Light said:
I find the obsession w/buildings such as this, like many of the Dickinson works a bit baffling.

They were the 50's/60's beginnings of big box architecture.

None of the detailing seen in earlier styles such as Deco or Victorian etc.

At best, I would describe this building as forgettable.

At worst, quite blah verging on genuinely unattractive.

I realize that is seen as an out of place view by some at UT who just adore this architectural period........

***

For those asking by the way: Building is 1959, last reno'd 1994
Click to expand...


Adore or respect?

I would say adoration falls more on your shoulders considering how easily your post dismisses an entire architectural movement for the prewar styles that produced as much garbage as any other.
 
It's an office building? I always thought it was an apartment..

Agreed though, this is a prime example of its time and should be heritage designated.
 
maestro said:
I would say adoration falls more on your shoulders considering how easily your post dismisses an entire architectural movement for the prewar styles that produced as much garbage as any other.
Click to expand...
Yeah, detailing in an of itself is a poor metric for judging the success of any particular example of any particular architectural style. More detail (or more fine-grained detail) does not necessarily equate to finer design or greater elegance.

I believe it boils down to what kind of eras you naturally gravitate to. But to suggest the 50s/60 as the precursor of "big box" and nothing more strikes me as a pretty shallow analysis.
 
Last edited:
Agreed. Heritage doesn't have to mean it's from the 1880's. Our history includes the 50's, 60's and 70's in all it's ugly glory.
 
maestro said:
Adore or respect?

I would say adoration falls more on your shoulders considering how easily your post dismisses an entire architectural movement for the prewar styles that produced as much garbage as any other.
Click to expand...

I wasn't in anyway disrespectful of the view of others.

That some posters here (I did not name names) have a deep appreciation of the modernist period is well evidenced in a great number of threads.

I would not now, nor did I ever suggest that there weren't many examples of mediocrity from the preceding (or subsequent) architectural periods.

Rather, when I think of many of the venerated examples in this period, I find little that admirable.

There is nothing about the now forgotten Golden Mile plaza, nor 2 Carlton, nor the Dickinson box on Richmond.......that I like.

I'll happily concede that is personal preference, and nothing more. If you prefer orange to blue, who am I to quibble. I would simply ask that you not fail to recognize your choice is just that too, a completely arbitrary preference.

That said, I'd still be interested to know what people find redeeming in this style.

I don't find it innately attractive and when I look for reasons I should, I can't find any.

I don't see creativity, I don't see flavour.

To me (and I'm not criticizing, merely comparing); when I hear praise of this style it feels to me as if someone were applauding a McDonald's hamburger.

Hey, if you like it..........great (not sarcastic)............ I just can't understand why.
 
Last edited:
I have to believe there is an element of non-disposable buildings that comes into play. This is not a big box store that has no use beyond the whims of its current tenant, it's a building that has memories, connective tissue (to many of us) and a representation of a time. I know it's too much to imagine it lovingly updated or restored, just it would be shame to see it go.
 
Lenser said:
Yeah, detailing in an of itself is a poor metric for judging the success of any particular example of any particular architectural style. More detail (or more fine-grained detail) does not necessarily equate to finer design or greater elegance.

I believe it boils down to what kind of eras you naturally gravitate to. But to suggest the 50s/60 as the precursor of "big box" and nothing more strikes me as a pretty shallow analysis.
Click to expand...


Up to the word shallow, we're in complete agreement.

I wasn't attempting a university thesis on the style, nor even a zine article.

I was merely stating my preference, and furnishing a 'Coles Notes' reason as to why.

Much of 'preference' is just that, arbitrary, individual etc.

One doesn't look at a building (and spend a great deal of time looking at individual features before deciding if if you like it.......you just do, or don't)

After, one can spend sometime examining what produced that opinion, if one is so inclined.

That said, I'll indulge and expand on my thought.

When I look at many buildings of this vintage (roughly, the modernist era) I tend to see bland. I tend to see a style that is easy to replicate, which is the first measure of 'big box' or 'paint by numbers' architecture.

Very straight lines, little to no adornment, a very simple material palate, one often involving yellow/white brick.

That, in many ways, sounds like a plaza built by Smart Centre.

Granted, they'll either invest in red brick these days, or cheap out w/beige pre-cast. But same idea.

I'm by no means stuck in the past on Deco or any other style.

But I do this modernism began a long drought of blandness up to brutalism, at which wantonly ugly was being built on purpose.

We then got back on the previous track.......through at least the early 90s before we started to see some examples of a return to effort.

Though still, too few.

All just my opinion and not critical of anyone else's.

Except to say, I see no merit in saving 2 Carlton.
 
You must log in or register to post here.

Back
Top