...... ,SAVING _____ FACE "" ___ .,...,..,...... -...... ---~""--~ y,....,,..,___flool-...... ~~~~~~~ -·-...... o...M~-· .... t-s...... -..-....a_,.~ ...... ,__ __ ..__ • ,_ ____ a.-... _

~.._._..,...... ,,. c. -----.••!IIIIo»- • ., ...'!~ ...... ,.... _ ...... ,,...... ~- _...... a-.-.Qoo~os.oo.--·,..,...... _

__, __ ...... -t~oflhl '-·---­..... , Ill..-.--...... :::-:=..:::-:::::_Qt.,._

Michela n gelo Saba t i no

Eric Arthur: Practical Visions

A master of any art avoids excess and defect, but seeks the inter­ mediate and chooses this- the intermediate not in the object but relatively to us. (Aristotle, The Nicomachean Ethics , Book IJ , n. 6) orced to contend w ith the aftermath of the Age of Histori­ Fcism, the practice of contemporary architecture has oscillat­ ed unrelentingly between anxiety over the new and desire for

Fig. 1. Saving Face (University Theatre fayade / 10 Bellair Avenue Condominiums, 100 Bloor continuity with the old. Consequently, it is not surprising that Street West) Luis Jacob, 2001 . the act of remembering has often been more opportunistic than (digital print from set of six, 38. 1 x 30.5 em) opportune. Why remember Eric Ross Arthur, the New Zealan­ der who, fo llowing architectural studies in England, immigrat­ ed to Canada in order to teach at the University of Toronto? Why is an exhibition that assesses the work and legacy of Arthur as architect and educa tor opportune today? Did his practi ca l vi­ sions - a combinati on of ambitious idealism and astute rea l­ ism - make a significant contribution to twentieth century Canad ia n architectural culture? Was Arth ur more than a local hero or charismatic opinion maker? If so, how was his role dis­ tinctive in relationship to other architects in Canada of his gen­ eration? For those w ho are familiar with the impact of Arthur in Toronto and across Canada during a producti ve professional li fe that spanned from the early 1920s to the earl y 1980s, the answers to these questions are typica ll y affirmati ve. However, for those recent generations fo r w hich hi s name is unknown, the answers Michelangelo Sabatino was trained as architect and architectural historian in are less obvious. This exhibition is fo rmulated as a response to Venice, Italy. He is presently completing his Ph.D. in the Department of Fin e these questions. Its aim is to soli cit d iscussion within a disparate Art, University of Toronto. audience composed of novices and connoisseurs, by addressing This essay was written to accompany the exhibition Eric Arth ur : Practical two primary aspects of Arthur's professional and cul tural iden­ Visions presently on view at the Fawlty of Architecture, l.Jmdscape, and De­ tity: his role as architect and educa tor. This exhibition also in­ sign, University of Toronto. Th e show opened November 22, 2001 and will vestiga tes complementary activities such as his work as writer, close 0 11 january 31, 2002. ac ti vist and preserva ti onist. This exhibition would li ke to demonstrate that the importance of Arthur's contribution lies principally in his attempt to interrelate these many acti vi ti es as part of a cultural project w hose scope went fa r beyond the con­ ventional confines of the architectura l profession. Most defenders of the Arthur legacy emphasize his roles as historian of 18'" and 19'" cen tury buil dings in Ontario and as preservationist. However, on closer examinati on of his w riting, jSSAC I jSEAC 26, n'" l , 2 (2001 ) ; 33-42. it is apparent th at the title of historian is somewhat

33 JSSAC I JSEAC 26. n ~ 1. 2 C2001)

inappropriate and misleading, and tends to compete unfairl y his built work. Furthermore, compared to the masterworks of w ith Arthur's primary identity as architect. When Arthur was twentieth century architecture and city planning, Arthurs work not designing he was a writer interested in the history of build­ appears modest. Rather than express a judgem ent that fails to ings of Ontario, the province in which he exercised the majority capture the histori cal specificity of Arthur's w ork, it is more pro­ of hi s practice. Arthur wrote from the viewp oint of a practi cing ducti ve to ask why he - clearl y informed about the broad spec­ architect. Arthur was not a "pure" historian and this explains trum of contemporary architecture - would self-consciously why his writing about the past could - despite the perplexity of choose to design informed yet modest architecture. Arguably, for some architects - easil y coexist w ith his design acti vity. His Arthur, this was the result of his commitment to an edu ca ted Mod­ practice of history was not like the narrati ve form of the archi­ ernism and not simply arrived at by default. It is no coincidence tectural historian Peter Collins- to cite the example of another that from the very onset of his professional life Arthur was ex­ illustrious adopted Canadian- and was more akin to the "op­ tremely interested in the buildings (w hereby this term denotes ar­ erati ve criticism" discussed by Manfredo Ta furi in his seminal chitecture not designed by professionall y trained architects) of text Th eo ries and His tory of A rchitecture (1968). Arthur's writing on Ontario. It would seem that Arthur, raised in an austere Presby­ history shared more affinities w ith the straightforwardness of teri an family, endorsed the Aristotelian ethic of the "intermedi­ the chronicler than with the history of "changing ideals" dear to ate" that saw in the lack of "excess and defect" the quintessence Collins. Arthur wrote as a prac tising architect, not as a trained of mastery in art. Or, to borrow an expression used in the late historian. H owever he beli eved tha t he could teach architectural 1920s by the Italian art historian Lionello Venturi, Arthur ex­ design and history equally well, and he did so at the University pressed "pride in modesty". Paradoxicall y this self-imposed un­ of Toronto from the mid 1920s until his retirement in 1966. d erstatem ent has been d etrimental to the historical Throughout his teaching career Arthur taught several different understanding of his work, especia ll y now, in a moment when history courses ranging from "The Renaissance in italy, France the interest in architectural authorship has escalated to the de­ and England" to "Modern Architecture". He did so while teach­ gree of cult status. ing courses on "Housing" and "Architectural Design" in which, as he put it "Form, scale and proportion are studied ". Today, Architect and Educator with the rise of specialisati on in the fi eld of architectural history, Arthur left his native New Zealand and moved to England it is hardly possible to think that one could continue the Arthur w here he received his Bachelor of Architecture from the Li ver­ trajectory. pool University School of Architecture in 1922. Despite a few Even in the role of preservationist, Arthur revealed an iden­ heroic exceptions, the artistic and architectural culture that tity that was closer to that of architect than that of histori an. Arthur was exposed to in England immediately after the First Arthur was a discerning preservationist; he w as not interested in World War had yet to be reshaped by the radica l continental saving everything in the way a "pure" historian is often forced modernism of German refu gees. Notw ithstanding the rise of in­ to, but made strategic choices and was selecti ve in directing his dustry in the 18"' and 19'" century and the opportunities it af­ attention. Notwithstanding this, when he became involved in forded in the development of a new building culture, English preservati on projects he was objecti ve and chose to bring land­ architecture was still the domain of Victorian eclecticism and Ed­ m arks, as much as possible, back to their ori ginal state in a way wardia n classicism. Reluctant to embrace the Ne ues Ba uen, most which protagonists of creati ve restoration, such as the italian ar­ of England continued to indulge in the splendid isolati on of the chitect Carlo Scarpa, did not. Arthur most certainly would not anachronistic. The mainstream appreciation for the "calculated have endorsed the phenomenon of "Saving Face" that has de­ restraint" and the "educa ted architecture" of the Renaissance ad­ veloped in Toronto (although some notable exceptions do exist) vocated by Geoffrey Scott (Th e Architec ture of Hu111a nism, London in recent years whereby the historic building is virtuall y de­ 1914) and by John Betjeman (Ghas tly Good Tas te, London 1933) re­ stroyed and only the original fa<;a de is reintegrated into the new sp ectively played a significant forma ti ve role for Arthur building (see the work of contemporary Toronto-based artist throughout his professional life. Even when Arthur was to aban­ Luis Jacob featured as a coda to this exhibition) (Fig. 1). don cl assici sm he would always retain an interest in the virtue of The general awareness of Arthur's publications, his acti vism restraint, w hich the English acknowled ged as part of the Renais­ and his preserva ti on work seems greater than the awareness of sance legacy. his built ceuvre. There is, fo r exa mple, no systemati c catalogue of

34 MICHELANGELO SABATINO a ...su:o..;.. ... w

FRO T ELEVATION /~1· E. N . . I rlhnr, 1919 A UNIVERSITY ASSEMBLY HALL

Fig . 2. "A University Assembly Hair. Eric Arthur, 1919. (cou rtesy of the University of Li verpool Library)

Under the leadership of the architect and professor Charles Degree. Two of Arthur's student projects (published in Tile Liv­ Reilly, the Liverpool School was suspended in a precarious equi­ erpool University Architectural Sketchbook, 1920) reflect the Beaux­ librium between art and science, or to put it more directly, be­ arts teaching method of the Liverpool School. After his first year tween the legacy of the Ecole des Beaux-Arts and that of the Ecole in the school, Arthur was awarded the Lever Prize in Architec­ Polytechnique. Reillys interest in Beaux-Arts architecture and city ture and Civic Design (1919) for his project "A University As­ planning was filtered through his admiration for the American sembly Hall". The project was articulated in three drawings firm of McKim, Mead, & White, on which he wrote the first book (front elevation, section, and plan) all signed and dated 26 / 11 / 19 to be published in England. In this 1924 text Reilly claimed the (Fig. 2) (the original of the front elevation is now at the Universi­ American firm had: " ... Brought the architectural world round to ty of Toronto Archives). Arthur playfully inscribed the names of this eminently sane position [towards work based on Roman and his professors (Reilly, Abercrombie, Budden, Adami, Pearson, Italian inspiration] after the vagaries of the Gothic Revival and Elton, Bonfanquet) into the frieze of his proposed design. During Richardson Romanesgue ... an achievement one can compare in the following years, Arthur competed and succeeded three times magnitude to that of Wren or Jones" (C. Reilly, McKim , Mead & in being selected as finalist for the Rome Scholarship. Of these White, London 1924, p. 9, 1972 reprint). three projects only one set remains and it is of a project for Reilly was writing this book during the very years that "Courts of Justice" dated 1920. Arthur was working to obtain his Bachelor of Architecture

35 JSSAC I JSEAC 26. n ~ 1. 2 <200 1l

Fig. 3. War Memorial, E. Arthur and W. Naseby Adams, Dewsbu ry, 1924.

A.rtllltufl Fig . 4. James Stanley Mcl ean Estate, E. Arthur with George, Moorhouse & King, Toronto, \'\1. NaSt:by Adanu and Eric R. Arthur 1929-1934.

Arthur's student dossier at the University of Liverpool While in England, and contemporary to the design of the Archives states that he obtained first class honours in July 1922, Dewsbury memori al project, Arthur was employed for a brief followed by a Certificate in Civic Design in 1923. In 1924, having period in the office of Sir Edwin Lutyens (1 869-1944), w ho was worked under the supervision of Reilly throughout the final ses­ then engaged in the design of Imperial Delhi. judging from the sion of his architecture degree, Arthur was awarded a Master of work Arthur produced immediately after employment with Lu­ Architecture degree in abstentia beca use he had moved to Toron­ tyens, it seems that it was not so much the austere classicism of to in the meantime. The numerous awards he received during his Imperial Delhi that impressed Arthur but rather, it was the pe­ academic career attest to the prominence of Arthur amongst the culiar combination of classica l and the vernacular traditions typ­ Liverpool students. Immediately after he obtained his Civic De­ ical of Lutyen's domestic architecture. sign Certificate in 1923 C. H. C. Wright invited Arthur to assume Following Arthur's move to Toronto in 1923 and appoint­ a teaching position at the School of Architecture of the Universi­ ment as Assistant Professor of Architecture at the University of ty of Toronto. Arthur lectured for one year and by 1924 was ap­ Toronto in 1924, his firs t major commission was the James Stan­ pointed Assistant Professor. ley McLean Estate (1 929-1934) (Fig. 4). The plan and composition Arthur's first built project following graduation - a circular of this project refl ects the formal discipline of the Beaux-arts de­ War Memorial at Dewsbury in collaboration with his fellow Liv­ sign method, while the choice of fi eldstone owe much to Lu­ erpool graduate, William Naseby Adams - was completed in tyen 's interest in the vernacular tradition (e.g. Little Thakeham 1924 when Arthur was already in Canada (Fig. 3). This project, [1 902] and Grey Walls [1 900]). The design for the McLean Estate influenced by St. George's Hall in Liverpool, attests to Arthurs also refl ects Arthurs growing interest in the 18'" and 19'" century continued interest in classicism that his student work had clear­ colonial buildings of Ontari o (Arthur self-consciously uses the ly demonstrated. Design collaborati on was a notable aspect of term buildings in the place of architecture). In the years immedi­ this earl y p roject, something that Arthur would pursue through­ ately following his arrival to Canada, he took his University of out his entire professional life. This advocacy of collective work Toronto students on field trips to important historical buildings "to w hich no definite name and no definite personali ty can be at­ in Ontario and executed measured drawings with them (these tached " seems to have been formative in Arthur's development. measured drawings are now at the Archives of Ontario). Charac­ It is not unlikely that Reill y, a juror of the competiti on, had also teristicall y, he was fascinated by buildings in which it was possi­ influenced Arthur's choice to work with Adams. Reill y had ble to see the classical and vernacular interacting, as with the praised the method of group practice endorsed by McKim, nee-Palladian, 18'" century Barnum house in Grafton, Ontario. Mead, & White: "That sublime quali ty which makes great build­ Many of the buildings that Arthur was intrigued by in the 1920s ings akin to the permanent works of nature, the eternal quality in and 1930s were not designed by professionall y trained architects, great architecture, is one which is more likely to arise in work to but by builders that had "no definite name and no definite per­ which no definite name and no definite personality can be at­ sonality." (See The Early Buildings of Onta rio, 1938.) In his design tached, but which, like the work of McKim, Mead and White, of the McLean Estate he merges "high", classical forms and mo­ sums up the finest aspira ti ons of a great people at a great epoch" tifs, and "low", vernacular construction techniques such as field­ (C. Reill y, McKim , Mead & White, London 1924, p. 9, 1972 reprint). stone walls. Two other earl y projects published in Canadian Hom es and Gardens demonstrate Arthurs interest in the dialect of

36 MICHELANGELO SABATINO Rmlllml~

Fig . 6. Stelco Trend Series. Small Town Arena (Trend n° 48, 1977). G. Baird. (Ba1rd Sampson Associates)

Jlfr. E . n. A rthur, of To ronto.

Fig . 5. RIBA competition entry, E. Arthur with J . Ryrie and D. Reed , 1931 . high / low: House at Bayview (1 936) and House of H. A. Me Tag­ plan and the employment of classica l language (the inscribed gart (1 936). fri eze: Usui Civium Decori Urb i111n - For the Use of the Citizens) This new interest that Arthur shared with others, in the pre­ refl ect his continuing interest in classici sm and its appropriate­ viously neglected eighteenth and nineteenth centuries in On­ ness for urban buildings. Though Arthur did not win the com­ tario, lead to the founding in 1933 of the Architectural petition, what is particularly interesting about this design is his Conservan cy of Ontario. In the late 1920s and early 1930s, Arthur collaboration with his former U ru versi ty of Toronto students Jack wrote extensively on the history of local domestic and public Ryrie (B. Arch, 1925) and Donald John Reed (B. Arch, 1931) (My buildings. The numerous pamphlets that he published with the recent discovery of a 1930s scrapbook belonging to Ryrie makes University of Toronto before the Second World War are exclu­ this attribution possible). Arthur collaborated with Ryrie and sively dedicated to sites in Ontario. In these pamphlets, Arthur Reed for several measured drawings executed in the late 1920s published his measured d ra wings and those by colleagues and and ea rl y 1930s. Throughout his entire academic ca reer Arthur students, as well as new photography taken during the fi eld tried to promote reciprocity between school and practi ce. Li ke trips. All this research acti vity shared much in common with the his mentor Reilly, Arthur p romoted his students both within and project that Ramsay Traquair had carried out in Quebec years outside the school. During Arthur's direction fro m 1937 until earlier that also involved producing measured drawings and 1955 of what was at the time the leading national architecture taking new photography. The work of Traquair and Arthur par­ magazine of Canada, journal of the Royal A rchitectural In stitute of all eled the regional preoccupation already expressed in the arts Ca nada, he promoted the work of his former students across the by the Group of Seven for Ontario and Emily Carr for the West country. As well, Arthur was involved in the nati onal Massey Coast. Medals award programme that were later to become known as During the design and execution of the McLean Estate, the Governor General's Awards. In his involvement from 1961 to Arthur produced a design proposal for the competition held in 1982 as architectural consultant for the Stelco Steel Trend Series, 1931 for the new headquarters of the Royal Institute of British he called upon teaching coll eagues like Eberhard Zeidler and Architects (RIBA) in London, England (Fig. 5). The symmetrica l fo rmer students such as George Baird, Raymond Moriya ma, and

37 JSSAC I JSEAC 26. n ~ 1. 2 <2001 l

Fig . 7. Scotsdale Farmer's House. E. Arthur with Fleury and Piersol. Georgetown, 1939- 1941 . (photo by Lisa Kannakko , 200 1)

a much needed debate on the state of Canadian identity in the Arts and Sciences. In the late thirties and early forties, several of Arthur's designs fo r the Scotsd ale farm in George­ town, Ontario (in collabora­ tion with architects Fleury and Piersol) still refl ect an in­ terest in local domestic cul­ ture, which is re-interpreted with the eyes of an architect educa ted in the classica l tra­ dition of the Beaux-Arts (Fig. 7) . At Scotsdale, Arthur Ted Teshima to create design propositions for hypothetical build­ renovated the existing homestead and also designed an entirely ing projects (Fig. 6). new farmer 's house based on the footprint of a log cabin previ­ The interaction of the classical and the local vernacula r that ously located on the site. The resulting design was an "educa ted the McLean Estate reflects is Arthur's first attempt, to find a mid­ architecture" that was informed yet not spectacular and remark­ dle way between the characteristics of local architecture and an ably similar to the "Beehive", Bobcaygeon, Ontario which Arthur architectural identity fo r a Canadian society w ithin the greater had presumably "measured and drawn" (mens et delt) in the late context of the western world. While Arthur was interested in 1920s early 1930s (Archi ves of Ontario). Yet, Arthur's design coloni al building culture he was not interested in employing dec­ process ensured that the historical vernacular was not simply orative motifs in the form of local fl ora and fauna, as did the On­ copied but always interpreted. His work was never merely ar­ tario architect John Lyle. For Arthur, the 18'h and 19'h century chaeological. In his design for the farmer 's house, Arthur used a buildings of Southern Ontario were simple but not simplistic, traditional homestead plan that resulted in a two-storey volume. and appealed to his sense of modernist purity notw ithstanding He introd uced select classical motifs as well as the traditional their traditional craftsmanship and use of traditional building vernacular white hori zontal clapboard (weathering board ) on materia ls such as wood and fi eldstone. These buildings aspired the two-story volume and vertica l boa rd and batten on the rea r to the calculated understatement of the English country gentle­ one-story volume. Nearly fifteen years after the design of the man, which publica tions like the British Co untry Life promoted farmer's house, for his own residence in Toronto in 1954, Arthur and Canadia n Ho mes and Gardens worked to em ulate. It would not only used clapboard on the front facade of the house, but he seem that Arthur also aspired to the moral virtues of the Simple also reused the plan of the traditional homestead. Even late in his Home as described by Charl es Keeler in his book of 1904. Al­ life Arthur would demonstrate a continuing interest in vernacu­ though Arthur was educa ted in the "Home Country", as an out­ lar buildings. In 1972, Arthur published an important book on si d er from New Zealand, another Briti sh Commonwealth another type of vernacular building: The Bam, A Vanishing Land­ country, he was likely more equipped to see the potential for a J'I'Iark in North America. The collaborati on for this book with pho­ distinctive Canadian architecture. He had the necessary "dis­ tographer Dudley Witney also demonstrates Arthurs continuing tan ce" to recognise the need of add ressing the difficult issue, es­ interest in photography as a means through which to educa te the pecially for a young nation like Canada, of reception of foreign greater public about architecture. models and was prepared to promote a gradual awareness of a While Arthur remained dependent on the classical-vernacu­ nati onal identity in architecture that coul d go beyond neo-colo­ lar form ula for his domesti c work, he fo Lmd different architec­ nia l em ulati on. It is no coincidence that after the Second Wo rld tural expressions of understatement for other commissions. War, Arth ur was asked to write the Specia l Report on Architecture Arthurs designs for Canada Packers Ltd. (company owned by for the Massey Commission (1949-1951), which tried to promote J. S. McLean, client for the earlier estate design) plants in

38 MI CHELANGELO SABATINO 11.1'--fil810.,._"1!ti

Fig. 8. Canada Packers Plant. E. Arthur with Fleury and Piesol. Vancouver, 1935-1937. (pholo by Marty Tessler, 200 1)

Edmonton (1935-1 936) and Va ncouver (1935-1937) p rovided Corneli us van der Vlugt (1927-1 929) or the pre-eminent British crucial experience in the field of industrial architecture. De­ exam ple, the Boots factory by Si r Owen Williams (1931-1932). signed together with Anthony Adamson, the Canada Packers The Canada Pac kers Plant in Va ncouver designed with project in Edmonton explored the possibilities of an educa ted Fleury and Piersol on the other hand is based on p rinciples of Modernism that was open to innovati on but did not radica lly un­ strea mlined Modem e (Fig. 8) . Though formally diverse, the de­ dermine tradition with groundbreaking fo rmal inventions or sign intentions underl ying the Canada Packers plants in Edmon­ machine age aestheti c. ton and Va ncouver show Arthur abandoning the educa ted Although Arthur and Adamson used "new" materials in the architec ture of the classica ll y inspired Bea ux-Arts tradition and Edmonton plant fo r effi ciency, these were not particularly exa lt­ ca utiously embracing an educa ted Modernism . During a 1936 ed for their aestheti c va lue. The reinforced concrete structure of Canadian Broadcasting Corpora ti on (CBC) radio talk, Arthur ac­ the Edmonton Plant was left visible on the si de and rear eleva­ kn owled ges the onset of the machine age. Though Arthur is ti ons, but masked with a continuous wall of brick in the princi­ aware of the current developments of European modernism, he pal facade. In this project there was no celebra ti on of was not interested in embracing the more ra dical currents. De­ transparency and the result is closer to the Amsterdam school of spite the move towards Modern building types and his ac­ Wilhem Dudok and sources of German expressionism than to knowledgement of the rise of the machine age, Arthur chose not such leading examples of the machine age aesthetic as the va n to exalt the machine age aesthetic. Unlike Gropius or Le Cor­ Nell e tobacco fac tory in Rotterdam by Johannes Brinkmann & busier, Arthur did not celebrate the engineering culture that had

39 JSSAC I JSEAC 26. n ~ 1. 2 C2001 >

Fig . 9. Wymilwood Women's Union (Victoria University). E. Arthur with Fleury and Barclay, Toronto. 1951 . (photo by Brent Wagler with Saeed Behrouzi . 2001)

the street in an openness and w ith an informality atypical for Toronto. [Fi g. 9] Particularly interesting is the fact that Wymil­ wood is attached to a his­ toric building . The Arthur project expresses a suspended judgement on the past. While it does not ignore the existing Ja­ cobean building, it makes no attempt (other than using the same d ark coloured brick and by en­ suring that the scale of the new building did not overwhelm the existing one) to rea ll y engage it. The 1959 Women's Al­ thetic Building, designed in collaborati on with Bar­ clay and Fleury, shares the formal urban austeri­ ty of Arthur's design for the Psychology Building a t Queens University made the new monumentality of the Canadian grain elevator a (1967), a project that concluded hi s major design acti vity. modern icon. During the 1920s, shortly after being appointed As­ Despite Arthur's growing authority in the post war peri od sistant Professor of Architecture in the University of Toronto De­ within the University of Toronto Architecture School, and his partment of Architecture, (w hich was originall y part of the well-known aspirations to become dean, he was not appointed Faculty of Applied Science and Engineering) Arthur the "hu­ dean. Of the many reasons possible, one ex plana ti on could be manist" must have felt somewhat out of place in a heavily engi­ found in the controversy in the 1950s over the To ronto New City neering ori ented environment. The Department was renamed Hall competiti on. Notw ithstanding the existence of a scheme by School of Architecture in 1931 and in 1948 became an independ­ Mathers & Haldenby prepared in 1954, Arthur orga nized an ent academic division of the Uni versity of Toronto. open internati onal competition w ith a renowned jury that in­ In the late 1940s and ea rl y 1950s the School of Architecture cluded C. E. Pratt, E. Saarinen, E. N . Rogers, W. Holfrod, and G. acquired greater autonomy and status. Undoubtedly, Arthur Stevenson. This jury selected a scheme (n" 401 ) by the Finish ar­ came to exercise his ambitious cultural project with grea ter free­ chitect Viljo Revell. No doubt the Revell scheme, whi ch estab­ dom. In the 1950s, w ith his associates Barclay and Fleury, Arthur li shed a functi onal and symbolic thea tre-li ke relati onship designed Wymilwood Women's Union (1951) for Victori a Uni­ between the public (a udience) and the stage (the council cham­ versity and the Women's Athleti c Building (1959) on the west ber and offices), met with Arthur's desire fo r a modern architec­ side of the Uni versity of Toronto St. George Ca mpus. Wymil­ ture of a "human sca le". Shortl y after the armouncement of the wood is a mixture of Northern Europea n models and loca l build­ w inner in Toronto, Arthur was asked to be professional advisor ing culture: the use of wood cladding, a generous balcony and for both the Hamilton City Ha ll and later on for the Fathers of sunken landscaped courtyard, are all elements that interact w ith Confederation Memorial Centre in Charl ottetown, P.E. l. These

40 MICHELANGELO SABATINO ~~

Fig . 10. St. Andrew·s Church. Niagara-on-the-Lake. Restoration by E. Arth ur. 1937. (photo by Brenda L1u. 2001)

examples of professional ad vising along with the ed­ itorship of the journal of the Royal Arclzitec turnl In stitute of Canada , which was the country's leading journal of architecture (until Novem­ ber 1955 when Ca nadian Ar­ clzitect w as founded ), demonstrate how Arthur's sphere of influence was not limited to Toronto but ex­ tended to a ll of Canada. During the last part of his career Arthur was si­ multaneously involved in acti vism for new architec­ ture and as professional ad­ visor for the preservation of historic landma rks. During the construction of the New City H all which was to be­ come one of the city's most important landmarks, Arthur w as completing hi s own research for Toro nto, No Mean City (1964) which it­ self became a benchmark in the architectural history of 19th century Toronto. At this point in hi s career, Arthur had become a public fi gure and opinion ma ke r who reached out to a large audi­ ence, in the m anner of Ken­ neth Clark in England and Lewis Mumford and Philip Johnson in the United States, though saw Toronto aggressively ex panding and anxious to cancel its not w ith an equal interna ti onal stature. past in favour of a new and "progressive" image of the interna­ Arthur also used hi s growing influence to promote impor­ ti onal city. During the late 1950s and ea rl y 1960s grea t debate tant preserva tion ca mpaigns for St. La wrence Hall (restored in over the legacy of the Modern Movement was generated . It is 1967) and for Uni versity Coll ege (restored from 1964-1982). The from this debate, that some time later, terms like "criti ca l region­ commitment that these projects required was much greater than ali sm" and "post-modernism" would emerge. tha t required of him from his first preserva ti on project in the late Arthur li ved to w itness the ri se of a new generati on of ar­ 1930s for St. Andrews Church, Niagara-on-the-Lake (Fi g. 10). chitects fo r whom history and memory acquired a meaning and Arthurs acti vism in the late 1960s helped save some important status that m any of hi s own generati on had refu sed to assign. architecture that faced demolition during the 1960s, a period that That this use (a nd abuse) of history and memory was very

41 JSSAC I JSEAC 26. n"' 1. 2 <200 1l

different from Arthur's practi ca l vision of hi story is not surpris­ Post scriptum ing. Though interested in the legacy of hi storic buildings in con­ During the prep arati on of the exhibition and this text 1 worked temporary design, Arthur never went the direction of another in close collaboration w ith Dean La rry Wayne Richards. The ex­ illustrious Liverpool School of Architecture graduate, James Stir­ hibition and text owe much to hi s constant insight and thought­ ling, w ho asserted the impossibility of any real continuity w ith ful feedback. Stephen Otto was also particularl y helpful and the past v ia an ironic assemblage of reli cs. Stirling, was a juror for patient at all stages of preparati on. Many other people read and the competition organized by Toronto-based architect George comm ented this tex t: Prof. George Ba ird, Adele Freedman, Prof. Baird for w hat is perhaps the most signi ficant post-modern Kenneth Hayes, Robert G. Hill, Dr. Harold Ka lman, Prof. Joe building in Canada, the Mississauga City Hall. The w inning MacDonald , Prof. Alina Payne and Prof. Douglas Ri chardson. scheme was designed by Edward Jones and Michael Kirkl and and completed in 1985 only a few years after the death of Arthur This exhibition and essay are for foe. (Toronto-Boston/Venice-Toronto) in 1982. The conceptual underpinning of this project refl ects Rev­ ells Toronto City Hall. Tn the Mississauga City Hall the relation­ ship between architecture and public space (stage and audience) share much w ith the Revell scheme. The peculiar mixture of the classical (seen through the "revolutionary" architects) and On­ tario vernacular (the barn) reflect - albeit with a formal expres­ sion very different from Arthur's own - his long-standing interest in the classical and vernacular traditions and his pursuit of history as a source of design. The practica l visions of Arthur share an affi nity with the ac­ ti vity of the water diviner, Rayland, in Margaret Laurence's novel The Diviner. A combination of the p racti cal and visionary, the scienti fic and the intuitive, the practice of the diviner is not dissimilar to Arthurs own quest for an architectural practi ce that could combine astute rea lism w ith ambitious idealism . This ex­ hibition celebrates the promise that Canadian architectural cul­ ture today might respond to contemporary needs w ith the same courage, generosity and determinati on with w hich Arthur dis­ tinguished himself.

42