June 14, 2007
SOS—Save Our Sam's
Photo by Eyeline-Imagery in the Torontoist Flickr Pool.
In less than two weeks, all of Sam the Record Man's contents are going up for sale at auction. Yesterday, we confirmed with Benaco Sales Ltd., the auctioneers for the property, that the most coveted and contentious part of the building—its entire front façade, including the iconic "THAT'S ENTERTAINMENT" records and "SAM" logos (minus the red backdrop, which is unmovable)—would indeed be part of the sale. But that's not the end of the story.
The Save the Sam's Sign!!! Facebook group, which is fast approaching 20,000 members, is, understandably, freaking out (as is the other Facebook group devoted to the same end, with about 10,000 members). Posted to the Save the Sam's Sign group's page is an e-mail from Heritage Toronto, written by Rod Kelly. It reads, in part, as follows:
Upon hearing that there was an interest in having the [neon signs on the front of the Sam the Record Man store] designated as being of heritage significance, Heritage Toronto immediately contacted Heritage Preservation Services, the City of Toronto department responsible for the Inventory of Heritage Properties, requesting that the issue be reviewed and what future steps could be taken to have the signs designated.Heritage Toronto's website confirms the information, and today we spoke on the phone with Rod Kelly from Heritage Toronto, who also reiterated the information provided so far.Within hours Heritage Toronto was told that the City of Toronto would be going forward to designate the sign. The designation will describe the sign, location and require that should the site be redeveloped the sign will be reinstalled, same location and be lighted at night. Heritage Toronto has committed to continue to work with Heritage Preservation Services to advance the plan and congratulates them for their swift and positive response.
The process for designation under the Ontario Heritage Act is essential to be sure that all aspects of the subject matter are assessed thoroughly and detailed in any recommendation to designate the site or structure.
While the city (specifically, Heritage Preservation Services) intends to designate the signs as historical under the Ontario Heritage Act, and thus keep them intact, illuminated lights and all, it's not so simple—especially in light of the fast-approaching auction. Kelly told us today that there is a possibility that the family could still sell the façade if they wanted to, in spite of historical designation. It's not a sure thing: if the city designates the signs as historical soon enough, it is possible for the government to overrule the family—possible, not definite. But time is running out.
Here on Torontoist, if the signs do end up at auction, we've been tossing around the idea of mobilizing our readership and Torontonians as a whole to donate money and place a substantial bid on the sign on their behalf, but we'd rather it not have to come to that—instead, the best thing would be for the city to preserve the signs, intact, as-is, as they are now in the process of trying to do. What will happen next and how quickly it will happen is anyone's guess, but we'll try to keep you in the loop, especially if we get involved ourselves. At this point, it seems that the family's word will be the final one. We're hoping that they make the right decision.
UPDATE (June 16, 1:45 p.m.): The Star reports that Ryerson is interested in the property but is (like all of us) waiting on word from the family.
UPDATE (June 19, 5:30 p.m.): Eye's Dale Duncan writes that "Kyle Rae said this morning that his preservation panel will be bringing forward a motion [at this week's City Council] regarding the Sam the Record Man sign. The panel was late writing it up, so it’s uncertain what it will entail just yet, but Rae told the council: "it’s important that this get heard this session."
UPDATE (June 20, 1:30 p.m.): Today's sitting of Council is hearing the motion to historically designate the Sam's sign (the last item on the agenda), which was moved by Councillor Rae and seconded by Councillor McConnell.
UPDATE (June 22, 1:30 p.m.): Still waiting on the Council to discuss the motion (it was being held by Councillor Mike Del Grande, for some reason), but in the interim here's a copy of the motion to be put forward [PDF], which states, in part, as follows:
The intention of this Motion is to designate the property at 347 and 349 Yonge Street to protect Sam the Record Man sign, in recognition of its cultural heritage value. The sign is threatened due to the imminent closure of the store and subsequent auctioning of the sign on June 27, 2007. Heritage Preservation Services staff feel this is a significant landmark in the downtown and should be protected through designation.UPDATE (June 23, 11:00 a.m.): Yay! Both CTV and The Star are reporting that the signs have been saved by the City, with The Star (whose article was written most recently) reporting that the entire building has been designated a heritage building. According to Kyle Rae, "[the City will] sit down with the owner or future owners as the property is being sold, and we hope to be able to maintain the two discs and `Sam' signs on the rooftop as part of the ongoing history of Yonge Street.''The entire sign on the front (west) façade and above the entryway at both 347 and 349 Yonge are identified for designation. This includes the iconic large spinning disc neon signs with their red backgrounds, the “SAM” signs atop it and the backlit sign beneath. The smaller spinning disc neon signs on the adjacent façade at 341 Yonge are not identified for designation.
In addition to the opinion of professional staff, there is a great deal of public and media interest
in the protection of the sign. The sign will be sent to auction before the next City Council
meeting if this matter is not addressed in an urgent fashion.
|
You know, ultimately we're talking about a billboard, people. I have to wonder how many people who signed up to preserve these advertising signs for Sam Sniderman's company, would count themselves as supporters of illegalsigns.ca?
I'm not suggesting the Sam's Records are comparable to the illegally-erected wall signs that illegalsigns.ca are against, but ultimately we're talking about the same thing - marketing. Why should a future developer be compelled to maintain the signage at the same site, or even be compelled to maintain them at all? This is a business district, after all, and it would be restrictive to force a developer to carry marketing for a (even defunct) company in perpetuity, moreso to force them to cover the costs to keep the billboards functional. Heck, what about having them donated to Ryerson and erect them on one of the ugly walls of Ryerson's various buildings? The marketing students would love it - perhaps they could provide illumination to Ryerson's skating rink. But let's not be silly and force them to stay in the middle of one of the highest traffic business areas in the city. Sam's is gone, pay tribute, get over it, and move on!
Gotta say, I agree with Hamish 100%, and the idea of it on teh wall above the Ryerson Skating rink makes me all tingly. That would be a great place for it!
The irony of the whole situation is something I talked about with Kelly. He agreed that it was really interesting that people unite to get behind something like this while trying to take down some of the other large ads in the area.
I think that it's yet more proof that there is good and bad advertising in this city. People really have an attachment to the sign (and why wouldn't they? It's pretty fucking gorgeous), and the promise of having the city protect it—lit up and everything—is definitely appealing.
This totally goes to show that all advertising is not bad advertising. Something like the Sam's sign or the Honest Ed's facade are bona fide landmarks that transcend their function as "marketing."
There aren't too many such signs in this (or any) city and I don't see any contradiction whatsoever. Since they're clearly not ILLEGAL that strikes me as a total red herring.
It's the difference between the organic character of Times Square the the calculated Clear Channel abominations that surround Dundas Square. It's the difference between a city like Las Vegas that will tear down anything and everything and a city like Paris that treasures and preserves its heritage.
As Nigel Tufnel so deftly said, "there's such a fine line between stupid and clever." Same goes for "marketing" and it goes to show that some things (like emotional attachment) are earned, not bought.
That said, the Ryerson idea (or something similar) strikes me as viable and creative but I do think the sign should at least remain in the neighbourhood. (IMHO)
Ugh. I'm sorry. I grew up shopping at Sam's. And I knew the family and the whole nine. But that sign is hideous. In fact it sums up the general ugliness of Yonge Street.
If anything, maybe it would be better to put the collective energy of Torontoist and Co, into forcing the issue to tear down all the crap along Yonge Street and try and make it beautiful.
As it stands now, and has stood for years, it's a butt ugly street. Like 6th Avenue in NYC. Tear it down. Tear almost all of it down. It's the worst commecial junk. Unlike the signs of the 1950's, that demonstrated some artistry, Sams -- and 90% of Yonge Street -- is basically an eyesore.
I can hear the critics chiming in now, " yes but it's our eyesore. "
I don't buy it.
Would someone please light a fire under the ass of Kyle Ray and the rest of City Council to wake up and do something about Yonge Street. It's simply awful.
Maybe whoever develops the site's future condo building can come up with some clever way to integrate the sign into its "lifestyle community."
That's assuming it doesn't get demolished or just collapses before the heritage designation gets approved.
However, I do agree that it's just a sign for a store, and whoever moves into the site should not be forced to maintain it. Does anyone have figures on how much electricity that thing burns in a day?
One of the main enduring memories of Toronto from my childhood is the Sam's sign, as well as the former A&A sign right next to it. I even remember when the Sam's sign had the RCA Records logo in the centre instead of "That's Entertainment." It's a landmark for Toronto as much as the Cup O' Noodles/Budweiser signs are for Times Square.
It is ugly. And Yonge Street is ugly. Get rid of Sam's and improve this street please. It's an embarrassment to Toronto. We need to improve the ugly parts of this city and there are so many of them.
I totally agree with the comment above by warmflash. Why are we even talking about this guady sign like it's some museum piece? Let's direct our energy into making Yonge Street a place we can be proud of instead of the ugly embarrassment that it is today and has been for far, far too long.
If any street should be beautiful, it should be Yonge. It's the main street of our city. Getting rid of these cheap stores with their tacky signs like Sam's is a small step in the right direction.
We need to collectively put pressure on Kyle Rae and City Council to improve Yonge Street and the rest of the streetscape in Toronto. It's shabby, ugly and depressing!
Warmflash? DL? Buzz off to downtown Unionville or something...
Ugly as it may be (I think Sam's ought to be excluded from that claim, by the way) Yonge Street nonetheless has a feel that is absent from a lot of other more-recently developed strips of land in Toronto. There's no other street like it in Canada, and I think it's fantastic how every block or so it seems to entirely change, from ritzy (Kingish), to touristy (Queen-Dundasish), to over-the-top (Sam's), to sleazy (Wellesley area), back to ritzy (Yorkville), then kinda residential-y, or Unionville-esque, if you will (St. Clairish). North of that, it just keeps going and changing and becoming more and more quiet and rural (well, for Toronto).
Goddamn, I really love Yonge Street!
Hi Adam Sonbolak. I wasn't thinking Unionville as much as I was thnking 5th Ave or Madison Avenue. If you walk Madison Above 72nd street, or 5th --practically anywhere on it -- you are walking on major retail streets. But boy are they beautiful. A pleasure to behold. Yonge Street is shabbiness personified. It's as though it was designed for Detroit 1971.
If you live around Yonge Street and travel it everyday, -- as I do -- I can only imagine you would have to be heavily medicated to label it " fantastic. " There's no other street like it in Canada, because there is probably no other jurisdiction as careless or inept as Toronto.
If people honestly think Yonge Street is something special that no other city has - they're deluding themselves. Every city has a crappy, run-down, main street.
Auction the Sam's sign. Whoever ends up buying it obviously wants it - they're not going to buy it just to trash it (and it strikes me as a little too large to just install in someone's basement recroom). Maybe the city ought to buy it, it can be their first acquisition for their proposed City Museum.
I really love the Sam's sign...but I don't think we need to punish Yonge Street by insisting that it not be allowed to move.
I lived on Yonge Street (downtown) for many years and I both loved and loathed it at the same time. Most of the stuff I hated, however, had to do with people. Blaring horns after hockey games, people littering, car pollution and the drug problems at night.
I think this is a pretty good example of the split between people who are pro street art/anti omniscient advertising, and those who think all ads are fine and people should be seen and not heard. It seems a paradox at first, but the Sam's sign has been there for decades and people feel it is now part of the city -- they feel ownership of it, the same way that someone bombing the back alleys feels ownership of that location, the same way people who play Manhunt or go out for Newmindspace events feel ownership of public space. The Sam's sign is not a generic billboard, it's not Maybe It's Mabeline one week and Buy Toyo Tires the next. In 50 years when that address is an 80 storey tower of some kind, I'd like to see those swirling neon boobs in the same spot and remember what was.
Heritage is more than bricks and statues, it's also the organic gestalt of a neighbourhood. Kudos for people and the HPS for recognizing it.
Oh, and if the Honest Ed's signs haven't already been designated, they should be.
give me a break....do not confuse heritage value with sentimental value...the sigh is ugly and kitch, PERIOD
Warmflash: if you think New York retail-urbanist magic is all about 5th and Madison, your perspective never went very far from the tourist bus. Essentially, pointing those examples out is the NYC-lover's version of "Unionville values".
Not to mention the fact that when it comes to natural retail demographics, Toronto already has its 5th/Madison: Bloor. (Urban aesthetics are another matter.)
rapi - Why designate anything as historical then? A lot of places are useless or their function would be better served with a modern building, so where do you draw the line between sentimentality and heritage?
Ugly and kitsch are a matter of opinion.
Respectfully Adam, I lived in New York for many years. And 6th Avenue, around the Village is as awful as Yonge Street. And the residents around the Village complain too. They think 6th Ave is horrible.
Are you saying the shabbiness of Yonge Street is a desireable thing? When you walk down it, do you look around and say " Wow, what a wonderful ugly mess this is. Every city should have somethng like this? "
Obviously you find it appealing on some level. The Dollar Stores, the backlit neon signs, the general shabbiness. I don't get it. Are you suggesting this is " Shabby Chic? "
As for turning Yonge Street into a quaint family fun theme park like downtown Unionville, I am not suggesting that. I am suggesting we re-look at the entire street and start a new. I think a major street like this should be attractive. Not quaint.
They saved the Swinging Lady billboard on Eglinton East... now that's a classic sign! (Such an essential memory from my childhood--and my mom's!)
But it seems "good advertising" is about aesthetics as much as nostalgia. We like things that don't look modern and have 'always been there'.
Times Square is only "classic" because it's had time to age, and been reproduced as-is in so much of the mass media. The same can be said for the Sam's sign (from music videos to CHUM promos...) which is why I think it's essential to keep.
But this also means in 30+ years kiddies (and probs us to, by that point) will be just as fond of the new Yonge&Dundas mega advertising display--provided it maintains the style they build it in today.
I can see the day when the Jeep mounted up the side of the CHUMCity building becomes historically designated. Perhaps they should hurry up and designate it before Rogers thinks of ripping it down once the acquisition deal is closed.
Historically important ads are an interesting phenomenon. I'm sure the people painting those great ads on the side of brick buildings never thought that we'd be fighting to save them as art one day. Mind you, the City has never been particularly concerned about granting anyone and their cat a permit to slap a billboard right on top of those fantastic relics.
There's a point where certain ads stop being just advertisements and start being culturally important. The Sam's sign is one of these, not only because it's been an institution since 1961, but because of what the store meant for local and Canadian musicians, and what the spinning neon contributed to the vibe of Yonge Street. The two original spinning discs need some serious sprucing up, but they'd be beautiful examples of old downtown signage once restored. If they disappear, we're gonna regret it later.
Next there will be calls to designate the signs for Harveys, Coffee Time Donut's and Tim Hortons, as historically important.
Exactly. How long does a McDonald's have to be at a location before nobody's allowed to move the Golden Arches(tm)? How many famous people would have had to eat there? And would this conversation even be happening if Sam the Record Man still had locations in every suburban mall in the country?
The sign is cool, and I will have fond memories whenever I see one of the hundreds of movies or hundreds of thousands of pictures that it appears in. I'm not against preserving the sign, but if its time at its current location is up, let its time pass with dignity. The sign looks great on a record store. On an H&M or FCUK, or Sobey's Express, it'll just look ridiculous. I'd rather see it moved or sold for scrap than see that happen.
It's not that all signs are historically important. An old Tim Hortons sign wouldn't likely be noteworthy, but the first Tim Hortons sign would.
I remember being a kid when Yonge street had a lot less big flashy ads and I always thought the big neon records were really cool. I hope they stay.
"Respectfully Adam, I lived in New York for many years. And 6th Avenue, around the Village is as awful as Yonge Street. And the residents around the Village complain too. They think 6th Ave is horrible."
Ah, but what kinds of residents? Overly-genteel oldsters? Yuppie scum?
Let me ask--aesthetics and types of shopping aside, does 6th feel active? Reasonably well-used? Full of energy? Or does it feel more like a deserted wasteland, a no-go zone?
Methinks the younger and/or less arrogantly middlebrow-affluent the residents are, the more likely they are to tolerate an organic entity like 6th Avenue--or at least they'd roll their eyes at this kind of overzealous de-scummification fantasy.
===========================
Are you saying the shabbiness of Yonge Street is a desireable thing? When you walk down it, do you look around and say " Wow, what a wonderful ugly mess this is. Every city should have somethng like this? "
Obviously you find it appealing on some level. The Dollar Stores, the backlit neon signs, the general shabbiness. I don't get it. Are you suggesting this is " Shabby Chic? "
===========================
Hey, inadvertently or not, Jane Jacobs gave all of us the means to love so-called "ugly messes". In that light, warmflash, you're reminding me of those farts puzzled by youngsters with weird piercings or that non-musical hip-hop gibberish all polluting the urban scene.
Believe it or not, there *are* visitors to NYC (and thoughtful ones, too) who can feel energized, fascinated, inspired by 6th Avenue, or even Canal or Delancey or wherever--while zones like 5th or Madison might, for all their merits, feel too well-trod, touristy or otherwise genteel. Sort of like in Toronto, it's genuinely understandable how a person can prefer Yonge btw/Dundas + Bloor to Yonge btw/Eglinton + Lawrence. Puzzle over "Shabby Chic" all you want, but there's lots who'd prefer it to "Yuppie Chic"...
=======================
"Next there will be calls to designate the signs for Harveys, Coffee Time Donut's and Tim Hortons, as historically important. "
Boston's ahead of you, re the Citgo Sign in Kenmore Square...
I think you can really appreciate how shabby and ugly most of Toronto is (and especially streets like Yonge) after you've lived in truly great cities and have gotten used to high standards of urban design, architecture and vibrant street life.
I lived in Manhattan, Paris and London for years and whenever I return to Toronto I am simply shocked by how ugly and neglected this city looks.
Beauty, style and elegance just don't seem to be a priority for Torontonians like they are for citizens of European cities or places like Montreal, New York and San Francisco. Even the way people dress in Toronto (in casual, shlumpy clothes) is a stark contrast to the care and attention people pay in other cities to their attire. I'm sorry if this sounds harsh, but honestly, let's stop deluding ourselves. We are not living in a "world-class" city here. This is a second-rate, mediocre city and we need to aim a lot higher to reach world standards for urban design.
Let's put our energy into creating public pressure on our politicians to vastly improve this city and bring it up to world standards. And please let's not waste more time discussing the merits of preserving a crappy, tacky advertising store sign.
Toronto would be a great city if we just got rid of all signs of affordable retail and people who aren't posh enough, you know?
Some of these comments reek of class privilege.
Given that "Statler" warmflash and "Waldorf" DI both claim to have lived in Manhattan/Paris/London "for years", I wonder if it also reeks of a cultural generation gap, as well as a bit of selective visioning.
Again, it's parallel to an old grump's hatred for a lot of the rock/hip-hop/whatever music Sam's dished out over the years...
Not that some areas of Toronto aren't brutal, but I've seen far dumpier areas in Manhattan, Paris and London than I've ever seen in Toronto.
Ah, but I guess their point is, you can *avoid* the so-called dumpier areas in ManParLo, they don't have to be smack dab central, in your face, etc.
Funny thing is, if anything epitomizes "second-rate mediocrity", it's too much of that self-conscious striving for this kind of so-called "world class". Didn't we learn that back when the likes of Mayor Art Eggleton were gee-whizzing that term about a generation ago?
Indeed, the progressive-minded urban lover's trend might be less of upholding and celebrating the world-classness of ManParLo, than of deconstructing and demystifying it--hey, anyone from Jane Jacobs to Guy Debord showed the way. It's less about overly exclusive "high standards", than *broad* standards that can, in their turn, encompass, contextualize, and inform said high standards. Thus, you can't have your Greenwich Village without your Gowanus, etc.
That's how come Yonge's honky-tonkness has become something to celebrate rather than be appalled by. As for warmflash/DL-type grumpiness, that's mainly the realm of conservative-urbanist think tanks (think of the Manhattan Institute's City Journal, etc).
That said, I agree to a point that the case for the Sam's sign is a bit hyperbolized--well, insofar as it's just so much fiddling while the Walnut Halls are collapsing. But that doesn't mean it isn't a valid fight...
Adam, calling those who have a different aesthetic sensibility "yuppie scum", "farts", "grumpy", "conservative-urbanist" paints your arguments with a political hue that ruin any chance of convincing us you are right. But for hipster urbanites (we can do the same), that's no surprise.
Please. I'm 29 years old. Hardly an old grump!
I've spent a lot of time in high school, university and after school studying and working in the world's great cities. I've gotten used to standards which are much higher than ours. And it's really hard to come back to a city which is defined by mediocrity and apathy.
Toronto has great potential, but we need to put a lot of public pressure on City Hall to vastly improve urban design in the city. It’s the only way things will improve.
Please make note of the following elected officials and contact them regularly to let them know that the current state of our city is unacceptable and that we demand high standards in urban design and architecture.
Ted Tyndorf
Chief Planner and Executive Director of City Planning
email: ttyndorf@toronto.ca
tel: (416) 392-8772
Robert Freedman
Director, Urban Design, Planning Division, City of Toronto
email: rfreedm@toronto.ca
tel: (416)-392-1126
Eric Pedersen, Program Manager Urban Design at email: epederse@toronto.ca
tel:(416) 392 1130
Chris Phibbs Senior Advisor to Mayor David Miller email:cphibbs@toronto.ca
tel:416-338-7106
Mayor David Miller
email: mayor_miller@toronto.ca
tel: 416-397-CITY (2489)
Kyle Rae
City Councillor for Ward 27 Toronto Centre – Rosedale
City Hall
email: councillor_rae@toronto.ca
Tel: 416-392-7903
Hamish, brokenengine, DavidF, et. al: Ryerson's interested in the building (and, potentially, the sign as well).
Adam Sobolak writes
" ...anyone from Jane Jacobs to Guy Debord showed the way. It's less about overly exclusive "high standards", than *broad* standards that can, in their turn, encompass, contextualize, and inform said high standards. "
I think Yonge Street represents " broad " standards. I think it represents no standards.
I don't recall either Jacobs or Debord advocating that.
If you feel it represents " broad " standards, please enlighten us.
correction. sentence II should read, " I DON'T think Yonge Street represents " Broad " standards. I think it represents no standards.
"Please. I'm 29 years old. Hardly an old grump!
I've spent a lot of time in high school, university and after school studying and working in the world's great cities. I've gotten used to standards which are much higher than ours. And it's really hard to come back to a city which is defined by mediocrity and apathy."
===========================
But maybe, then, you've allowed yourself to get *over*-refined in the process. Think of yourself as akin to a student of music who's become so over-instilled in classical/opera/ballet-style "high standards" as to get violently ill at, well, the beat and the rhythm of the masses. Now, that doesn't mean you ought to be saying "hey, this Nickelback and Kelly Clarkson is cool"; all it means is that, well, hang loose a little. Otherwise, you've locked yourself into an exclusionary plastic bubble--even within the "world's great cities" you uphold. (And remember how such stuff as the suburban riots of 2005 exposed a certain ugly other-side-of-the-door underbelly to Parisian "greatness". *My* Paris includes, or at least acknowledges, Clichy-sous-Bois. It's more dynamic that way.)
========================
"If you feel it represents " broad " standards, please enlighten us."
========================
Maybe breadth encompasses this so-called absence of standards? (Ah, then we're bordering on the old absence/presence philosophical thing...)
Incidentally, DI, re your
========================
Toronto has great potential, but we need to put a lot of public pressure on City Hall to vastly improve urban design in the city. It’s the only way things will improve.
Please make note of the following elected officials and contact them regularly to let them know that the current state of our city is unacceptable and that we demand high standards in urban design and architecture.
==========================
Yes, and don't think they don't know it already, so what else is new. Unless you focus your target a little more, the likely fate of such "public pressure" is that it'll be archived and forgotten.
Nor does it take subjectivity and relativity of opinion into account. For instance, some feel the Minto towers at Yonge + Eglinton represent "high urban standards"; others feel they're a violation thereof. Some feel Nathan Phillips Square is a barren concrete wasteland and an embarrassment begging a complete rework; others feel it's a modernist gem begging love and care rather than a "complete rework" barbarism. And, as we see in this thread, some feel that blithely tossing away the Sam's signs is an act of urban myopia rather than a cleansing of blight.
With such an amorphous goal plus said lack of consensus, you're not going to get anywhere. And surely, coming from "world class" urban experience, you ought to know that by now, right?
As for me, I used to feel like you did, that Toronto was a pokey embarrassment next to all that world class stuff out there. Now, I just feel like it's an organic extension of it all; such is the boundary-breaking Internet age, I guess...
Adam writes,
" In that light, warmflash, you're reminding me of those farts puzzled by youngsters with weird piercings or that non-musical hip-hop gibberish all polluting the urban scene. "
Warmflash responds
I'm a composer and hip-hop is one of the genres I work in.
Adam writes
" Maybe breadth encompasses this so-called absence of standards? (Ah, then we're bordering on the old absence/presence philosophical thing...) "
Maybe breadth emcompasses this so-called absense of standards.
So an absense of standards is good because it may help define of the nature of high standards.
Therefore let everything decay and encourage endless mediocrity. The result will help clarify what is actually good.
The is circular logic. It sounds like a missive from the OMB.
Perhaps you might care to read up on the comments about Toronto by today's leading architects and critics. They pretty much all agree that this city needs a lot of work.
A few:
"Toronto is an incredibly ugly city."
-- Will Alsop
"There is a sense of urgency among the design community that we need change. Challenges are greater than ever before."
-- Bruce Kuwabara at the Ourtopias Conference
“Parts of downtown are good, especially the area around the TD Centre and the Santiago Calatrava intervention in BCE Place. But there is a vast amount of what Rem Koolhaas calls ‘junkspace’ in Toronto. Too much context, not enough monument. Low-rise nothingness. We’ve allowed a potentially beautiful city to become plain at the centre and positively ugly at the periphery.”
— Mark Kingwell, University of Toronto
After living in Manhattan, it's pretty hard to live just about anywhere else in the world.
People in New York are all striving for the best, aiming for the highest and when you live there and get used to that mentality, it's pretty hard to get used to anything else afterwards.
I think that's why people returning to Toronto from places like New York find it hard to adjust to the mentality and outlook here.
I remember feeling quite down about Toronto after I returned from a long weekend in Chicago. While Chicago does have an enviable downtown, they also paid a high price for it. The handful of non-whites I saw downtown worked retail at stores nobody but white people seemed to frequent. I learned from the friend I was visiting that the downtown is basically set up to exclude the poor with a patchwork system of car insurance and toll booths that discourages them from coming downtown.
Toronto doesn't have the grand boulevards and block after block after block of world class architecture (or a style named after the city), but do we want that if the price is sterilization, only for tourists and the rich?
Is it possible that Toronto can be great without following in the footsteps of Paris and Manhattan?
Can we clean up Yonge without treating the people who live and work there like pests?
I think we can, and I think an essential part of it is recognizing and retaining the organic, the unplanned, and sometimes the ugly and unremarkable things that define and have defined a location.
Sometimes it's good to look elsewhere for ideas, but Toronto isn't Manhattan or Paris or Chicago or London. We don't have the physical confinement and concentrating effect of being on a peninsula or a great river, we don't have the centuries upon centuries of history and homegrown styles, and we haven't had a clean slate moment to undo endemic mistakes inherited from past generations. Can we appreciate Toronto for what it is, or do we have to judge it for what it is not?
Toronto's mentality has been to appeal to the lowest common denominator for way too long and the time has come for us to raise the bar.
Would you want to hold back a really smart student and not allow him to reach his potential because you're worried the rest of the class might feel bad about their own intellectual abilities? Would you want to hold back a gifted athlete who is good enough to make it to the Olympics because the rest of the team might feel bad about themselves? I think in Toronto, the answer might be YES. Let's cater to the lowest common denominator!
This city suffers from tall poppy syndrome. People who aspire to greater things (which is the norm in cities such as New York or London) are perceived as presumptuous, classist, attention seeking, or without merit. It's pretty pathetic because it keeps us wallowing in this state of mediocrity on a lot of levels, but especially when it comes to city-building.
It is time to set the bar higher, raise our standards, get over the tall poppy syndrome and achieve our potential to be a truly great city.
Thankfully, I think there are enough internationally-minded, big thinkers now living in Toronto who have the vision and drive to do so.
"Toronto doesn't have the grand boulevards and block after block after block of world class architecture (or a style named after the city), but do we want that if the price is sterilization, only for tourists and the rich?"
Please, you've got to be kidding! Why are you equating great architecture and good urban design with sterilization?
What a silly assumption!
This city certainly doesn't like tall poppies that's for sure!! Cut them down!
Aspiring to greatness is bad and immoral.
Mediocrity is good. Mediocrity is rewarded. Toronto loves mediocrity!!
That's what Tourism Toronto should build an advertising campaign around. The current campaign is "Toronto Unlimited".
How about "Toronto Limited" ? That's more fitting.
Even if Toronto needs work (which it does), I think that the Sam's sign is an exception to the rule. I can't think of a much better example of Kingwell's "monument" than the Sam's sign: it's beautiful, it says "Toronto," it has cultural significance, and, more than that, people really genuinely care about it.
Fine save the Sams sign and put is somewhere where those people who value it will go and look at it.
But thank goodness the building will be demolished. There's a glimmer of hopenow that this tacky, crappy section of Yonge will be improved.
I've made a note of the politicians and city officials above and will email them about urban design matters.
These guys only have jobs because we as taxpayers support them. If they're half asleep on the job, then we need to light a fire under them and let them know that it's unacceptable. They need to be held accountable for their actions. If they're not doing their jobs we need to exert public pressure to force them out.