MatthewK
New Member
As is unmissable in the current stage of Toronto's construction boom, we're now confronted with the facadectomy reaching a level that is surpassing trope and entering the sphere of cliche. I don't think the integration of old and new in general is necessarily such a bad thing - nothing inherent in such an integration is bad except its apparent invitation for unthought out architecture, the towers of which have so little to do with the original buildings that not only do the original buildings and the towers not enter any kind of aesthetic harmony or dialogue with each other, but nor do they clash in a provocative way-they do not even argue or spar in a lively, friendly, and intriguing manner. In many cases what we have is just an old woman and a young thing, who thinks he is much edgier and more vital than he really is, being put together on a stage in the public realm, the result being not a discourse on architectural historicity or rebellion, but rather just awkward silence. Or just as bad as the silence is an outright mutilation of the existing structure - this being the problematic facadectomy. This is not always the case, of course - L Tower, Five, and potentially Massey Tower are authentically dialogical architectural works. This applied aesthetic problem has more to do with architectural unimaginitiveness and the developer's fiscal agendas, and tied up with that a widespread aesthetic irresponsibility and thus violence on the developer's part, than what I want to bring up here. Really my question right now is not, 'why are there so many banal towers going up?' (that's an immense problem unto itself) but rather 'Why are there so many towers going up on lots that have architecturally valuable structures already in place, when Toronto has a plethora of empty lots and lots with nothing but architectural crap on them?'
Entangled with this question is a clarification I must make, regarding historical significance. Historical preservation should not be thought of as empty historical sentimentality, a quaint romance for anything old regardless of what it looks like; rather it should be thought of as necessary to a rich phenomenological experience of a metropolis. The old buildings are concretizations of ideas, often of dead people, and if still walking by them and entering their preserved interiors excites us in some undeniably real way, this is not superficial retro-romanticization - it is dwelling in and through a built dialogue that transcends way beyond each of our individual temporal existences - a dialogue between living and dead, between this "autonomous" age, the ages it descended from, and the unknown ages that will rise from out of it. And we are completely enthralled in the dialogue - so completely that most of us hardly notice it thematically.
Why is there such a pervasive inclination on the part of Toronto developers to destroy or mutilate the old building, often even if they claim to be respecting it, when they have many other options for development? Even if we can say there is no deep-dwelling psychological reason lying in the developers' minds for doing this, and we say it is just the developers irresponsibly and dogmatically following a trend, we still must ask why it is a trend in the first place. Even the emptiest things are rooted somewhere far down. I'm interested in the problem of the facadectomy, and more broadly irresponsible integration of old and new, on philosophical, psychological, practical-logistical, financial, architectural, and historical levels of enquiry. Anyone who has insight into this issue please discuss.
Added Note: "Facadectomy" is a term I never saw before going on this forum. But my sense of it is that the original building is destroyed except for the facade, which is then put on the face of the new structure. Below TOperson commented on how the term is misleading, as "ectomy" is a removal of something, whereas what I am talking about is the retaining of the facade. But if we want to defend the appropriateness of the term then just think that keeping only the facade is still a separation of facade from original building.
Entangled with this question is a clarification I must make, regarding historical significance. Historical preservation should not be thought of as empty historical sentimentality, a quaint romance for anything old regardless of what it looks like; rather it should be thought of as necessary to a rich phenomenological experience of a metropolis. The old buildings are concretizations of ideas, often of dead people, and if still walking by them and entering their preserved interiors excites us in some undeniably real way, this is not superficial retro-romanticization - it is dwelling in and through a built dialogue that transcends way beyond each of our individual temporal existences - a dialogue between living and dead, between this "autonomous" age, the ages it descended from, and the unknown ages that will rise from out of it. And we are completely enthralled in the dialogue - so completely that most of us hardly notice it thematically.
Why is there such a pervasive inclination on the part of Toronto developers to destroy or mutilate the old building, often even if they claim to be respecting it, when they have many other options for development? Even if we can say there is no deep-dwelling psychological reason lying in the developers' minds for doing this, and we say it is just the developers irresponsibly and dogmatically following a trend, we still must ask why it is a trend in the first place. Even the emptiest things are rooted somewhere far down. I'm interested in the problem of the facadectomy, and more broadly irresponsible integration of old and new, on philosophical, psychological, practical-logistical, financial, architectural, and historical levels of enquiry. Anyone who has insight into this issue please discuss.
Added Note: "Facadectomy" is a term I never saw before going on this forum. But my sense of it is that the original building is destroyed except for the facade, which is then put on the face of the new structure. Below TOperson commented on how the term is misleading, as "ectomy" is a removal of something, whereas what I am talking about is the retaining of the facade. But if we want to defend the appropriateness of the term then just think that keeping only the facade is still a separation of facade from original building.
Last edited: