Toronto Ryerson Student Learning Centre | 50.59m | 8s | Ryerson University | Zeidler

[modernizt]

He wasn't asking about our attitudes toward heritage and demolition of said heritage; he was asking about why our NEW buildings are not designed to mimic classical styles.

It's a difficult question to answer succinctly, especially at 5am in the morning. Canada does have some very different attitudes toward city-building and architecture than the United States, though, most certainly. Even as far back as Expo 67, we were embracing the future in a big way that really cemented Canada's reputation as architecturally forward-thinking and less interested in neo-classical styles. There are many political ideologies and social-structure nuances that have affected architecture and urban design in Canada and created sympathies with particular moments in architectural history, and their continuing influence. Modernism/neo-modernism and welfare-state (European) influences abound in a city like Toronto.

 

[isaidso]

He wasn't asking about our attitudes toward heritage and demolition of said heritage; he was asking about why our NEW buildings are not designed to mimic classical styles.

I know, but the two things are intimately related. We don't build NEW buildings to mimic classical styles because we don't recognize and value our heritage the way these things are in other countries. It's a sign of a culture that hasn't fully matured yet.

Mature cultures embrace the future AND the past. We view old architectures as simply something to be preserved, not part of who we are. That's why we don't attempt to build more of it.

 

[interchange42]

Sorry, but you've presented an extremely over-simplistic interpretation of what drives us stylistically, a massive generalization, and a conclusion that does not necessarily follow, no matter whether you and type in bold and all caps or not.

42

 

[Tewder]

Could it just be a coincidence that major building cycles in Toronto have occurred at times when modern minimalism was/is in style?

 

[modernizt]

We don't build NEW buildings to mimic classical styles because we don't recognize and value our heritage the way these things are in other countries. It's a sign of a culture that hasn't fully matured yet.

You think building neo-classical buildings is a sign of a culture that hasn't fully matured yet? That is both flawed from a historical/empirical point of view and subjectively very problematic.

Are you familiar with your architectural history? For example, are you aware that fascist states are the ones that have promoted neo-classicism the most ardently in the past?

Do you have any evidence that neo-classical architecture somehow represents a mature society? Because as someone from in the field who has done my fair share of architectural history/theory, I can tell you that I have yet to encounter one person who puts forward that idea. In fact, like I mention above, it's the less savoury political movements that have pushed it on the public as a tool of manipulation and nationalism.

Say what you want about our attitude toward our architectural heritage and its destruction, but please spare us unsupported rhetoric that is decidedly misguided from a historical point of view.

Could it just be a coincidence that major building cycles in Toronto have occurred at times when modern minimalism was/is in style?

Some of our early office buildings were built during a time when International Style architecture was king, but what's interesting in Canada and even Toronto specifically is the way that neo-modernism still rules, and the extent to which our Postmodern architecture is forward-looking and decidedly not neo-classical. I think it speaks well of our culture and diversity that we embrace styles rooted in progressive movements in design instead of enforcing a stuffy, "old white dude" take on architecture and expecting that to serve the needs of a modern, diverse city. Our architectural and urban design community was also affected by various planners and architects from Europe who came to Canada to practise, several decades ago. You can even see this in Toronto's suburban planning, with our swaths of towers out in the suburbs. That was a pretty haphazard answer and I know more of a general architectural history than a local one, but that's my response for now.

 

[Silence&Motion]

Are you familiar with your architectural history? For example, are you aware that fascist states are the ones that have promoted neo-classicism the most ardently in the past?

I think the fascists were also pretty keen on making distinctions between "mature" and "immature" cultures.

Face it, as beautiful as historic craftsman-produced architecture is, our current society is essentially incapable of producing it. And I say this not as a modernism fanboy. I say it as someone who accepts that the best modernism ever can be is a compromise. It will never achieve the beauty of pre-modern styles. But the societies that produced pre-modern architecture were also societies that had perpetual housing shortages. Modernism is a compromise because it uses mass-produced materials and mass-produced building techniques, and tries to make the best out of it aesthetically. You cannot reproduce historic styles using mass-production. You need stone masons, and they are sadly in short supply.

So we should hang on to our existing heritage buildings, and we should make sure our new buildings complement rather than overshadow them, but we should also accept that fact that new buildings are going to be built with glass, steel, concrete, and drywall, and design them accordingly.

 

[maestro]

A lot of traditional architecture gets passed as exceptional today when stylistically they are tacky and cheap including mass produced, engineered products that highlight the condos of today.

Many American cities respect heritage to a degree. They will spend the money to catelogue and designated all structures of value in a given region but, be as quick to wipe them off the face of the map in the face of progress which includes parking and more parking.

The same can be said with transit. They have build miles upon miles of rapid transit that serve little purpose other than as a gesture to public transportation.

 

[interchange42]

Face it, as beautiful as historic craftsman-produced architecture is, our current society is essentially incapable of producing it. And I say this not as a modernism fanboy. I say it as someone who accepts that the best modernism ever can be is a compromise. It will never achieve the beauty of pre-modern styles.

Ridiculous statement, especially as your opener "Face it" tries to make it look like an objective truth. There's lots of stunning modern architecture, as beautiful to my eye as the best examples of any other style. Here's what you should face S&M: you are stating your opinion, not a fact.

42

 

[modernizt]

Easy now, he didn't say anything about it being objective fact. There are lots of people, even within architecture circles, who feel that modernism will never measure up to the styles that came before it. I think that's fair. Although I disagree, Silence&Motion is entitled to feel that way.

 

[LowPolygon]

Americans seem to value tradition and heritage more than we do. In Canada, we're in a tremendous rush to make absolutely everything look new and current. Even buildings that are only 30 years old get stripped of their architectural integrity in an attempt to make them look modern.

Btw, it's not just Americans that value historical recreation. Europeans, Asians, and Africans build tons of buildings using old architectures. It's likely a sign that we're still too culturally insecure to value our heritage and attach ourselves to what ever is trendy.

That's a pretty ridiculous thing to say when entire neighbourhoods of modern postwar housing in Toronto have been destroyed by the plague of fake tradition in the hands of clueless design builders who think Fake Ye Olde is the only thing that will sell. EIFS and precast McMansion monsters anyone?

Not only is Toronto not a city "in a tremendous rush to make absolutely everything look new and current", its a place where 90% of new home construction references the past (badly and hamfistedly) in overt ways, both at the level of rhetoric and design; and a significant number of condo developments make explicit reference to some imaginary version of the traditional, in an obtuse, manipulative and craven way. You know: Tridel developments that are called things like uh, "Blythwood at Huntington", "Aristo At Avonshire" etc, ad nauseum, or any other version of this:

http://urbantoronto.ca/database/projects/renaissance-condominiums-neighbourhoods-oak-park

Of course there is a name for all of this substandard and dimwitted historicism: Kitsch. Hence, its bad reputation.

Toronto's main problem is that there isn't enough great modern architecture, and WAY too much ersatz "fake traditional": faux-deco, pomo pastiche, precast arriviste, etc. For every Student Learning Centre, Shim-Sutcliffe Residential Care Facility, River City, or L Tower, there are ten "Residences of College Park", 88 Scott, "Uptown Residences", "Trump International", The Berczy: etc, as well as DOZENS of developments like this, that are "off the UT radar":

http://urbantoronto.ca/database/projects/vivid-condos

 

[isaidso]

That's a pretty ridiculous thing to say when entire neighbourhoods of modern postwar housing in Toronto have been destroyed by the plague of fake tradition in the hands of clueless design builders who think Fake Ye Olde is the only thing that will sell.

So in your mind, that some clueless developers attempted it is testament that we embrace and celebrate the architecture of the past? Not only do we not take it seriously, when we do attempt it we horribly bastardize it. That speaks volumes.

Practically every major nation in the world takes this seriously. They pour time, money, and energy into not only building more historical architecture that speaks to their culture but they make sure they do it justice. Even in Yorkville they can't seem to get it right: One Saint Thomas? Looks passable from a distance, but when you get up close you realize that those people have absolutely no respect for the architecture they were attempting to recreate.

 

[AlvinofDiaspar]

Practically every major nation in the world takes this seriously. They pour time, money, and energy into not only building more historical architecture that speaks to their culture but they make sure they do it justice. Even in Yorkville they can't seem to get it right: One Saint Thomas? Looks passable from a distance, but when you get up close you realize that those people have absolutely no respect for the architecture they were attempting to recreate.

Like where, in bulk, exactly? Oh and FYI, 1 St. Thomas is designed by A. M. Stern - the grand daddy of "historical" university architecture in the US.

AoD

 

[modernizt]

One Saint Thomas? Looks passable from a distance, but when you get up close you realize that those people have absolutely no respect for the architecture they were attempting to recreate.

I seriously question if you have a developed knowledge of architectural design, theory, or history, yourself, based on various comments you've made above, which makes it very hard to take your critique seriously.

Also, even if you find aesthetic or historic value in designing new buildings to appear as though they are old, please try to understand that architectural design and technologies are very different than they were even decades ago in many cases. Given the way we design and build today, to make a building *try* to *appear* classical or old makes no sense because it is just an appliqué over a modern building. Modern buildings are machines; the mechanical systems they have inside them, the way they are constructed, the building envelope systems used to clad them. Buildings have an array of conditions to respond to, and to try to force some sort of historical aesthetic around the building's spaces and systems is just absurd, senseless, and inefficient.

It was once I began studying architectural design/ architectural science that it became clear to me why so many architects can't abide the visual transcribing of older aesthetics onto new designs-- it really doesn't make sense. I'm not sure how else to convey this point but until you have to actually design a building that responds to the conditions buildings are supposed to respond to, I would say that your opinion is very naive.

Disclaimer: I do believe that good architecture should respond to its context when appropriate; in fact, in a lot of my own projects I've often stressed responding to built form and context as one of my main priorities. There are plenty of ways to respond, formally and materially, to existing context. But to actually mimic the aesthetic and form of historical architecture is very counterproductive and predisposes a given project to poor design.

 

[TrickyRicky]

I was on Elm this morning and I think this building might make a nice terminus when looking down the street. At any rate anything will be better than the old view of Ryerson's library.

Anything I build in the future will definitely be more historical in reference than modern. It doesn't make sense to out-and-out copy our heritage because modern building technologies like better windows etc. should naturally influence the look and design. However, the proportions, materials and detailing of our historic buildings is not improved on in our contemporary buildings in my opinion. While I appreciate the aesthetics and intention of our contemporary housing stock I notice that it tends to be a niche market. Modern looking contemporary detached homes try to sell at a premium to traditional looking homes here in the West end of downtown but I notice they languish on the market. The implication is that while some people love these kinds of houses, that love is probably a minority opinion.

 

[LowPolygon]

Practically every major nation in the world takes this seriously. They pour time, money, and energy into not only building more historical architecture that speaks to their culture but they make sure they do it justice.

Please provide the names of specific countries, cities, regions, as well as the names of specific developments where you find the above statement to be true.

I don't imagine it will be too hard, since "practically every major nation in the world" takes the building of historically themed architecture "seriously".