The theologian may indulge the pleasing task of describing Religion as she descended from Heaven, arrayed in her native purity. A more melancholy duty is imposed on the historian. He must discover the inevitable mixture of error and corruption, which she contracted in a long residence upon earth, among a weak and degenerate race of beings.
- Edward Gibbon

The chatter and the awards these spring have been focussed on the recognizably authored buildings – the ROM, OCAD, the massive change of the AGO. More interested lately in building on the City’s history, Toronto has found 21st century-big-world-City Religion – and so developed a taste for buildings that could exist anywhere. They’re fun, flashy and are regrettable substitutes for buildings of grander and stronger civic vision. They don’t make their neighbourhoods, they make themselves. However much they may have been to our aesthetic taste at a time, over the long term they’ll be particularly loud reminders of a period that valued brand over vision.

1. I’m not sure I understand a rhetoric that says these building don’t make neighbourhoods. What kind of urban fundamentalist notion is that? Are you arguing that the “neighbourhoods” around the AGO and the ROM are so great that every new design has to be part of the existing fabric? With very few exceptions in this city we could remove the old “Hogtown” legacy – you know those neighbourhoods I mean – and start again with a more sophisticated and distinctly urban approach. Bravo to the AGO and ROM for making architecture in Toronto a contact sport again.

   Posted by Jeff Benninger  on  06/08  at  11:22 AM

2. I would argue that the buildings that were built in Toronto prior to 1950 came from a very strong British (and later American) template. Toronto’s older buidlings came from this tradition and they could’ve only been built in cities within the Anglo-American tradition. The fact that they weaved themselves into the fabric of the city is a function of time and use by Torontonians.

   As the city’s cultural outlook changes (we’re no longer as WASPY and straight-laced, right?) shouldn’t our architecture change?

   Posted by Ron Nurwisah, Boy Reporter  on  06/08  at  12:23 PM

3. Today’s shock is Tomorrow’s boredom, these structures seem flimsy with a short expiration date and very large egos.

   Posted by  on  06/08  at  04:38 PM

4. The joy of Toronto as a city is that these flashy buildings can actually coexist and enhance the urban fabric of the neighbourhoods they’re sited in. It isn’t an “either-or” proposition whereby somehow having these icons would suck the life out of the surrounding areas. The urbanity of Toronto is far more resilient, and besides, isn’t it time that Toronto has a little fun and self-indulgence, without worrying about whether it is world-class to do so? Sparingly done, of course.

   Regarding “today’s shock being tomorrow’s boredom” – like all styles, leave it alone long enough and it will get back to exactly where it’s started. And last time I checked, various treasured buildings, like the two City Halls, various University buildings, etc aren’t exactly “humble”, and yet we learned to love them like we do of our neighbourhoods.

   Posted by Alvin (aka GeekyBoy)  on  06/10  at  11:10 AM

<< Back to main