Toronto Burano | ?m | 48s | Lanterra | a—A

Sir Novelty Fashion said:
I hate to be a curmudgeon, and lord knows we've had this discussion enough, but I really don't believe that to be the case.

This isn't a preserved heritage building. It's a reconstructed facade - an empty shell. The building itself is gone. If you walk through that shell, you won't be in the same space that cars were sold in, in decades gone by. You'll never ask yourself who walked on this floor, what went on here, what the history of this space was, who went before - all the things that go through your mind when you enter a truly old building, the things that make history so personal and exciting. This is just a wall. Behind it, another new condo.

Is it better than nothing? Maybe, maybe not. Burano is a nice-looking building and this wall is a pleasant addition, and a reminder of our history. But let's not confuse it for an actual historic building. We have to remember that architecture is about insides as much as outsides - and so is heritage preservation. And as far as real history goes, facadism is just that - a false front.
Click to expand...

I can't recall what the inside of the Addison Cadillac showroom looked like so I am not sure what was left inside to preserve. Remember that half of the structure was a repair and maintenance facility. Assuming that there were original architectural details worth preserving , who is to say that that isn't the plan of the developer to restore the interior? I would not describe what is being done as a "false front" since they are using original material to rebuild the facade. Its not finished yet but provided they install the original type of windows the finished product will be indistinguishable from what was there before. Whats wrong with that?

The historical significance of a building is not lost just because it has been rebuilt. One of the most historically significant buildings in the world, The White House, has been rebuilt more than once. The last time during the Truman administration when the interior was completely gutted as I noted in another thread:

http://urbantoronto.ca/showthread.p...hore-Blvd-W-Bathurst-2s-)&p=490017#post490017
 
Last edited:
^ That was a great photo of the White House. I saw that; thanks for posting. But just because they did it at the White House doesn't make it right! In fact, I was more than a little saddened to see it. So the Lincoln Bedroom isn't *actually* the Lincoln Bedroom after all...

It could well be that this particular building didn't have much on the inside that could be adapted; I understand that not every building does. You make some good points there.

My argument is broader, and has more to do with the idea that this was a "win-win" for heritage and modernity. At best, it's an awkward stalemate: It's a new condo wearing a funny face-mask. The two don't really have a lot to do with each other. It's an awkward pairing that doesn't do a tremendous service to history, nor creates something compellingly new going forward. Burano itself has some compelling pieces of design to it, but not on account of the tacked-on heritage component.

In Toronto we don't even think about heritage as something that happens inside a building. We seem to like the idea of generic old-timey buildings that provide some indistinct classical credibility. We don't seem to think about history in terms of spaces, or materials, just in terms of facades. I know there are times and places, but increasingly, as an approach, it's empty.

So yeah, this is absolutely a false front: It has nothing to do with Burano. It is an entranceway to a building that no longer exists. The car dealership has been reduced to a hood ornament. This kind of compromise cheapens the past and muddies up the future. The more I think about it, the more I feel like everyone loses.
 
jje1000 said:
Facadism shouldn't be considered bad- obviously retaining the entire building would be the best option, but keeping the most visible portion of a building (the outside) is still better than a complete demolition.
Click to expand...

In reality, facadism is often the second worst fate for heritage buildings, so it can be bad. It depends on how it's executed.
 
I suppose there are degrees of facadism - this one, and the bank on the north east corner of Yonge and Queen for instance, having enough heft to them to look considerably less absurd than the John Lyle Studio, for instance.

The inverse approach might be represented by all those eighteenth century English "Georgian" buildings, which are actually refaced Tudor and pre-Tudor buildings.
 
IIRC there were interiors, at least on the ground floor, that were mandated for resurrection. (As was also the case w/BMO at Yonge & Queen. Only the exterior shell *actually* survives; the plaster-vaulted interior is a recreation.)

Simply to be diplomatic on behalf of the anti-facadist POV, I wouldn't deem McLaughlin/Burano an absolute "win-win"--not to be critical; just to be fair. And as I mentioned much much earlier in this thread, the absolute no-scrape heritage extremists might even have found merit in the "functionalist" concrete-frame/brick-infill backside, which one can imagine stereotypical post-WWII modern-besotten architecture students finding more distinctive than the *ahem* "historicist" frontage. Though I'm just as well acknowledging the slippery-slope situation of architectural/heritage judgment in this expansive day and age...
 
.
 
Last edited:
Sir Novelty Fashion said:
In Toronto we don't even think about heritage as something that happens inside a building. We seem to like the idea of generic old-timey buildings that provide some indistinct classical credibility. We don't seem to think about history in terms of spaces, or materials, just in terms of facades. I know there are times and places, but increasingly, as an approach, it's empty.
Click to expand...

That's an excellent point, one I've thought of over the years and heard brought up at community meetings where heritage buildings are threatened. Another high profile example is of Maple Leaf Gardens which is a very sensitive subject to many given the history inside the building. We are lucky that the exterior was saved but what happened inside those walls for nearly 70 years are wonderful memories that for millions would last a lifetime.
 
Before Burano was conceived did anyone considerthe Addison dealership as anything special - aside from the fact that it was somewhat old by Toronto's standards? Did the building have any merit?
 
Sure - it was always a handsome building, not that it hadn't seen better days...

42
 
dt_toronto_geek said:
That's an excellent point, one I've thought of over the years and heard brought up at community meetings where heritage buildings are threatened. Another high profile example is of Maple Leaf Gardens which is a very sensitive subject to many given the history inside the building. We are lucky that the exterior was saved but what happened inside those walls for nearly 70 years are wonderful memories that for millions would last a lifetime.
Click to expand...

Good example - not to totally derail the thread, but Maple Leaf Gardens is a slightly melancholy case. The building is being used, the walls are getting maintained, the structure is being looked after, and maybe that's the important thing. But the cathedral inside is gone - the floor raised, the space subdivided. I wonder if other uses - like the mythical Toronto museum - might have preserved the awe and wonder of walking into Maple Leaf Gardens. The awesome-factor that Toronto is so short of.

But the broader point - to this thread - is yeah, there are always going to be compromises. I guess I'm wondering at what point does the compromise become totally symbolic?
 
buildup said:
Before Burano was conceived did anyone considerthe Addison dealership as anything special - aside from the fact that it was somewhat old by Toronto's standards? Did the building have any merit?
Click to expand...

According to the Inventory of Heritage Properties...

McLaughlin Motor Car Showroom, 1925, Hutton and Souter -adopted by City Council on June 15 & 16, 1989; DESIGNATION BY-LAW PASSED by City Council on Dec. 16, 1999
Click to expand...

1989 and 1999 is considerably prior to Burano being conceived. And one can't say that the listing came out of "abracadabra" instant judgment of merit, either.
 
Sir Novelty Fashion said:
Good example - not to totally derail the thread, but Maple Leaf Gardens is a slightly melancholy case. The building is being used, the walls are getting maintained, the structure is being looked after, and maybe that's the important thing. But the cathedral inside is gone - the floor raised, the space subdivided. I wonder if other uses - like the mythical Toronto museum - might have preserved the awe and wonder of walking into Maple Leaf Gardens. The awesome-factor that Toronto is so short of.

But the broader point - to this thread - is yeah, there are always going to be compromises. I guess I'm wondering at what point does the compromise become totally symbolic?
Click to expand...


I understand your point completely. I remember the first time I went to MLG, as a toddler, entering that space via one of the ramps and holding my dad's hand and wow! The memory of the immensity of it from my perspective at the time has stayed with me all these years.

For me this underscores just how important a history museum is, as a repository for our collective mémoire as a society. In Toronto we love to talk about our cultural differences and our infinite diversity but we are lousy at being able to interpret or validate in any way the larger shared experiences, which is why most Torontonians have difficulty understanding that there is much of a History here to celebrate, much less worthy of a museum (or a Parliament site for example). In this climate of self-inflicted cultural amnesia the effort to preserve is all the more difficult.

That said, as sorry as I am to see the 'cathedral' go the memory remains, for me at least... and I am very happy to see the building revitalized through an adaptive reuse that will see the building actually functioning and relevant to the community. In this sense it is a huge victory given what its fate might have been if it continued to sit abandoned and derelict for any length of time. Then again, if there is one single aspect of our shared history that is collectively understood and celebrated it would be hockey! From this perspective the Addison Dealership didn't really stand much of a chance and so I would have to consider the preservation of the shell a victory too, relatively speaking.
 
Remember that a stone's throw away are a couple of other "shells": Old Sick Kids and the THB/MaRS...
 
You must log in or register to post here.

Back
Top