News   Dec 23, 2025
 155     2 
News   Dec 23, 2025
 334     0 
News   Dec 23, 2025
 896     0 

Toronto as an Architectural Tourist Site - WSJ

E

Ed007Toronto

Guest
Under Construction:
Toronto as an Architectural Tourist Site
By DAVID D'ARCY
September 6, 2006; Page D10
Toronto

Spiny steel girders frame Daniel Libeskind's new addition to the Royal Ontario Museum, the stone repository of history, science, decorative arts and archaeology founded in 1914. Libeskind sketched the "Crystal" on a napkin after visiting the ROM's vast minerals collection. The jagged 240 million Canadian dollar (US$217.1 million) silhouette opens to tourists in May 2007.

Other institutions are racing to ready buildings too. Next week, Wagner's "Ring" is the debut production in the Four Seasons Centre for the Performing Arts, an opera house designed by the Toronto architect Jack Diamond. Toronto-born Frank Gehry has shuttered most of the Art Gallery of Ontario (AGO) for an expansion, and the local firm Kuwabara Payne McKenna Blumberg has renovated the Gardiner Museum of Ceramics. Next to the ROM is the Royal Conservatory of Music, also a KPMB renovation. A Libeskind high-rise is planned near the waterfront.

Nearby, the University of Toronto has unveiled a pharmacology building by Sir Norman Foster and a science center by Stefan Benisch, with more construction to come. Luxury towers crowd around its borders like long-stemmed weeds mulched by culture.


The Crystal, the Daniel Libeskind-designed addition to the Royal Ontario Museum, will open to the public in May 2007. Other city institutions are also expanding.
Toronto is buying into the power of architecture -- to lure tourists, professionals and investors and to market its cultural makeover-in-progress. In Canada's livable largest city, being "Toronto the good" is no longer good enough. "Toronto is a psychologically insecure place," says George Baird, dean of architecture at the University of Toronto. "We really want you Americans to be more impressed with us than you are, even though you're barely aware we exist." Tourism, never high, lags below 2001 levels.

A mile south of Mr. Libeskind's Crystal, one sign of the new Toronto is the Sharpe Center of the Ontario College of Art and Design (OCAD), a rectangle spotted with pixils by the British architect Will Alsop and perched on brightly colored slanted steel beams eight stories above a public square. This cartoony "cow on stilts" has upstaged Mr. Gehry's AGO expansion next door. Completed for C$42 million, it's won Mr. Alsop the commission for the C$275 million Filmport, a waterfront movie-production hub.

In Mr. Gehry's subdued plan, a swirled staircase extruding from a sheer back wall hints at a Gehry "signature." Glass will sheathe 40% more gallery space than AGO's 1993 renovation contained, thanks to the late newspaper mogul Kenneth Thomson, Canada's richest man, who pledged C$70 million toward the renovation and 2,000 works of art to the collection. Some 80 African objects will come from Murray Frum, a local developer and father of former Bush scribe David Frum.

In most cases, mixed-use drives the financing. The Toronto International Film Festival's new home -- six floors of cinemas and offices topped by a 30-story condominium -- will rise from a parking lot owned by the family of "Ghostbusters" director Ivan Reitman. Mr. Reitman partnered with a local builder and with the film festival, opening Thursday, which brings more income to Toronto than any other cultural event. KPMB's design by Bruce Kuwabara has wide steps rising to the sixth floor roof, an homage to the stairs of the 1936 Villa Malaparte on Capri, a location in Jean-Luc Godard's "Contempt."

The boosterism is limitless. AGO T-shirts display Gehry's initial design scrawl. Libeskind's Crystal napkin sketch hangs in a ROM gallery. You hear the term "world class" in Toronto as often as in Las Vegas.

In Toronto's 40-year rise from a backwater into Canada's wealthiest urban sprawl, architecture was mostly functional and forgettable. (Yet blandness is an asset, drawing Hollywood to locations here that can look like anywhere in the U.S., only cheaper to film.) Toronto's rare modern landmarks include its 1965 City Hall, two tall crescent curves around a saucer shape by the Finnish architect Veljho Revell, and Mies van de Rohe's rectilinear towers and pavilion of the 1967 Toronto-Dominion Centre.

Today's cultural surge dates from 2002, when the city and provincial governments launched "Superbuild," an initiative to expand cultural institutions. Those now building lined up. William Thorsell, the former editor of the Toronto Globe and Mail who has headed the ROM since 2000, calls the program a "Plan B" conceived after Toronto lost its bid to jumpstart a makeover with the 2008 Olympics. Officials saw Superbuild as a one-time shot to wean local institutions off the single-payer state model for cultural funding.

Money drew others to the trough, like the Hummingbird Center, an auditorium built near the waterfront in the 1960s for opera, pop and ballet that was once the O'Keefe Center. (Hummingbird, a software maker, bought renaming rights from a brewery for some C$5 million.) The hall's fate hovered between demolition and unfunded renovation, until a developer proposed a Libeskind luxury tower above it. Mr. Libeskind calls his knife-like twist on the Nike swoosh "a bird in space" -- for critics, it's a boot. The project still seeks a corporate sponsor for C$30 million -- and it needs to make up C$15 million promised by the Liberal Party, which lost the last federal election.

In his office in City Hall, Toronto's mayor, David Miller, called the new cultural buildings "infrastructure" that he said should boost lagging tourism by 10% in each of the next five years. Yet some fear that, once the scaffolds go, central Toronto will be an archipelago of bill-paying condos shooting skyward from low-lying museums or theaters. At the Hummingbird Center, Libeskind's shadowy spire will rise out of a 1960s base. At the Younge Centre, a theater complex in a Victorian distillery, the sleek "Pure Spirit" tower seeks buyers. The towers conjure up images of a tall cactus sprouting out of the smaller plant that nourishes it.

Some institutions forced to be entrepreneurial have made false starts. The new AGO expansion for the collection of Kenneth Thomson razes the Joey and Toby Tanenbaum Sculpture Atrium, a previous major donor's gift. Mr. Tanenbaum left the board, swearing, "They're not going to suck me dry." The AGO has reconciled with Mr. Tanenbaum, but public funder-fury could scare off new philanthropists.

At the ROM, the museum and a developer planned ROM South, a 46-story tower by a local architect, atop a planetarium on its southern perimeter that shut when state funds fell short in the early 1990s. The most expensive apartments in Toronto would have housed six museum floors and brought the ROM C$20 million. Yet neighbors (followers of Toronto's late Jane Jacobs) feared long shadows on University of Toronto lawns and the stigma of the condo-rich lording over a public institution. Mr. Thorsell surrendered to public ire last November. The ROM unveiled airy Chinese galleries in mid-December, but postponed the Libeskind Crystal's opening.

Boosterism aside, the most successful buildings may be more discreet than sculptural. With gentler gestures, Kuwabara Payne McKenna Blumberg's newly opened C$100 million National Ballet School integrates dance studios on five floors with an auditorium and administrative offices in 19th-century houses. The school shares its site with -- what else? -- two condo towers, modest at less than 30 stories. On Jarvis Street, reclaimed from hookers and addicts, passersby can view rehearsals through glass walls on the upper floors. It is a destination for students, not tourists.

Likewise, Mr. Diamond's new opera house understates its façade and dispenses with a central staircase, stressing acoustics in a hall two-thirds the capacity of the one it replaces. Wagner's "Ring," which debuts next week, is sold out.

Even critics say the town's architecture fervor is a great step forward, but its donors may be tapped out, since Toronto philanthropy lacks deep roots. "The pool here is deeper than before," contends Murray Frum. "Is it deep like in New York? Absolutely not. But it's deep enough." Deep enough to complete the buildings under way? Insiders say donors who've already given can't afford to see their projects fail.

Mr. Thorsell of the ROM asks for trust in building and running his museum, once he pays for completing it: "If we can't do that with the content, with the renovations, with the Crystal, with the amenities in this town, I'll go into exile." Staying put, in his case, will mean raising an additional C$36 million.

Mr. D'Arcy is a correspondent for the Art Newspaper.
 
Now-standard article, but still pretty good and obviously good to see.

"The Toronto International Film Festival's new home ... has wide steps rising to the sixth floor roof, an homage to the stairs of the 1936 Villa Malaparte on Capri, a location in Jean-Luc Godard's 'Contempt.' "

I did not know that. Fun idea, great flick. Gorgeous Delerue score, later 'borrowed' by Scorsese in 'Casino'. Luscious Bardot rump, to boot. Perhaps Snow could cheekily cheek-ify the tower crown as a sort of parallel homage?

allmovie.com/cg/avg.dll?p...1:10869~T1

"Officials saw Superbuild as a one-time shot to wean local institutions off the single-payer state model for cultural funding."

Naively, I suppose, I also did not really appreciate this. Is this just the Journal's take, or is this widely understood in TO? Possible ambivalent feelings of a meta sort stirring.
 
You hear the term "world class" in Toronto as often as in Las Vegas.

Ouch! Nicely put, that.

"Architectural tourism" is about the only thing that crystal is good for at the moment. It occurred to me that visitors who were last in town for TIFF in 2005 might not notice much difference at the ROM when they returned this year, with the biggest of the crystals still unclad.
 
The revamping of Toronto's cultural venues will no doubt help its bland reputation. Nice to see that word is getting out.

"Tourism, never high, lags below 2001 levels."

The statement seems to imply that Toronto is not a significant tourist destination. How does Toronto's tourism compare to other large cities- is there a ranking somewhere?
 
The statement seems to imply that Toronto is not a significant tourist destination. How does Toronto's tourism compare to other large cities- is there a ranking somewhere?

Toronto is the biggest tourist draw in the country by quite a margin. At it's peak (before 2001), I believe it was 20+ million, which put it on par with San Francisco.
 
I think the article isn't really about "architectural tourism", than just another article on the current situation of architecture in the city. Some of Toronto's recent projects cited in the article, like CCBR, the U of T Pharmacy building, the Opera House, the Ballet School and OCAD, have no doubt helped to improve Toronto's image architecturally, but I don't really see the average tourist going there. Maybe the more architecturally-conscious ones will snap photos of them when their tour buses pass by them.

Architectural tourism has different meaning to different groups of people. For North Americans and Europeans, it has to do with exploring the city... grab an architectural guidebook, walk around the city, analyze the shape and style of the buildings, and enjoying the neighbourhoods that form the context of the buildings. For Asians (and lots of tourists who care little about architecture), visiting a city means a bus trip that takes you to the city's three or four most famous landmarks. Every time you get to a landmark, you get off, and you have fifteen minutes to get a photo of yourself with the building before everybody is herded back onto the bus and taken to their next photo op (Chinese tourists are notorious for this... that is why you always see Chinese tour buses around City Hall, and Chinese tourists taking photos at U of T... to show the folks back home that they've been to a prestigious gothic-styled learning institution). The first group is likely to spend huge sums of money in Toronto, by eating at local restaurants, shopping for postcards and architecture-related souvenirs, taking in local events, and by taking the TTC (just check out the next SSP forum meet in Toronto). The second group will spend no money in the city at all, unless they are staying at a downtown hotel, but more likely they will spend the night in a suburban hotel, or a casino hotel in Niagara Falls. I'd imagine that people who belong to the first type are quite rare, while the second type of tourists come in busloads just about every day.
 
^ If you feel like it, could you elaborate on this by speculating about what you believe the underlying cultural reasons for all this might be? Interesting stuff.
 
I think Toronto's high number of visitors are somewhat skewed by business travellers and convention attendees. In surveys of tourists, it does usually rank below Vancouver and Montreal. But the city is still in the midst of a lot of change and I do think the future looks bright... we're just not there yet.
 
Brian,

I can't really say with any certainty why Chinese or Asian tourists are like that. Perhaps it's because Asians see cities and neighbourhoods differently from North Americans or Europeans. Asians don't really appreciate urban neighbourhoods with the same degree that North Americans do- they may visit a neighbourhood for specific shops and restaurants, but they rarely enjoy a neighbourhood as a whole. Same with cities... they don't enjoy the city as a whole, but they like to see a specific list of attractions (for example in Toronto, the CN Tower, City Hall and the Eaton Centre).
 
^ Thanks. I'm not Asian, but over the years I have visited several countries on the continent for fairly extended periods. I'm gonna mull this over for a while and see if I can come up with a suitably insightful (or typically wise-ass'd) theory.
 
"I can't really say with any certainty why Chinese or Asian tourists are like that."

It's not just Asians...ask an elderly white widow what she did in London or Paris while on her group tour and she might just give you a list of things she saw from the bus. They might get let off the bus at St. Paul's or the Louvre for an hour, but they spend next to nothing, even on food - they'll brag about how the free buffet breakfast at their hotel that morning was so great they didn't need lunch.
 
I think Toronto's high number of visitors are somewhat skewed by business travellers and convention attendees. In surveys of tourists, it does usually rank below Vancouver and Montreal. But the city is still in the midst of a lot of change and I do think the future looks bright... we're just not there yet.

I suppose, but Montreal and Vancouver do get their share of buisness travellers too, even if it's much less than what Toronto gets.

If you look at international tourists, Montreal isn't even close. Toronto (2004 figures) had 3,627,000 and Montreal had 2,153, 000.
 
Asian Tourists, I knowomething about that lol

I took a long trip to Asia this year, with my Asian bf and his Chinese speaking family. On our trip we booked a week tour of Thailand (some package deal from an Asian tour company) and I was the only non-Asian on the tour. I was forced to take this all-Asian tour because my boyfriend's family do not speak English, so I had to follow their plans. The tour was conducted all in Chinese and Vietnames, with a bit of Thai thrown in. I was a fish out of water. The tour included everything, air fare, all hotel nights, meals, attractions, culture, entertainment and local tours in the price.

I can confirm that Asians do not spend like North American tourists. Hell, they don't do anything tourist related, like North Americans. I was one miserable tourist the whole time and I would advise anyone who is ever offered an Asian-run tour, to run as fast as you can, no matter how cheap it is. For one week I hated my bf and his family. (I'm almost over it now lol)

The bus pulls up to a great museum or temple, everyone jumps out of the bus, stands in front for 10 to 15 min. to take pics, then we must hurry to pose in front of the art gallery, the temple, the fountain, the rock, the pig, the shopping mall... We did not go inside one single museum or art gallery for any tours, we only stopped to take pics. Nobody but me seemed interested to go inside these places. (well, my boyfriend doesn't mind them either but it's wasn't an issue for him)

QUESTION: Why must Asians be in every single picture they take? They will never take a pic of a temple or attraction, unless they are posed in the picture and one must NEVER smile while posing for pictures. Fortunatly, for everyone, I was there to take all the pics, while they posed. They laughed when I took pictures of things without wanting to be in the picture. I figure, why ruin a great pic with my mug.

We stopped at monkey shows, tiger shows, snake shows, donkey shows (I kid you not!) dolphin shows, elephant rides and on and on it went, except at the animal shows, you had to pay about 1 dollar cdn. to pose with the animals for pics. EVERYONE paid, at every stop, well, accept for me, the miserable North American. I went all the way to Thailand to waste my time at monkey shows? It was dreadful! I spent months reading tour guides about great temples, museums, art galleries and I never got to see them. I was so pissed!!!

Ok, you guys got me started up with this Asian tour theme and trust me, I could go on and on about all the crazy shit that happened. (like my bf spending $100.00 cdn at a snake attraction/store, they took us to. He bought some snake pills to cure my dry skin, while I remained outside, fuming. lol. He only told me about it the next day and those snake pills didn't help at all)

The food was dreadful, shared at round tables, with 10 people per table, the EXACT SAME, cheap food every day. White steamed rice, breakfast, lunch, dinner, EVERY, SINGLE, DAY! Everyone was quite cool with that. Imagine going to Thailand for almost a week and never having Thai food. I refused to eat after 3 days of cheap restaurant hell and I just ended up buying my own food every day. I would have played sick, to get out of going to the endless rip-off joints, over priced stores and animal shows, not to mention the endless photo stops but we stayed in different hotels in different places, so I was forced to go along with the tours fron 8am to 9 pm. Asians like to stay with their tours and not wander off on their own, which is what I wanted to do.

The hotels were supposed to be 3 or 4 star hotels. lol I swear, all but one, were less then one star. (dirty rooms, peeling wallpaper, leaking bathtubs with no hot water or internet) I am feeling so tramatized, just reliving it now. I have not even watched the 40 hours of video I have from that trip, it's too depressing. I went to Thailand and only saw animals, stores and 3rd rate restaurants, that had toilets with a hole in the ground, you had to squat over. lol I have a funny story about that but well, I guess that's too much information. :)

Ok, what was this thread about? LOL Oh, Asian tourists do not spend money for museums, art galleries, fine food, nice hotels BUT they will buy souvineers, over priced "lucky" jewlery, snake cures, Chinese medicine and batteries. Everything in Asia is about luck, everything is supposed to bring you luck, money or good health and I do mean everything! Everybody on my tour must be VERY wealthy by now because they bought shit at almost every store they took us to, including $5.000.00 diamond rings that were "lucky". One Calgary Asian guy bought it and had it appraised the next day, at 1000 US. I guess his luck ran out. He was very upset with our tour guides at first, BUT then he didn't feel so bad, because they reminded him, the salesman said the diamond was lucky and it would bring him great wealth. Did, I mention he was a Chinese businessman from Calgary?

Does that give you any indication of how much Toronto will benifit by Asian tourists? Quick, open up a lucky jewlery store, snake shop or souvineer shop selling batteries. You got to be ready, just in case Asian travel really takes off here. My bf is so lucky he is sweet and cute!!!

Our tourism industry is not doing well compared to other large cities. For leisure tourism (the guys who come for fun and seeing attractions) we are not on anybody's to see list. We really need to get our act together and not depend on business travel for our tourist market. Although businessmen spend money too, I would not consider them tourists. They don't choose to be here, they are forced to be here, so don't count them as tourists. We need to make Toronto a great place, so people choose to visit. I think more huge but specific festivals would help in that reguard. A Hindu fest, a Mardi Gras, an architecture fest, a Jewish culture fest, things that target specific communities, like gay pride does. It has to be big, not some small street fair. People want to see the biggest and the best, so second or third rate wouldn't work. Carribanna and Gay Pride work because they are huge festivals and create great hype and expectation.

OK, enough of my lunitic rantings!!! lol PEACE, OUT :lol
 

Back
Top