Toronto/Boston comparisons

[AlvinofDiaspar]

I would argue that stirrings started when the city grew in size, with the post First World War era being the turning point (recall those grandiose schemes and what they are named after), the manifestations of which was delayed due to the Great Depression and Second World War.

AoD

 

[OttoSchloss]

Boston get an A+ in snow clearing. Whereas in Toronto the city always seems surprised we have something called winter.

 

[Ladies Mile]

Some might question your notion that we lack a cohesive style, given how often some forum members complain whenever "another glass box" goes up ( and some of us celebrate this cohesiveness! ), but I get your point. There's a Bostom website for a group called pinkcommagallery, where I noticed this reference to their city:

For all the city’s stodginess, Boston’s six architecture schools and their instructors have unleashed some of the most provocative figures on the world scene. Why hasn’t this culture permeated the city’s own architectural sense of itself?

http://www.pinkcomma.com/

Past the Bullfinch era, Boston's two grand periods of growth coincided with Richardson's new works (Trinity Church onwards) and the emergence of MIT Modernism (Gropius, Rudolph, Sert, Pei, etc.) who gave Boston's downtown arguably the greatest collection of Brutalist works in a single city north of Brasilia. City Hall aside, the best from the latest of these eras seems to be accepted as part of Boston's fabric. Not sure how stodgy the place is when Cambridge is the location of the only work by Corb in North America.

As, arguably, the last interesting architectural development in the USA was the preservation movement, couldn't one argue that here, too, Boston was at the forefront? They have certainly ducked out the worst of the PoMo and Starchitect horrors that litter every other downtown down south.

 

[Tewder]

Past the Bullfinch era, Boston's two grand periods of growth coincided with Richardson's new works (Trinity Church onwards) and the emergence of MIT Modernism (Gropius, Rudolph, Sert, Pei, etc.) who gave Boston's downtown arguably the greatest collection of Brutalist works in a single city north of Brasilia. City Hall aside, the best from the latest of these eras seems to be accepted as part of Boston's fabric. Not sure how stodgy the place is when Cambridge is the location of the only work by Corb in North America.

As, arguably, the last interesting architectural development in the USA was the preservation movement, couldn't one argue that here, too, Boston was at the forefront? They have certainly ducked out the worst of the PoMo and Starchitect horrors that litter every other downtown down south.

To be fair, isn't it a little too soon to judge PoMo and Starchitecturalism (for lack of a better term)? If the preservation movement teaches us anything it's to let the dust settle a little bit (literally and figurately) before we are in any position to decide what is keepable and worthy and what isn't... a little perspective is needed, in other words. Let's not forget that no matter how embraced Boston City Hall might be now in some quarters there are many who'd still dismiss it as 'horrific' and who'd gladly knock it down.

 

[Hipster Duck]

In Toronto the situation is a bit of a grey and oft-times confusing middle ground between the two extremes of Boston and Chicago. In the absence of a compelling mythology of place heritage resources have often been compromised or lost to other stronger forces, the victim of a much larger collective desire in the city to deny the past and reinvent itself anew, as it did in the post-war era. Now, the multiple forces at play in Toronto compete and undermine in a rather schizophrenic way: is Toronto a modern highrise city or predominantly a heritage lowrise one; a boxy conservative city or a cutting-edge trendy one; a cheap and messy boom town or an new urban showcase... the contradictions in Toronto are many which make it very difficult to clearly identify any sort of objective cohesion without digging to depths that make little sense and thereby lack traction.

I think this is wonderfully put, and I feel the same way about Toronto's design "schizophrenia". While I am excited by the amount of redevelopment going on around our town, it still doesn't constitute that defining "sea change" - that maturation to a global city reflected in its built form - I'm looking for because it must compete with these other elements you identify. Toronto cannot even revel in the mish-mash, because these opposing forces cancel each other out, rather than reinforce one another. So our best heritage buildings get compromised by fly-by-night boomtown commercialism, while striking modern additions have to incorporate some of the most parochial facadectomies.


---

PS: People first moaned when this thread was first posted, expecting it to be a juvenile city-vs-city fight, but it has turned out to be the most interesting UT thread in a year. Keep it up!

 

[Urban Shocker]

It's true that a Victorian city replaced a Georgian one... although I'm not sure that the underlaying mythology changed that much in that both were rooted strongly in colony and Empire. In this sense the Second World War truly is a turning point.

Perhaps the decline of the Family Compact, which was Simcoe's attempt at creating a land-owning aristocracy located above ( to the north of ... ) the general population, in the mid-19th century was the start of that transition? They gradually lost political control of the city and sold off the spacious park lots that he had granted them, to raise ready cash. They were replaced by a new mercantile class that lived in suburban ( Rosedale, in those days ... ) monster homes that were hyperreal versions of what the owners thought aristocracy was all about.

 

[adma]

City Hall aside, the best from the latest of these eras seems to be accepted as part of Boston's fabric.

While I'm personally prone to defending such work, I'm not so sure how "accepted as part of the fabric" they are--it's all probably camoflauged by Boston City Hall hogging most of the negativity spotlight. (Either that, or the anti-City Hall negativity truly is overrated letters-to-the-editor stuff.)

 

[Ladies Mile]

While I'm personally prone to defending such work, I'm not so sure how "accepted as part of the fabric" they are--it's all probably camoflauged by Boston City Hall hogging most of the negativity spotlight. (Either that, or the anti-City Hall negativity truly is overrated letters-to-the-editor stuff.)

City Hall is widely reviled, but other works from the era including Pei's monumental Corb-like additions to the Christian Science Complex and Paul Rudolph's downtown skyscraper are well-loved.

 

[Bogtrotter]

Los Angeles and Toronto are a pretty apt comparison and while I'm not a particular fan of Los Angeles I can always understand why people would want to live there and as much as I love San Francisco -L.A. is probably the better city.

Just curious, and I don't want to stray too much off topic, but can you quickly elaborate on this? I'm particularly intrested in why you think LA is better than San Fran.

 

[kkgg7]

Just curious, and I don't want to stray too much off topic, but can you quickly elaborate on this? I'm particularly intrested in why you think LA is better than San Fran.

Maybe because LA is a much larger city, offers much more, including jobs in various industries, and much more affordable housing? I would choose LA over San Fran in a heartbeat. I particularly like the fact that LA has multiple centers， where not everyone has to cram into one downtown to do stuff. LA is much warmer than San Fran as well.

 

[OttoSchloss]

^ partly those reasons but also L.A. is far more cosmopolitan, international and dynamic.

San Francisco is probably the most beautiful city in North America and it has great food but there's a smallness about it which I think even the locals would admit to. SF is missing a youthful vibe that L.A. has in spades.

It reminds me a bit of Barcelona, a city that its citizens take great pride in but at its core is kinda smalltown and not especially interesting after 3 days.

San Franciscans love to compare themselves to L.A. all the time while Los Angelenos rarely think of SF at all because the real comparison is with New York (despite the lack of respect L.A. receives from most people).

 

[Hipster Duck]

^Yeah, I would agree with that. LA is very underrated in urban discussion boards; people always forget that there's this city of 15 million and that, no matter what kind of built form you have, when a city has that many people it's bound to be interesting and worldly.

 

[Ladies Mile]

^Yeah, I would agree with that. LA is very underrated in urban discussion boards; people always forget that there's this city of 15 million and that, no matter what kind of built form you have, when a city has that many people it's bound to be interesting and worldly.

I much prefer LA to New York, and yes, it does share distinct social qualities with Toronto that New York lacks entirely.

I would also call it the third most architecturally significant city in NA after Chicago and Boston.

I don't think New York would crack my top 50 in that category.

 

[Red October]

I much prefer LA to New York, and yes, it does share distinct social qualities with Toronto that New York lacks entirely.

I would also call it the third most architecturally significant city in NA after Chicago and Boston.

I don't think New York would crack my top 50 in that category.

You wouldn't include New York, home of the Art Deco giants and pre-war buildings that were the tallest in the world for quite some time in you top 50 but you would include Los Angeles? Uhh..

 

[kool maudit]

if new york wouldn't crack your top 50, then your list is designed to make you appear interesting and idiosyncratic -- and not to be, you know, accurate.