Toronto Toronto City Hall and Nathan Phillips Square | ?m | ?s | City of Toronto | Perkins&Will

Re: re: NPS Competition

Comments like this bring down the level of integrity here, not to mention your own 'credibility'. Stay out of the thread if you have nothing other than gratuitous insults to offer!
Click to expand...

Gratuitous insult? Simply an observation. If you're going to suggest changing the name of Nathan Philips Square without even understanding his significance, then yes, your credibility is definitely going to suffer.

How can anyone take your suggestions seriously when you demonstrate such a complete lack of knowledge on the issue at hand?


Prove it. If you're going to freely lob around slanderous insults, back them up *for once*. Prove that Winston Churchill was "racist".
Click to expand...

I always try to back up what I post with facts. I don't know where this "for once" is coming from.

These are not slanderous insults. Churchill was one of the biggest opponents of Indian Independence. Churchill's attitude towards Indians and other minorities is well documented:

On rising Hindu-Muslim tensions (fostered to great extent by their divide and conquer strategy):

"Oh, but that is all to the good"

On Gandhi:

"a half-naked fakir" who "ought to be laid, bound hand and foot, at the gates of Delhi and then trampled on by an enormous elephant with the new viceroy seated on its back"


"Gandhi-ism and all it stands for will, sooner or later, have to be grappled with and finally crushed"

Leo Ameres, Secretary of State for India, noted in his diary that Churchill said:

"I hate Indians. They are a beastly people with a beastly religion."

On the use of chemical warfare:

"[I advocate] using poisoned gas against uncivilised tribes [and] against recalcitrant Arabs as an experiment. [I do not understand] the squeamishness about the use of gas [...] We cannot in any circumstances acquiesce in the non-utilisation of any weapons which are available to procure a speedy termination of the disorder which prevails on the frontier."

So, I think you'll forgive me for questioning a man who led the fight against facism yet had no problem with the oppression of countless others.

Maybe you should do some background research before you post. "For once".
 
As is often the case in these threads, tangents take us so far from where we originally started that it's easy to get lost in the detours, so please allow me to clarify what my positions here are:

- I have made it clear that I am not advocating that there should be an homage to Winston Churchill in NPS. He is a great and important man - not a saint to be sure - who should be honoured somewhere but I do not think that NPS is the place. In fact, the statue that already exists more than suffices as far as I'm concerned, so it is a non-issue. I do also feel that the statue of Churchill should be moved if necessary as part of a larger restoration of NPS.
My comments about him arose in response to a comment made that Churchill was a 'racist' and not worthy of being honoured (more on that later).

- My central argument here is that a civic square as important as NPS should have a name that is more symbolic and more meaningful to the city as a whole. This is not to disparage Nathan Phillips (how many times need I repeat this to the delicate and sensitive??) but to suggest that the civic heart of Toronto is bigger than one individual (no matter how important). Okay, so now I'm accused of being ignorant of Toronto's history, not having any credibility, suggesting something maudlin and ridiculous, i.e. "Multicultural Square" blah, blah, blah... Fine, clearly a chorus of disapproval here. Still, toeing the official party line and preaching to the choir is boring so onwards...

As an example of what I mean I am offering the magnificent Place de la Concorde in Paris, former Place Louis XIV, for consideration. In a similar way to NPS, this important civic place is symbolic of an old order ending (ancien regime) and a new one beginning. Yet, instead of naming the square for a significant individual, no matter how historically important, along the lines of a "Place Danton" or "Place Camille Desmoulins" say, who will all likely get lost in the annals of history anyway - it is named more symbolically to represent something ideal and significant to the French and the Parisians; in this case the promise of freedom as fought for with blood... Ah the heart flutters and we sing La Marseillaise and bless Marianne! If nothing else, it's a good return on the simple investment of a name.

So, continuing to duck the insults, I will continue to argue that Toronto's civic heart - home of old and new city halls and the seat of the law society etc. - is worthy of its own name; that Nathan Phillips should be honoured prominently with a lovely statue and plaque etc...Perhaps even within the square itself that he was so instrumental in creating, or maybe better still at a new site (garden or waterfront monument or something) that would stand alone to him. Okay, that's my take on it.

As for Churchill being a racist? That will require a more thoughful response and I will get back shortly.
 
Re: re: NPS Competition

tudararms:

But see, what you are suggesting - renaming of a noted locale - is more often than not practiced by regime that felt the need to distance itself from the past, or that new outlooks requires naming schemes to be reflective of such. Whether one feels the name is appropriate or otherwise doesn't change the reality that the decision makers at the time (and proxy, the populace, in a democratic system) felt the achievements of the individual is more than worthy for the task. Besides, one could concievably argue that Nathan Phillips continues to be a reflection of the current Toronto.

AoD
 
Also, even banished names can be brought back - as we see in places like Saint Petersburg where Commie names are being replaced with former Czarist ones.

In the case of Place de la Concorde, for instance, I'm already kinda warming to the idea of Place Louis XIV...
 
Yes! And the widows of the Desaparecidos who lost power and influence once Miller took over can hold a vigil every day.
 
Yes! And the widows of the Desaparecidos who lost power and influence once Miller took over can hold a vigil every day.
Click to expand...

Including Mrs. Royson James.
 
This is not to disparage Nathan Phillips (how many times need I repeat this to the delicate and sensitive??) but to suggest that the civic heart of Toronto is bigger than one individual (no matter how important). Okay, so now I'm accused of being ignorant of Toronto's history, not having any credibility, suggesting something maudlin and ridiculous, i.e. "Multicultural Square" blah, blah, blah... Fine, clearly a chorus of disapproval here. Still, toeing the official party line and preaching to the choir is boring so onwards..
Click to expand...

Now that you have established that you don't want to disparage Nathan Phillips by suggesting his unimportance, that you never intended to hurt what you consider our delicate and little feelings, that you have only offered the opinion that a square ought not to be named after one mere individual (one who you consider to be unworthy), that you have bridled at the idea that your knowledge of Toronto's history is not up to measure, and that you are in no way interested in "maudlin" ideas for renaming the square, the question must once again be asked:

What would you rename the square?
 
"What would you rename the square?"

Ahhh Bizorky, I sincerely wish I could offer that one fantastic suggestion that would instantly elicit a collective and resounding cheer of approval here, followed by the virtual hoisting of me on virtual shoulders as I'm carried around a virtual Urban Toronto forum to the chant of "Tu-dar!", "Tu-dar!", "Tu-dar!"...hey I need a little approval too... Alas, I seem to lack the creative facility to conceive of said suggestion.


AoD: "But see, what you are suggesting - renaming of a noted locale - is more often than not practiced by regime that felt the need to distance itself from the past, or that new outlooks requires naming schemes to be reflective of such. Whether one feels the name is appropriate or otherwise doesn't change the reality that the decision makers at the time (and proxy, the populace, in a democratic system) felt the achievements of the individual is more than worthy for the task..."

Good point. I don't disagree with you, and I don't say my argument is without flaw, but I also sense that the flipside of your point may be equally true: renaming schemes can be just as much about turning 'towards' something as about turning 'away' from something.

AoD: "Besides, one could concievably argue that Nathan Phillips continues to be a reflection of the current Toronto."

Equally good point, and I sense that this may be what is causing such vehement resistance to change. However, is it that inconceivable that one day, for our children's generation and so on, in a 'post-multicultural' Toronto where the staunchly British, waspy Toronto of the early nineteenth century will be about as relevent to them as Boston Brahmins in Beantown are today, that a renaming of this central civic square will be about as controversial as changing it from a hypothetical "Vimy Square" or "Empire Square" for example?
 
Sorry, I forgot a point I wanted to make...

Historically speaking, I think we have to be careful about - or at least aware of - the sort of romantic symbolism or mythology we choose to imbue somebody with:

A closer look at the biography of Nathan Phillips reveals a priviledged background in small-town Ontario, with an elite education that includes passing the bar at Osgoode Hall; and as a King's Council and running member of the Conservative Party for many years Phillips could hardly be considered 'marginal' to society. Aside from his religion, which didn't appear to hinder him in any way, he was essentially more 'establishment' than the 'establishment', more waspy than wasps.

Also, in looking at the accomplishment of Phillips you should not ignore the forces for change that were brewing in Canada/Toronto during his lifetime, which is to say over the course of the early nineteenth century, and that would really gallop free after the second world war when Phillips became mayor. The victory at Vimy Ridge, for example, was one of the seminal events coalescing Canadian identity into something distinct from that of the Motherland, even though occuring in the context of a colonial war. To put it simply, Toronto was turning its back on its conservative British past, rejecting more and more the old colonial order. Anecdotaly, I have heard it said by many British people who arrived in Canada after the war that they often experienced hostility towards them from native born, anglo Canadians. Canada was forging closer ties with the United States, and opening its doors through new immigration policies, and so on.

My point in all of this is that I view Nathan Phillips as a 'result' of changing times, rather than the cause of them. As mentioned, he was already a very comfortable and accepted 'outsider' who was in fact very much on the 'inside'; in short, the right person for a transitional time.

Just a different view.
 
What the hell?! Did Nate Phillips' grandson run over your dog or something? Why do you feel the need to do everything you can to smear the legacy of one of Toronto's greatest leaders?

I might add that you seem to have a very shiny view of the role minorities played in that era. Any minority group (Jews and Italians included) faced intense discrimination, from whisper campaigns to being passed over for promotions. For a Jewish citizen of Toronto in the 1950s and earlier to have achieved all those things you mentioned is something to be celebrated, not condemned.

I might also add that historic leaders who built the city of Boston are celebrated quite a bit, even today. I know that you feel that only our own generation's leaders have any "relevance" to people today. As you mention, Vimy Ridge was a battle that symbolized the birth of Canada as an independent nation. Such a square would also honour the thousands of Canadians who gave their lives in furtherance of that goal. Why on earth would you want to rename something like that? Also, there would rightfully be an intense outcry today if someone like you suggested renaming a hypothetical Vimy Square.
 
Speaking of which...there was a plan in the 30s to create a roundabout at Queen and University or thereabouts, as University was being extended south to Front at the time. That roundabout was to be called Vimy Circle, with a monument in the centre of it.
 
Look; as has been indicated time and again w/Trudeau, Churchill, John Paul II, *nobody's* got a 100% clean nose to 100% of people anymore as a "worthy" subject of commemoration. *Everyone* is either debunkable, or counter-debunkable. I mean, one doesn't even *have* to bring up the mayor-of-all-the-people piffle on behalf of Nathan Phillips; or the no-more-political-establishment-hack-than-his-predecessors piffle against him. It's petty. Just leave him be.

And, tudararms, re
As an example of what I mean I am offering the magnificent Place de la Concorde in Paris, former Place Louis XIV, for consideration. In a similar way to NPS, this important civic place is symbolic of an old order ending (ancien regime) and a new one beginning. Yet, instead of naming the square for a significant individual, no matter how historically important, along the lines of a "Place Danton" or "Place Camille Desmoulins" say, who will all likely get lost in the annals of history anyway - it is named more symbolically to represent something ideal and significant to the French and the Parisians; in this case the promise of freedom as fought for with blood... Ah the heart flutters and we sing La Marseillaise and bless Marianne! If nothing else, it's a good return on the simple investment of a name.
Click to expand...
Okay. Beyond that unfortunate whiff of "Toronto ought to be world class like Paris", if we want to use your framework re NPS and direct it at Place de la Concorde, how is any of this "ideal and significant" to today's French and Parisians? If it is, well, that's where higher and more comprehensive standards of education re one's history and mythology kick in. Otherwise, if I were an average (as opposed to above average) young French or Parisian and assuming there's greater jaded "par" with average young North Americans, I'd roll my eyes. That stuff's "ideal and significant" only to old grand-mamans and well-meaning tourists who *think* that's how average Parisians feel. That symbolism's as old hat as commemorating ol' Nate Phillips in Toronto. And you can shove that ol' fluttering heart up your own ooh-la-la. (But seriously, it's more likely a perfectly common youth indifference; the Place de la Concorde "just is".)

Also--it's a different kind of space from NPS, functionally, symbolically, and in the context of its time and milieu. And maybe this is also where today's tendency t/w nostalgia, sentimentality, "historical sensitivity" and all-around clinginess comes in--remember my snide comment about "okay then, replace New City Hall"? If Toronto "worked" like Paris back in the days when the Place de la Concorde was established and named, well...that was an milieu when a New City Hall-calibre public edifice *could* have been demolished on behalf of "something better". A lot was destroyed under Napoleon, y'know...
 
I like the idea of redesigning (or improving) Nathan Phillips Square - the square with that name.
 
Getting back to the redesign of NPS (now that the whole idea of renaming the square has been soundly rejected), is an interesting column by Barber - he thinks the redesign will only do what was originally planned - move the walkway back to Queen, where it should have been, open up Bay Street, move the peace garden and have a more permanent stage.


An all-new Nathan Phillips? Thankfully, no

JOHN BARBER

Ayear ago in this space, the University of Toronto's dean of architecture, George Baird, denounced an upcoming international competition to redesign Nathan Phillips Square, worrying it would become an invitation to architectural vandalism. The iconic public square needs careful restoration, he warned, not a radical redesign of the sort inspired by open competitions.

Esteemed architect Eberhard Zeidler was even more conservative in his response to the upcoming competition, saying the iconic public square, warts and all, should remain completely unmolested. "You can say it's good or bad, but you don't tear it down and change it," he warned. "You have to leave it as it is."

Neither of those influential design arbiters was able to prevent the progress of the competition, however. And a good thing for them: This week, when the jury announced four finalists from among the 48 teams from 13 countries that submitted proposals to redesign the square, George Baird and Eb Zeidler were among them.

It's hard not to cock a brow at that. But Mr. Zeidler, for one, is unrepentant.

"I'm still thinking the same way," he said in an interview this week, adding that the key to improving the square is to clear away the clutter of decades and return to architect Viljo Revell's original vision for it.

"The square wasn't quite done as Revell wanted it," said Mr. Zeidler, of Zeidler Partnership. "There were certain changes made and some of them should be corrected."

Only after that is done, he added, should anything new be considered.

"You can't take a monument of that nature and whack it to pieces, you know."

The presence of Baird Sampson Neuert on the shortlist also gives comfort that Nathan Phillips Square will be spared the architectural torture currently being inflicted on the poor ROM uptown. Not only did the competition organizers respond "very conscientiously" to his concerns that the contest could get out of hand, according to the dean, the jury appears to have done the same.

Strangely and perhaps mercifully, the competition is turning out differently than many anticipated. Conceived as a revival of the outward-reaching gesture of the competition that first produced Toronto's new City Hall and square in the late 1950s (staged after a local design was judged inadequate), the current competition has become notably local. Although all four teams on the shortlist announced this week include out-of-town collaborators, three are led by Toronto firms.

In addition to the established Baird and Zeidler firms, up-and-coming Plant Architect also earned a place among the final four. To make this putatively international event seem even more incestuous, Mr. Baird headed the jury that recently awarded Plant first place in a competition to rehabilitate the historic market square in Stratford, Ont. -- and subsequently encouraged the firm to enter the Toronto contest.

"The jury concentrated on what was on the wall, and not really where the firms were from," according to its chairman, Eric Haldenby, director of the University of Waterloo's school of architecture.

But even so, he added, it's no surprise that local firms dominated.

"It's a hard problem," he said. "The response is going to be very thoughtful, and in order to think about it you've got to understand it. So I'm not surprised that some good Toronto firms are in this game."

The jury was "very aware" of the need to be careful, according to Mr. Haldenby, and so were most of the competitors, foregoing grand gestures to concentrate on the obvious problems with the current ensemble -- the ragged edges, the clutter, the ever-problematic podium at the base of the curving towers.

Just in case this job might begin to seem too local, the jury also short-listed Rogers Marvel, a top-drawer New York firm with an impressive portfolio of major open-space designs, including the streetscapes of Battery Park City. But the New York team also included landscape architect Ken Smith, who gave Toronto Cumberland Park in Yorkville.

Although none of the firms are allowed to discuss their plans until they have been developed and brought back to the jury in the new year, it's not hard to imagine some of the major moves they will propose.

Last year, while still complaining about the competition, Mr. Baird couldn't help wishing that the elevated walkways that surround and define the square were reconfigured according to the architect's original plans.

That would mean extending the southernmost structure to the edge of the sidewalk on Queen Street, expanding the square and giving passersby an inviting view of City Hall (which is currently obscured from Queen). It would also mean reclaiming acres of asphalt from cars along Bay Street, and shuffling the Peace Garden off the main square.

Every submission will likely include a new stage to replace the succession of temporary structures that have served until now, but the focus will be on fixing -- and most of that will occur on the edges of the site.

So rather than being ruined, our civic heart appears on the verge of being redeemed as the noble place it has always aspired to be. Somehow, this bad idea has become exciting.

jbarber@globeandmail.com
 
You must log in or register to post here.

Back
Top