UofT: Sidney Smith Hall Redevelopment (?s, ?)

[adma]

The way I see it, if there was a time to be hating on Sid Smith in and of itself, it would have been the 70s/80s, when it seemed the epitome of a kind of Cold War Organization Man generic educational sterility from the pre-hippie era, and people were high on the Postmodern and whatever Tom Wolfe-tweaked popular epiphanies about how "less is a bore". And if I may ever so emphasize: "that was then"--if anything, there ought to be *more* inherent sympathy to the Sid Smith aesthetic now thanks to awareness of all that is Mad Men & midcentury; as well as the historical context and the idealism behind it all.

But countering that is two things: (1) the compromising effect of subsequent renovations, and (2) general ignorance and apathy t/w architectural history among younger cohorts, maybe even more so than 30-40-50 years ago. They don't care less when it was built, who it was designed by, or any of that; they've never been given the means to care. To them, "old and dated" means "old and dated"--they don't engage in dynamic terms of historical space and time, they only engage according to the immediacy of their existence. And to them, devoid of that kind of "contextualizing" data, Sid Smith sux. In their eyes, forcing them to endure Sid Smith is like forcing them to do their term papers on IBM Selectrics.

Remember: they're the same people who are indifferent on somewhat similar grounds to the Simpson Tower renovation (speaking of things Parkin).

 

[junctionist]

I don't think it's fair to stereotype the younger generation that way. Many will tell you they love City Hall, the TD Centre, and (increasingly) Robarts Library but couldn't care less about Sidney Smith. U of T's St. George campus has better examples of Modernism such as E.J. Pratt Library or Massey College.

Plus, the era of Neo Modernism brought us interesting buildings like the Bahen Centre, the faculty of pharmacy, and the Woodsworth College Residence. The campus isn't lacking in the style.

 

[condovo]

I'm not sure heritage should be designated by popular vote though...that feels like a recipe for disaster. Rather it should be based on the merit and significance both historically and architecturally of the building and it's design. And processed through a committee of experties on the matter, hopefully selected in the most non-partisan way possible, IMO.

Perhaps if the public Sid Smith was designed for, namely students, hate the building it says something about its merits or lack thereof. The "committee of experts" has been set up already. It's the thousands of students - and faculty and admin - who've used Sid Smith over the decades and continue to use it today. I've never met anyone who's had a kind thing to say about it. On the contrary. What I've heard over the years, from students and profs, are plenty of snarky complaints.

 

[AlexBozikovic]

This discussion has gone sideways. The point is not whether any one person likes this building or not.

There are provincial and city policies on heritage that ask whether a site is significant in terms of social history or architectural history. This building has both in abundance. Toronto now routinely lists buildings with 1/1000 the history and zero architectural merit. We should be asking for some degree of coherence and consistency.

And if the building is in bad shape, and a lot of people don’t like it… That’s the entire reason heritage policies exist. If everyone loves a building, it’s not in danger. Views change with time, sometimes dramatically so.

 

[Northern Light]

This discussion has gone sideways. The point is not whether any one person likes this building or not.

Correct, it's not about one persons opinion, mine or yours; but the collective wisdom is what it is very much about.

That's not to suggest it should be left entirely to popular vote; but this would be a 9-1, if not 99-1 landslide against.

To preserve something in light of that IS to give weight to the opinion of one, because it clearly discards every other opinion.

There are provincial and city policies on heritage that ask whether a site is significant in terms of social history or architectural history.

The policies are incorrect. We ought not to save a building, or a car or a t-shirt or a toilet because someone of significance once studied in it, drove it, wore it or relieved themselves on it.

We ought to save something that is worth saving in its own right, not by association.

I don't want to preserve Massey Hall for the concert that happened there in the early 20thC, long before I was born, I want to preserve it for the next concert I get to enjoy there.

I don't want to preserve Union Station as a train-station museum; but as a place to take the train to/from that offers a measure of grandeur to that experience.

I don't want to preserve Sid Smith so I can cast my eyes on its less than alluring visuals, or deal w/its clunky layout, or ho-hum interior design, nor the poor sightlines in most classrooms, nor the inaccessible lecture hall. There never was a there there.

..... Toronto now routinely lists buildings with 1/1000 the history and zero architectural merit.

It also fails to list buildings with a thousands times greater merit.

We should be asking for some degree of coherence and consistency.

Sure, but this is not the building to baseline a new norm off of.......

And if the building is in bad shape, and a lot of people don’t like it… That’s the entire reason heritage policies exist. If everyone loves a building, it’s not in danger. Views change with time, sometimes dramatically so.

According to this line of thinking, one opinion to save it, from a person who doesn't make regular use of the building is sufficient justification for a designation.

On that basis, we just designated every building in the City.

 

[whatever]

It's not just the exterior, or the unsympathetic additions, or the changing tastes in design. Sid Smith is programmatically a mess. The administrative, research, and classroom spaces are terrible. It's not fixable without the kind of interventions that would make preservation pointless.

Of the four modernist buildings along St George (McLennan, Lash Miller, Sid Smith, and Ramsay Wright), Sid Smith is the least defensible. There's nothing "modernist" about retaining a lousy building because it's old.

 

[condovo]

...or because it was designed by this architect or that architect, in this given era or that given era, unless it rises to the level of an Ictinus or a Michelangelo or a Le Corbusier, which Parkin certainly does not.

 

[adma]

Plus, the era of Neo Modernism brought us interesting buildings like the Bahen Centre, the faculty of pharmacy, and the Woodsworth College Residence. The campus isn't lacking in the style.

The fact that you're speaking of "the style" in dateless terms and conflating Neo-Modern into it illuminates the problem here.

May I say this: to divorce architectural appreciation from all sense of historical space and time, where it's irrelevant whether something's from 1960 or something's of 2000 as long as it's "good", is the epitome of amateur judgment under the delusion that it's "enlightened". But unfortunately, especially among the young who've been ensconced in an "eternal now" in a constant state of update, there's too much utter *obliviousness* to how that kind of dynamic, positive historical consciousness can mitigate, enlighten, and give a much more "dimensional" understanding of the past.

And that's the kind of tool that'd enable one to "understand" Sid Smith. OTOH if there's no positive engagement to its 1960ness of being, or indeed of *any* 1960ness of being--like it might as well be 1860 or 1760 for all anyone cares--it's within that kind of vacuum that the hostility sets in...

 

[adma]

Of the four modernist buildings along St George (McLennan, Lash Miller, Sid Smith, and Ramsay Wright), Sid Smith is the least defensible. There's nothing "modernist" about retaining a lousy building because it's old.

How is it less defensible, other than its A&S overfamiliarity breeding contempt? I mean, Ramsay Wright is rather brick-anonymous, and I've always found Lash Miller to be the ugliest and clumsiest of the lot (but McLennan's underrated, and has something of the "integrity" Sid Smith lost through alteration)

 

[whatever]

How is it less defensible, other than its A&S overfamiliarity breeding contempt? I mean, Ramsay Wright is rather brick-anonymous, and I've always found Lash Miller to be the ugliest and clumsiest of the lot (but McLennan's underrated, and has something of the "integrity" Sid Smith lost through alteration)

Ramsay Wright has a great (though small) lecture hall, the hidden gem of an ecological park along the south side, the layout of the building allowed the space to update the classrooms, and the office space above is serviceable, albeit dated.

Lash Miller is functional. The undergrad labs are easily accessible, the lecture halls are fine, the research space is, again, functional. I'm not crazy about the early 2000s addition, but the main floor is mostly unmolested. My only gripe about Lash Miller is the way the north entrance to the lecture halls dumps onto the narrow sidewalk, but that's been improved via the Sussex closure. I have no love for the style of it, but it works.

Sid Smith just doesn't work. The circulation is bad, the wide but shallow seminar rooms are bad, the windowless offices in the basement(s) are bad, the narrow hallways in the administrative building are bad, the narrow enclosed "porches" are bad, the dining hall is bad... There's just nothing there to save

 

[adma]

Ramsay Wright has a great (though small) lecture hall, the hidden gem of an ecological park along the south side, the layout of the building allowed the space to update the classrooms, and the office space above is serviceable, albeit dated.

Lash Miller is functional. The undergrad labs are easily accessible, the lecture halls are fine, the research space is, again, functional. I'm not crazy about the early 2000s addition, but the main floor is mostly unmolested. My only gripe about Lash Miller is the way the north entrance to the lecture halls dumps onto the narrow sidewalk, but that's been improved via the Sussex closure. I have no love for the style of it, but it works.

Sid Smith just doesn't work. The circulation is bad, the wide but shallow seminar rooms are bad, the windowless offices in the basement(s) are bad, the narrow hallways in the administrative building are bad, the narrow enclosed "porches" are bad, the dining hall is bad... There's just nothing there to save

Funny how you're speaking in "functionalistic" terms, rather than the aesthetic terms I had in mind. (Or for that matter "historical" terms, i.e. how they function in the present, rather than as artifacts of their time, considered within the context of their time.)

 

[JasonParis]

A bit off-topic, but what is that U of T library at Downsview mentioned?

 

[whatever]

Funny how you're speaking in "functionalistic" terms, rather than the aesthetic terms I had in mind. (Or for that matter "historical" terms, i.e. how they function in the present, rather than as artifacts of their time, considered within the context of their time.)

I'm not denying that my criticism is reserved for the function of the building. Nor am I suggesting that the sole purpose of a building is to "function", but at the end of the day a building needs to serve its occupants. Of those four buildings, Sid Smith is the one that serves its purpose the worst.

I recognize that Sid Smith has a certain context to its design that makes it... at least noteworthy (I'm not sold on "significant", but I can readily grant noteworthy). But is the aesthetic noteworthiness of this particular building sufficient grounds to continue inflicting it on future generations of occupants?

If we were going to preserve any four of those buildings as part of the architectural legacy we bequeath the faculty and students of the 22nd century, this just isn't the one I'd pick.

 

[junctionist]

Of the four modernist buildings along St George (McLennan, Lash Miller, Sid Smith, and Ramsay Wright), Sid Smith is the least defensible. There's nothing "modernist" about retaining a lousy building because it's old.

St. George also has Jack Diamond and Barton Myers' thought-provoking Innis College buildings.

 

[adma]

But is the aesthetic noteworthiness of this particular building sufficient grounds to continue inflicting it on future generations of occupants?

If properly contextualized, yes.

And frankly, under the circumstance, if this isn't the one of the four 60s West Campus complexes you'd save, then you might as well sweep all four away on behalf of a massive tabula rasa re-visioning of said West Campus; because, really, "functionality" is the only argument that can be offered on *their* behalf according to the Sid-Smith-must-go barometer. And let Robarts and New and Innis run away with the 60s/70s fabric-decreed-to-remain honours...