ABSTRACT
THE CONTRACTING AND CONTROVERSY OF THE INTERIOR

FURNISHINGS FOR THE TORONTO CITY HALL:
A CASE STUDY IN DESIGN POLITICS

BY

Marian K. McKeever

This study investigates a relatively unresearched area
of design--design politics. Its purpose is to l) examine
the role politics can assume in a public design program and
2) suggest how this role can be better defined and struc-
tured to encourage, not undermine, an integrated, total-
design approach.

The case studied is the controversial contracting of
the interior furnishings for the Toronto City Hall. The
distinctive design of Viljo Revell--the winning entry in
the most extensive architectural competition of the cen-
tury--stands as a symbol of the city, an architectural
wonder. Yet the furnishings are labeled unsuccessful. This
study questions "why a city courageous enough to produce a
superb building by international competition seemed incap-
able of establishing empathy with the design concept when
it came to selecting the furnishings."l The research methods
employed were personal interviewing, examination of orig—

inal records, and analytical study of relevant literature.

Marian K. McKeever

The facts are presented in the first three chapters of the
study--reviewing historical background of the City Hall and
Square, the controversial contracting of the furnishings,
and the art work controversy. The fourth chapter is an
analysis of the decisions made, the consequences, and pos-
sible alternativeszthe final chapter, conclusions and
future implications of the study.

In the case of the Toronto City Hall, irresponsible
decision-making and poorly defined policy resulted in design
programs susceptible to political intervention and contro-
versy. The complexities of the interior furnishings were
never understood; the need for an integrated design approach
was never realized.

The study evidences the need to redefine design
decision-making roles and to restructure public design pro-
grams. Design, not politics, must be recognized as the
priority in public design projects.

The conclusions of the study are far-reaching. The
scope of public design encompasses all building projects
~undertaken by a government--from city halls and courthouses,
to low-income housing, urban redevelopment, public schools,
and universities. Political decisions often determine the
design of such structures. Thus, it is the responsibility

of all concerned design participants to educate political

deci
ele‘
a c:

app]

Torc
prog
maki
auth
cons
mean
ture

fies

9U

"CJ

IO

Marian K. McKeever

decision-makers of the need for good public design (to
elevate public taste, develop civic pride, and stimulate

a creative environment); and for an integrated, total design
approach to achieve this end.

To overcome the weaknesses suffered by the City of
Toronto--weaknesses that can threaten any public design
program--the author suggests l) more responsible decision-
making, by delegating both the responsibility and the
authority to those most qualified; 2) better defined policy,
considering not only the goals and objectives but also the
means by which they are to be realized; and 3) a more struc-
tured framework of roles and responsibilities, insuring
design collaboration throughout all phases of the program.

This study is not conclusive. Further research is re-
quired in areas of decision-making, policy planning, and
public administration before a successful restructuring of
public design programs can be realized. Certainly it is an

area worthy of further investigation.

 

lRobert Gretton, "The Great Furniture Debate."
Canadian Architect 10 (June 1965): 55.

 

THE CONTRACTING AND CONTROVERSY OF THE INTERIOR
FURNISHINGS FOR THE TORONTO CITY HALL:

A CASE STUDY IN DESIGN POLITICS

BY

Marian K. McKeever

A THESIS

Submitted to
Michigan State University
in partial fulfillment of the requirements
for the degree of

MASTER OF ARTS

Department of Human Environment and Design

1974

ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS

It is most difficult to acknowledge all those persons
contributing to the realization of this study. First, I
wish to express my most sincere appreciation to my committee:
Richard L. Graham, thesis director, for his continued support
and encouragement; Dr. Mary L. Shipley, for her invaluable
advice and guidance; and Dr. Robert Rice and Dr. Sadayoshi
Omoto, for their time in reviewing the facts and findings of
this study. Special recognition is also given to Nathan
Phillips, "father" of the Toronto City Hall and Square, for
his interest and cooperation; to architect John C. Parkin,
for his knowledge and encouragement; and to the personnel of
the Toronto City Archives and Municipal Library, for their
willingness to assist in the researching of this study. And
finally, a personal acknowledgement is given to my family
and friends for their patience and understanding throughout
the duration of this endeavor.

 

ii

41....4u.»\..... r. Kin -

.c..;-. .‘

III

‘-

\..'

TABLE OF CONTENTS

CHAPTER

INTRODUCTION. . . . . . . . . .

I. HISTORICAL BACKGROUND: TORONTO'S NEW CITY

HALL AND CIVIC SQUARE. . . .

II. THE FURNISHINGS FOR THE TORONTO
III. THE ART WORK CONTROVERSY. . . .
IV. ANALYSIS. . . . . . . . . . . .
V. CONCLUSIONS . . . . . . . . . .
APPENDIX--ILLUSTRATIONS. . . . . . . .

SELECTED BIBLIOGRAPHY. . . . . . . . .

iii

CITY HALL

Page

33
83
98
119
127
133

LIST OF ILLUSTRATIONS
FIGURE Page
1. Architect's Rendering: Toronto City Hall and
Nathan Phillips Square . . . . . . . . . . . . 127

2° Architect's Plan . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 128

3, City Hall and Square: Opening Day, September
13’ 1965 O O O O O I O O O O O O O O O O O O O 129

4. Knoll's Desk Design. . . . . . . . . . . . . . 130
5. Knoll's Mayor's and Controllers' Swivel Chair. ' 131
6. Knoll's Clerical Swivel Chair. . . . . . . . . 131
7. Lounge Chair, Mayor's Office . . . . . . . . . 132
8. Chair, Committee Room. . . . . . . . . . . . . 132
9. Reading Chair, Council Lounge. . . . . . . . . 132

10. Lounge Chair, Council Lounge . . . . . . . . . 132

iv

spec

for 4

fig
.

(De

I NTRODUCT I ON

The purpose of this study is twofold: first, to
examine the role politics can play in the design decision-
making process; and secondly, to promote the concept of the
" total design environment". By reviewing the facts of one
specific case--the contracting of the interior furnishings
for the Toronto City Hall, the reader will be provided with
a deeper insight into the political interplay that can
affect the creative processes of architect and interior
designer, and disrupt the flow of the integrated design
approach.

Interior design as a profession is entering a new era.
No longer can the complexities of interior furnishings be
ignored. Rather, they must be recognized as an integral
part Of the total design concept. Brock Arms, AIA, AID,
and NSID, defines "total design environment" as "the harmony
of the building shell and the loose furnishings within it."1
He nc>tes that collaboration--shared tastes, mutual

\

R lBIOCk Arms, "Interiors: What is the Architect's
(gle?" American Institute of Architect's Journal 44
ecember, 1966): 34.

understanding, and enthusiasm--is the key to a successful
design approach.

In the contracting of the interior furnishings for the
Toronto City Hall, this key to success was never realized.
Due to political intervention, there was no collaboration
between architect and designer. Nor was there mutual under-
standing between Councilmen and designer, architectural and
interior. In the case of the Toronto City Hall, as with
many civic projects, politics entered into the design
decision-making process, severing the tie between architect
and designer, thus destroying the chance for an integrated
design.

The emphasis of this study is not the interior furnish-
ings of the City Hall, but rather the decision-making pro-
cesses by which they were selected. It is a case study of
p°1itical decision-making in a designing. process. By defini-
tion a case study

éxamines the making of a decision. Typically it falls

into the decision-making realm of administrative

theory and political behavior. Its characteristic
features are concern with a single decision or group
Of related decisions; a person or group of persons who
make, authenticate, or proclaim the decision; and a
chronological and analytical narrative of the process
by which the decision was given birth....

§ome account is given of the numerous personal, polit-

ical, and economic factors that surrounded the process

of decision.... Emphasis throughout is on the decision,

Whether taken as the act of process; and exploration
ls made of rejected and hypothetical a1ternatives....

The research and writing techniques for a case study

involve contact with original records, use of inter-

views, canvassing of relevant analytical literature,

and the difficult art of organizing a mass of material

into a logical form of presentation.2

The components of this thesis are most adaptable to a
case study approach. The study is divided into five chap-
ters. The first reviews the historical background of the
Toronto City Hall and Nathan Phillips Square. From its very
inception, the project was plagued by political controversy.
The second chapter focuses upon the City's decision-making
processes for the design and installation of the furnishings
for the new City Hall. It studies in depth the preliminary
planning for the furnishings, the Furniture Design Competi-
tion, the controversial contracting process, and the after-
math. The following chapter studies political decisions--
and indecision--in the selection of a city hall mural and
other "proper" works of art. The fourth chapter is a
personal analysis of the design decision-making processes,
and the final chapter, conclusions and future implications
of the study.

Although much has been written concerning the architec-

ture of the Toronto City Hall--it was the most extensive

 

2James W. Fesler, "The Case Method in Political
Science", and Edwin A. Book, "Case Studies about Government:
Achieving Realism and Significance", Essays on the Case
Method in Public Administration (New York: International
Institute of AdministratiVe Sciences, 1962), pp. 72, 76, 89.

 

architectural competition of this century--little has been
recorded about the interior furnishings or the designing
process. Indeed, little research has been done to determine
the role of politics in a public design decision-making
process. By documenting and analyzing the political de-
cisions made in the contracting of the furnishings for the
Toronto City Hall, the author hopes to make others--
architects, interior designers, politicians, the public

as a whole--aware of the need for an integrated design pro-
cess, a process unhampered by excessive political interven-

tion.

CHAPTER I

HISTORICAL BACKGROUND:

TORONTO'S NEW CITY HALL AND CIVIC SQUARE

Frank Lloyd Wright called it a "grave marker", a
"Romanesque abortion", a "piece of categorical
sterility". Columnists and cartoonists had fun
describing it as "Nate's clam shell", "Phillips
Pholly", the "hair dryer", and other picturesque
names. But the people took the new City Hall to
their hearts long before its construction had
started. Now the twin curved towers with the
saucer-shaped Council Chamber between them are
recognized as the trademark of Toronto and acclaimed
one of the most distinctive buildings in the world.
The new City Hall story graphically illustrates the
trials and tribulations in planning, starting, and
completing a large municipal project. Private
enterprise would have completed the project in three
years instead of the ten years it did take.

In January, 1954, the City of Toronto initiated a
federal system of metropolitan government. Toronto, the
second largest city and financial center of Canada, was no
longer a simple central city, but a rapidly growing urban
agglommeration. And it was in need of a new political
structure. The existing government--a central city and
twelve suburban municipalities—-was incapable of providing

for the physical needs of the increasingly populated urban

 

1Nathan Phillips, Mayor of All the People (Toronto:
McClellan and Stewart Limited, 1967), p. 140.

community. The creation of a metropolitan government was
the culmination of a long history of citizen as well as
official concern with the problems plaguing the Toronto
area--poor physical planning, haphazard urban sprawl, in-
adequate housing for lower income families, generally poor
housing conditions, and the absence of federal or provincial
legislation to alleviate these conditions.

Initially the City of Toronto fought vigorously against
federation, knowing the City would bear the financial burden
of the alliance and that the City would pay for the develop-
ment of the suburbs. Yet City participation and funding was
later accomplished upon the assumption that when the time
came for help to flow from the expanding and increasingly
affluent suburban communities back into the hard-pressed
central city, a similar sense of responsibility would pre-
vail. The system created in 1954 introduced a new political
unit--the Municipality of Metropolitan Toronto ("Metro").
The Metro Council consisted of twelve representatives from
the city and one, the mayor or reeve, from each of the
twelve suburban municipalities. The Metropolitan Corpora-
tion was to be responsible for developing and executing
policies on the major social, economic, and physical de-
velopment matters. The Metro concept as explained by
Frederick G. Gardiner, the first Metropolitan Council Chair-

man, "assumed that all residents of the metropolitan area,

whether in the central city or in the fringe areas and semi-
rural suburban communities, must combine their resources to
ensure the survival and development of the whole metrop-

olis."2

Metro would work closely with the existing City govern-
ment--a twenty-three member City Council consisting of
eighteen aldermen (one from each of the city's precincts),
four controllers, and one elected mayor. The mayor and the
four controllers formed the Board of control which func-
tioned as an executive council, making all necessary pre—
liminary decisions and setting the program for the City
Council meetings.

To encourage more effective communication and coordina-
tion between City and Metro, Nathan Phillips, the newly
elected mayor of Toronto, recommended that the two branches
of government be housed under one roof. The existing City
Hall, completed in 1889, was inadequate to fulfill the needs
of Toronto's changing political structure; and a new City
Hall was proposed.

Years before, December of 1946, the people of Toronto
had voted in favor of the acquisition of land for a new

Civic Square. Phillips felt this approval of a new Civic

 

2Albert Rose, Governing Metropolitan Toronto (Berkeley:
The University of California Press, 1972), Preface.

Square meant public endorsement of a new City Hall--"to en-
vision a Civic Square without a new City Hall is to think
of a crown without a jewel."3 Yet in December, 1955, the
people of Toronto voted against proceeding with construction
of a new City Hall. However, the plan for a City Hall was
not abandoned.

Metro Council selected a special committee on accommo-
dation to meet with representatives on the City to study
Mayor Phillips' proposal of housing both political units in
one new City Hall. The proposal of this committee was that
the Metro Corporation would participate with the City of
Toronto in the construction of the new Civic Square and
City Hall on a joint-ownership basis. On February 7, 1956,
Chairman Gardiner, addressing Metro Council, recommended
they enter into agreement with the City as "owners in
common" of the new City Hall. On the assumption that Metro
would require 100,000 square feet of space, and the City,
300,000 square feet, exclusive of joint use of a council
chamber and committee rooms; Gardiner proposed that the
Metro Corporation pay the City one-quarter of the acquisi-
tion costs of the land and one-quarter the cost of construc-
tion for the new civic complex. Gardiner also indicated
his choice of a building would not be as imposing or ornate

as some might suggest for a civic center, but a simpler,

 

3Phillips, Mayor of All the People, p. 115.

 

yet attractive and economical edifice. In his opinion, the
citizens of Toronto did not want a prestige building in-
volving excessive expenditure, but desired a simple,
dignified, functional structure.

At a City Council meeting on February 13, 1956, ap-
proval was given for a Joint Committee of the Toronto City
Council and Metro Toronto Council to study this proposal.
Realizing the inherent difficulties of joint—ownership,
this committee recommended accommodation of the Metro Cor-
poration in the new City Hall should be on a rental rather
than ownership basis. The committee proposed that the City
of Toronto finance the building of the Civic Square and
City Hall, and rent the needed space to the Metro Corpora-
tion. The terms of occupancy would be embodied in an
agreement negotiated by both City and Metro.

Mayor Phillips strongly supported this proposal. He
felt that the City should build and own its City Hall.

He opposed Gardiner's suggestion of joint-ownership, as well
as his proposal for a simple, functional complex. Phillips
felt Toronto deserved the finest City Hall and Civic Square
in the world. "It should be a most important element in the
life of the city, a symbol of Toronto, a source of pride and

pleasure to its citizens, to be used and enjoyed by them."4

 

4Nathan Phillips, Foreword to Conditions of the Compe-
tition: City Hall and S uare, Toronto Canada, by the Cor-
poration of the City 0 Toronto, September, 1957, p. l.

 

 

10

The Joint Committee had requested three local archi-
tectural firms to submit plans for the new civic center.
On March 26, 1956; Marini and Morris, Mathers and Haldenby,
and Shore and Moffat, submitted their proposal for the new
complex. The plan consisted of a plaza with four buildings.
The City Hall--a twelve-story rectangular building housing
the administrative offices--was the center of the complex.
A lower building accommodating the Council Chamber, the
Mayor and Metro Chairman offices, and the committee rooms
was placed directly in front. Flanking the City Hall were
two Registry Office Buildings-~one already did exist, the
other would conform in scale and style to the existing one.

Upon the assurance of the architects that the proposed
buildings would provide a dignified civic center—-aesthet-
ically pleasing, architecturally sound, and well-designed--
the committee approved the plans. The proposal was also
approved by Metro Chairman Gardiner. Mayor Phillips strong-
ly opposed the proposed complex.

Finding it disappointingly conservative, Phillips
stated:

For an undertaking of this importance, we should have

the best architectural brains in the world. We should

have an international competition for the design of

the City Hall and Civic Square.... Somewhere in the

world there may be anotherSChristopher Wren, Leonardo
da Vinci, or Michelangelo.

 

5Nathan Phillips as quoted by William Bragg: "Nate
Phillips' Soft-Sell Won the City Hall War", Toronto Star,
11 September 1965.

11

The Controllers turned a deaf ear to Mayor Phillips'
proposal. But Mayor Phillips persisted with his plea for
a grand international competition, gaining the support of
his City Council.

The Metro Corporation had agreed to rent space in the
new City Hall at a rental of $6.00 per square foot on the
ground floor, $5.00 per square foot of space occupied on
other floors, and $2.50 per square foot of space shared by
City and Metro--the Council Chamber and Committee Rooms.
These rates would be reviewed at the end of each five year
period for re-evaluation and adjustment. Metro also agreed
to buy the old City Hall for $4,500,000.

In December, 1956, the question of building a new City
Hall on the Civic Square site was once again presented to
the voters. By a majority of 5,000, the people of Toronto
agreed to build a $18,000,000 City Hall. And the City
Council approved the recommendation for an international
competition. Mayor Phillips' vigorous and continuous cam-
paign for a new and exciting City Hall was a success.

Professor Eric Arthur of the School of Architecture,
the University of Toronto, was appointed by the City Council
to act as professional adviser of the competition. Under
his direction, the City of Toronto Planning Board studied
the site of the proposed complex--a twelve acre area in the

heart of Toronto's financial and commercial district--and

12

prepared a comprehensive program on the Conditions of the
Competition. Also incorporated into the conditions, were
the findings of a professional team of architectural con-
sultants on the present and future space requirements of
both City and Metro.

At a meeting of the City Council held September 3,
1957, the terms of the competition were approved. Council
appointed a team of five internationally known architects
as jury to judge the submissions of the competition. The
jury included Sir William Holford, architect and town
planner, London, England; Charles E. Pratt, professor of
the Theory of Architecture at the Polytechnic Institute of

Milan, editor of Casa Bella, and practicing architect with

 

clients from New York to Milan; Eero Saarinen, architect
born in Finland, practicing in the United States, also known
for his excellent furniture designs; and Gordon Stephenson,
past professor of Town and Regional Planning, the University
of Toronto, and present consultant to city planning boards
in Toronto, Hamilton, and Halifax.

The competition received approval from the Royal Archi-
tectural Institute of Canada and the International Union of
Architects. The only formidable opposition was the Ontario
Association of Architects suggesting that the open inter-
national competition carried the implication that local

architects lacked the talent to design so important a public

13

building. (They later accepted the competition and acted
as advisor to the proceedings.)

The conditions were presented in a brief introduction
and two parts. In addition to all the technical information
to direct the competing architects, the conditions included
the functional and space requirements for the various de-
partments of both the City and Metro governments. They also
encouraged the competitors to create, not just an office
building, but a unique complex, clearly distinguishable as
the seat of civic government:

One of the reasons for this competition is to find

a building that will proudly express its function as

the centre of civic government. How to achieve an

atmosphere about a building that suggests government,
continuity of certain democratic traditions, and
service to the community are problems for the designer
of the modern city hall. These were the qualities
that architects of other ages endeavored to embody in
the town halls of their times.6

The competition was organized in two stages--prelimi-
nary and final; the principle objective to restrict the
amount of work and expense to the competitors. At the end
of the preliminary stage, the five man jury was required to
select a maximum of eight competitors for the final stage.
The City agreed that each of the eight finalists would
receive $7500, and the winning architect would, in addition

to being given the commission to execute his design, be paid

an advance of fees of $25,000.

 

61bid., p. 3.

14

The preliminary stage was open to any architect in
the world who could prove membership in a recognized archi—
tectural society or institute and who, upon payment of
$5.00, received a copy of the Conditions of the Competition.
Designs were required to be shown by drawings at a one inch
to thirty-two feet scale and a model scaled one inch to
fifty feet. In addition, each submission was to be accom—
panied by a brief explanatory report of the design.

The response was overwhelming. By April, 1958, five
hundred and twenty architects representing forty-two
countries had submitted designs. There can be little doubt
that the number of submissions from many different countries
represented a unique cross-section of contemporary architec-
tural thought. When displayed for the judging, the plans
and models completely filled the Horticultural Building at
the Canadian National Exhibition, an area of 32,000 square
feet. Considerable administrative work and great care was
necessary, not only for the preparation of the display, but
also for providing adequate security for the many foreign
entries which had to clear customs.

Throughout the process, anonymity was maintained.
Identification was made possible by assigning each submis-
sion a number, then placing the number on each drawing and
model, and on the sealed envelope containing the competitor's
name. Each entry was examined by Professor Arthur to ascer-

tain compliance with the conditions of the competition.

15

On April 22, 1958, the jury began to judge the pre-
liminaries entries. Professor Arthur acted as the non-
voting chairman. After six days of deliberation, the jury
announced the eight finalists. In the opening remarks of
their report, the jury stated:

The worldwide invitation extended to architects by

the citizens of Toronto has aroused such interest

and stimulated so great an effort on the part of the

competitors, that our task of selecting not more

than eight designs of the five hundred and twenty to

take part in the Final Stage has not only been an

exciting one, but an exacting one.

Four of the eight finalists were from the United
States—-I. M. Pei, Wills and Parkin, Frank Mikutowskiq and
William B. Hayward. Other finalists and their country were
David E. Horne, Canada; John H. Andrews, Australia;
Gunnlogsson and Neilsen, Denmark; and Viljo Revell, Finland.

These eight finalists were then required to develop
and resubmit their designs. Submissions included more de-
tailed drawings (one inch to equal sixteen feet) and models
(one inch to thirty-two feet scale). Each entry was care-
fully checked and measured, and all details were made
available for the jury.

On September 22, 1958, the five jurists returned to

Toronto to judge the final stage of the competition.

 

7Report of the Jury, as quoted in the City of Toronto
Planning Board's Synopsis of the City Hall and Square Com-
petition for Toronto, Canada, December, 1958, p. 4.

 

16

The judging took place in a room high in the existing City
Hall overlooking the competition site. After four days of
careful study and lengthy discussion, the decision of the
jury was announced. The winning design was that of Viljo
Revell of Finland.

The jury's decision was not a unanimous one. Sir
William Holford and Professor Gordon Stephenson had serious
reservations about the design——its suitability to the site,
the efficiency of the complex, and the flexibility for
future expansion. Yet all members accepted the majority
decision that Revell was the winner of the competition, and
all members agreed his entry was indeed "the most original
in conception of any of those submitted."8

While judging the entries, the jury carefully con-
sidered the conditions of the competitiont-to create a
building which expresses its function as the center of civic
government. They realized that the City Hall needed to
bear a conscious relationship with its surroundings, and
also to be a dynamic architectural statement. To achieve
this successfully, several approaches were recognized.

First, the City Hall could be similar to the surround-
ing structures, easily absorbed into the downtown landscape.

The distinctiveness would be derived not from the building

 

8"Finnish Entry Wins Toronto Civic Centre Competition:
Report of the Majority", Architectural Record 124 (November,
1958): 10.

 

17

itself, but from its setting in the square. The jury was
of the opinion, however, that this approach did not fully
comply with the conditions of the competition.

Secondly, City Hall could be made tall and soaring,
rising above all other buildings in the downtown area, a
dominant feature in Toronto's skyline. Several competitors
attempted this, but the jury felt such an approach was imv
practical, for there was no way to insure that such an
effect would be maintained.

Also, a relatively low, horizontal building built in
the square could achieve a great dignity by its simple con—
trast to the background. The jury had agreed that this was
a promising concept and five of the finalists had pursued
this approach.

Finally, the jury conceived that City Hall could be
a distinctive building, different in both form and materials
from the surrounding office structures. It would be impres-
sive when seen from the Square and immediate neighborhood,
as well as a distinctive feature in the silhouette of the
city when viewed from a distance.

In appraising the finalists, the majority concluded
that Revell had achieved a design which most excellently
achieved this last approach.

The monumental qualities are of a high order, and its

composition of great strength. Its shape is distinc—
tive and dynamic, setting it apart from the other

18

structures in Toronto and from administrative and
office buildings everywhere....

Many other considerations were weighed in the decision
of the jury. The design of the square itself was of vital
concern and interest. And the jury agreed that Revell had
achieved a successful, lively space; an attractive fore:
ground to the proposed structure as well as a pleasing back-
drop to the present city hall.

The interior spatial arrangement was also of prime
importance. Revell's public access areas, those parts of
the building most frequented by the public, were found to
most successfully meet the conditions--"this is the citizens
first impression of City Hall. Without extravagance, it
should be impressive."10

Revell's placement of the council chamber as a center
focus was found to have great significance as a symbol of
democratic government. Also highly praised by the majority,
were the functional organization of the composition and its
structural economy.

The jury found the overall design composition to have
strength and dramatic expression. It consisted of four
elements: the civic square, the podium, the council cham-

ber and the office towers.

 

91bid., p. 13.

10Conditions of the Competition, p. 21.

19

The civic square, the southern portion of the site,
formed a forecourt to the City Hall. A rectangular pool,
placed in the square on the axis of the existing city hall,
would reflect both the old and the new city halls. Three
precast arches spanned the pool, enhancing the lines of the
composition. From the square, there would be two main
entrances into the hall--one, the public entrance into a
large public hall, the center for governmental business;
and the second, the ceremonial entrance into the council
chamber via an exterior ramp. An elevated walkway surround-
ing the square on three sides joined the building with the
square. The floor of the square was to be precast concrete
paving slabs. Beneath the square would be an underground
public parking garage.

The three story podium covered the northern half of the
square. This horizontal structure would house the main
public hall, the municipal library, the land title office,
and the registry office. The main public hall was a mag-
nificent, round room with a great circular rotunda cutting
upward through three floors to a skylight above. Around
this room would stretch a long, continuous counter at which
all public business would be transacted. The jury found
the arrangement to be most efficient, and the room most
handsome.

Above this main floor was a mezzanine devoted to circu-

lation; and a second mezzanine with departmental offices for

20

both the City and Metro governments, including the offices
for the Mayor, the Metro chairman, and the Board of Control.

The roof of the podium constituted an upper'plaza, the
inner part contained within the towers, the outer part over6
looking the square.

The Council Chamber, seen as a broad, low dome, was
the focus of this rooftop plaza. The Mayor or Metro Chair-
man would sit in the slightly sunken area in the center of
the chamber. Around them at a higher elevation, a semi-
circular seating gallery would accommodate spectators.

A non-supportive curtain wall would divide the Council
Chamber from the member's lounge and kitchen. The unit
would be encircled by a gallery offering an excellent view
of the civic square and surrounding areas of the city.

To complete the composition were the two curved towers,
rising from the podium and enclosing the council chamber
unit. The west tower, twenty-one floors, was considerably
smaller than the east tower, twenty—seven floors; yet both
were similar in design and construction. Together, they
would accommodate the various City and Metro departmental
offices. Structurally, the towers were to be convex curved
reinforced concrete walls--"back walls"--and an interior
line of columns. Each floor would be supported on the back
wall and carried on the columns to the glass curtain wall

on the concave face of the towers; The back walls would be

21

faced with Botticino marble. The inner walls would be
glass. The jury agreed that the carefully shaped curves of
the towers, and the materials chosen achieved a perfect
balance and strengthened dignity.

Overall, it was agreed that the complex when viewed
closely would stand as a symbol on the city in the urban
landscape. And from a distance, the curving forms would
create a distinctive feature in the Toronto skyline.

Although agreeing that the complex could be a symbol
of the city, and that the concept was both original and
imaginative; two members of the jury seriously questioned
the suitability of the design. Sir William Holford and
Gordon Stephenson presented their reservations in a minority
report to Council, hoping their statements would be con-
sidered in modifying the final design. They openly criti-
cized the design for presenting blank walls to the surround-
ing areas, shutting of City Hall from the east, north, and
west. They feared that such a feature would retard the
future development of these sectors of the city. They also
criticized the monumental, inhuman scale and stark design of
the complex. And they found the landscaping to be disap-
pointingly unfinished.

They had strong reservations about the internal cir-
culation within the buildings, requiring involved, complex

movement from the office towers to the Council chamber, and

22

from tower 1x) tower. They believed the one—sided office
tower arrangement would create horizontal lines of communi«
cation, less effective than those found in the traditional
two-sided arrangements of office space. They also found
defects in the working accommodations of the Council Chamber.

Holford's and Stephenson's strongest objection, however,
was the cost of the proposed unit. They claimed the form of
construction for the office towers was the most expensive
that could have been devised. As also adding to the cost,
they listed the variety of structural forms and materials,
and the considerable space demanded solely for circulation.
They suggested that without changing the main effect of the
composition, the cost could be reduced by revising the
spatial arrangements, construction method, and the structural
materials. They further warned Council that to realize
Revell's design and preserve the integrity of the concept,
it should be prepared to greatly increase the proposed bud-
get of $18,000,000.

City Council had little more than minor objections to
the winning design. Mayor Phillips was most pleased with
the structure: "It is monumental, breathtaking. I favor it
wholeheartedly.... The architect should be given full co-

operation and the maximum support of all concerned."11

 

11Nathan Phillips, quoted by Stanley Westhall, "City
Hall Cost seen $30,000,000", Toronto Globe and Mail,
27 September 1958.

 

23

And although the Ontario Association of Architects had
not readily accepted the idea of an international competi-
tion, they more than accepted Revell's design:

A great design has emerged and a fine architect will

join our ranks for some years in Canada ... great and

deserved has been the publicity for Mr. Revell.

Newspapers in Toronto have given space to the competi-

tion normally reserved for declarations of war or

peace.... We cannot possibly exaggerate when we say
that at no time and in no place in the world has the
attention of two million people been so vividly drawn
to the place of the architect and his services to
society. We should not be surprised if Toronto people
raised their hats to Mr. Revell as he walks our
streets.12

Viljo Revell enjoyed such respect and distinction in
his native Finland. Born January 25, 1910, in the small
town of Vassa, Revell had decided in his teens to be an
architect. At the age of eighteen, he left Vassa and en-
rolled in the Institute of Technology in Helsinki, the only
recognized architectural school in Finland. During his
college years, he travelled throughout Europe, establishing
a substantial practice and reputation. Upon completion of
his studies, he opened an architectural office in Helsinki
and practiced throughout Finland. He admired the work of
Alvar Aalto, at that time generally unrecognized, and worked

twice as his assistant. He had designed apartment houses

and communities, business and office buildings, shopping

 

12"Editorial: The Toronto City Hall and Square Compe-
tition", Journal ofIthe Royal Architectural Institute of
Canada (October, 1958): 359.

24

plazas, factories, churches, and municipal buildings--as
well as their interiors.

In addition to his private practice, Revell devoted
much time and effort to common endeavors and problems of
the architectural profession. He served as director of the
Institute of Finnish Architects and Superintendent of the
Museum of Finnish Architecture. He often entered architec-
tural competitions, a Finnish tradition, finding them to be
healthy for the profession. He was most excited about the
Toronto Competition and felt his entry was the most im-
portant work of his life.

Although he had visited the United States and Mexico
in conjunction with a research scholarship, he had never
been to Canada.

Upon his winning the competition, Revell immediately
flew to Toronto. Hoping that the people were content with
his design, he was not disappointed. He received a warm
and welcome reception by the city and her people. He bought
a house in Toronto, prepared to give the necessary time for
the realization of his design.

In March, 1959, Viljo Revell signed the New City Hall
and Civic Square Architect's Agreement, drafted by the City
Council's Planning Board. The contract covered the profes-
sional services to be rendered by the architect and his

associates. (Under the Conditions of the Competition, Revell

25

was required to associate himself with a member of the
Ontario Association of Architects. In compliance to this
condition, Revell had selected John C. Parkin and John B.
Parkin of Parkin Associates in Toronto as his associates.)
The agreement required City approval in the undertaking,
executing, and competing of the design. It stated that it
was the responsibility of the architects to consult the
Committee of City Property of all phases of the design and
construction from inception to completion.

Together with his associates, Revell proceeded with
the preliminary sketches and drawings, and a realistic
estimate of the cost of the complex. At a special meeting
of the Board of Control held November 2, 1959; the archi-
tects presented the Stage I Report. The designs reflected
the concept of the original proposal, yet certain revisions
were made to economize. By modifications of the interior
space, the architects reduced the cubic content while in-
creasing the net floor space of the original design. They
had carefully examined the space requirements of all the
departments--City and Metro--and readjusted the interior
space to satisfy those requirements, both present and pro-
jected.

The question of cost was a most vital one. Most dis-
turbed was Metro Chairman Gardiner. He had opposed the idea

of an international competition. He had never wanted a

26

"prestige" building and refused to pay the high rental de-
manded for space in such a building:

If Toronto wants something like the leaning tower of

Pisa to attract attention, it should not expect the

other municipalities to pay for it.13

Referring to earlier negotiations, he refused to pay
more than the estimated $6 per square foot on the ground
floor and $5 per square foot on higher levels. City Council
and the architects had to listen; the City needed Metro in
the project. It also needed citizen approval and support;
and it was feared that

Gardiner's vociferous and widely quoted blasts about

the cost of the project, may stir up taxpayer rebel-

lion against approving any funds beyond the $18 bil-

1ion already okayed.l

With this in mind, the architects presented their Stage
I Cost Estimate. To the Board's surprise, it was below
expectations. Yet with the irregular shape of the building,
its unusual construction, and the rising building costs;
the estimate could not be accepted as a truly reliable meas-
ure of actual cost.

With the Board's approval of the Stage I Report, the

architects proceeded with Stage II—-the completed detailed

 

13Frederick Gardiner as quoted by David Carmichael:
"City Hall Ceremony Recalls Ten Year Rivalries", Toronto
Globe and Mail, 11 September 1965.

14"City Hall Project for Toronto Hits Snag": ArEEiEEET
tural Forum 110 (May, 1969): 9.

27

working drawings and exact specifications. And with the
Board's approval of the Second Stage on January 20, 1961;
the project was ready for tender call.

During the period of tendering, the boldest held his

breath; not the least, the Mayor, whose dream of many

years would be realized or shattered by the estimate
of the lowest contractor.

To the obvious joy of the multitude, and the dismay

of a rather vociferous, uninformed minority, the low-

est bid was well under the agreed maximum figure.

(So unexpectedly low, indeed, was the final tender,

that several worthwhile additions were made that

would add enormously to the efficiency of the build-

ing and its permanence.

The City could meet the low rental rates demanded by
Chairman Gardiner; it could proceed with the construction of
the City Hall and Square.

With the lowest bid of $24,299,722; Anglin Norcross
Ontario, Lts. was given the contract for the project. The
decision was approved by Council in October, 1961. Also,
Council approved the proposal that the forecourt be named
the Nathan Phillips Square--to honor the project's initiator
and strongest supporter.

On November 7, 1961, Mayor Phillips turned the first
sod on the site of the project. The following month, he was
re—elected Mayor of Toronto.

In his inaugural address, "the Mayor of all the people"

stated that the most significant development of his civic

 

15Eric Arthur: The New City Hall and Nathan Phillips
§quare--Sidewalk Superintendentfs Report # 1; City of
Toronto Property Department, p. 2.

28

career was the breaking of ground for the City Hall:

A fourteen year old dream of a new, dynamic, and
exciting City Hall is approaching realization.

It is a milestone in municipal history and points
out the way for a vast and magnificent rebuilding
program for the central portion of our city.... It
is a symbol of the new Toronto that is emerging ...
a civic center worthy of our city and our citizens.
... What We are building has been called one of the
most exciting architectural achievements of our
time.

On November 7, 1962, Mayor Phillips laid the corner-
stone. One month later, he was overwhelmingly defeated by
Donald Summerville in the mayorial election, a crushing
blow for Phillips.

In his inaugural address, Summerville, a youthful,
vigorous, controversial figure, expressed his goal: "to

break away from the cobwebs and stagnation".17

He found
Toronto's progress slow and the construction of the City
Hall lagging. He hoped for expedient completion of the com-
plex and a shift of emphasis from the construction of the
city hall to the development of these areas opposite the
square.

Upon Summerville's untimely death in November, 1963;

his Vice Chairman, Philip G. Givens, assumed the duties of

 

16Nathan Phillips, "Inaugural Address", Corporation of
the City of Toronto,‘City;Council Minutes, Appendix C,
January, 1962, p. 2.

17Donald Summerville: "Inaugural Address", Corpora-
tion of the City of Toronto, City Council Minutes, Appendix
C, 7 January 1963, p. 1.

 

29

the office. Construction of the complex progressed more
slowly than anticipated; and the eyes of the city eagerly
watched the development of the project. By summer of 1965,
the complex was nearing completion. The city officials
were busily preparing the ceremonies for opening day.

On September 11, l965--one year later than the antici-
pated completion date--the Toronto City Hall and Nathan
Phillips Square was officially open to the public. Digni-
taries from all of Canada were present at the opening day
ceremonies. Mayor Givens presided over the ceremonies.

In his opening remarks, he stated:

It is with feelings of great joy and deep gratitude
that I welcome this assembly to the opening of
Toronto's new City Hall and Nathan Phillips Square.
Today the City's pride is monumental. It is an emo-
tion shared by every citizen of this great city, and,
as Mayor, it is my privilege to articulate this mood
of my fellow citizens....

As we survey the surroundings, we must be grateful for
all time for the vision and courage--for the creativ-
ity and perserverance of so many people, from an
architectural genius in far off Finland, to the humbl—
est laborour in Canada--and above all, for the support
and patience of the citizens of the City, without
which this structure would never have passed the idea
stage. And now it stands before us—-proud and sym-
bolic--symbolic of the vitality of the city, as inter-
national and cosmopolitan in the composition of its
citizenry as the world-wide competition that gave this
City Hall and Square its birth--symbolic of Toronto's
transformation onto a world center of learning, indus-
try, and commerce--a symbol of bold audacity, for it
took audacity to build so untraditional a building in
a city steeped in tradition.

Let this day mark the beginning of a new epoch in the
progress of our city. Let this building serve as the

30

symbol of the city's, and its citizens', dynamism.18

It was truly a most exciting day for Nathan Phillips,
receiving distinction as initiator, promoter, and strongest
supportor of the project:

The improbable city hall is the product of two diverse
talents——the political sagacity of Nathan Phillips and
the imagination of Viljo Revell. ,Phillips successfully
overcame Toronto's 131 year record of ultraeconserva—
tism. He fought and won the "City Hall war"

His victory did not go unrecognized. During the ceree
monies he was presented the Civic Award of Merit, the high-
est honor Toronto could give a citizen.

Many men had a hand in bringing to reality this mag-
nificent home of Civic Government in Toronto. Many
roles were played in the drama--and some of the epir
sodes were dramatic to say the 1east--but none will
question the one man whose courage, persistance, and
vision was most responsible for giving Toronto a City
Hall which is truly emblematic of its destiny as one of
the world's greatest cities is the man we all affec-
tionately knew as the "Mayor of all the People"

Nathan Phillips.

To Mr. Phillips goes much of the credit for this out-
standing architectural gem. It was he who championed
the idea of an international competition as the tech-
nique for inspiring She best brains among the archi-

tects of the world.2

The one shadow on the day's events was the absence of

Viljo Revell. The Finnish architect did not live to see

 

18Philip G. Given's; "Opening Remarks: Opening Day
Ceremonies for the City Hall and Square"; Toronto, City
Council Minutes, Appendix C, September 11, 1965, p. 27.

19Bragg, p. 11.

20Givens, p. 29.

31

the opening of the most important work of his career. In
November, 1964, he had suffered a fatal paralytic stroke,
only three weeks after he had traveled to Toronto to inspect
the progress of the City Hall. Revell's wife attended the
ceremonies, accepting a gold charm, symbol of Toronto's
gratitude for her husband--

a man whose creative genius provided Toronto with its

most dazzling architectural possession.... He left in

our midst a most significant monument to his enormous

talent.21 '
Also, an engraved stone memorial to Mr. Revell was unveiled
inside the main entrance to the hall, as a reminder for
generations to come of the man who conceived the splendid
complex.

Architecturally, the finished composition well reflected
Revell's original design.

Before building startedi politicians began eroding

the architectural integrity of the design. Mr. Revell

and his Ontario Associate, John Parkin, fought success-

fully to save the original concept.

Though the sharp corners of the office towers were
rounded to economize, and the boomerang shapes modified to
more regular curves to better withstand wind loads; the

basic effect of the four elements in composition was as

Revell had conceived it.

 

211bid., p. 31.

22"Designer of New City Hall dies at 54", Toronto Star,
9 November 1964.

32

In the most professional of the critiques written,
R. H. Thom recognized the structure as the most important
civic building since the war. He did criticize the incon-
sistencies in construction, the raw edges, the unresolved
features, and the flaws in detail; yet he knew these faults
would disturb only the professional, not the citizen.

Toronto can be justly proud to have a City Hall that
expresses its uniqueness by its very fabric. It is
a convincing and poetic expression of the various
parts of the living function it houses. This has
been managed with such sureness and clarity that,
like a well-turned tune, it attracts wide interest
and it can be remembered.

The citizen has taken the City Hall to his heart.

Now it is to be lived in, left as much to the skater.
in the square as to the Mayor and Council and to the
citizen who pays his parking fine and photographs his
family against its towers.... Revell, in giving the
city a strong symbol, has given it a strong building,
one that accommodate all the love and abuse that can
be heaped upon it in its lifetime.23

 

23R. H. Thom: "Toronto City Hall: A Critique", The
Canadian Architect 10 (October, 1965): 59-60.

 

CHAPTER II

THE FURNISHINGS FOR THE

TORONTO CITY HALL

In his critique of the new City Hall, Ron Thom also

commented on the interiors and furnishings. He found the

interior space itself to be efficient and attractive. He

elaborated on the well-organized office towers:

ings

The office towers are likely to be the most fully
realized part of the building. The office floors

are relaxed and interesting to be in with their
ever-changing interior aspects and their ever-
changing views of the opposite tower and the city
beyond. It was a shrewd decision that put the senior
offices against the back wall and secretarial space
against the windows. This is indeed an office environ-
ment made as much for human beings as it is to take
office machinery. It should be the envy of everybody
forced to spend the bulk of their waking hours in the
graphlpaper space we have come to regard as inevit-
able.

He did not, however, have equal praise for the furnish-
placed within this most dynamic interior:

Though an honest attempt has been made to design furni-
ture suitable to the building, it has not been too
successful, if the concrete pedestalled desks are a
sampling. They are a strange mixture of brutality and
elegance that do not emerge as either elegant or as
belonging to this building particularly.2

 

lIbid., p. 31.

21bid.

33

34

Thom was not alone in his criticism of the furnish-
ings of the new City Hall. Comments ranged from unsightly
and non-functional to crude and unfinished. Patwanth Singh,
editor of Design in India, upon studying the City Hall and
Square, praised the architectural composition of the complex
and congratulated the city for building such a fine struc-
ture. Yet, disappointed with the furniture, he stated
"Council acted strangely when it came to furnishing the
building."3

Why should a building of such architectural acclaim be
so unsuitably furnished? To answer this, one must review
the entire process of selecting and contracting the interior
furnishings--a process marked by political controversy.
"Controversy over the furniture produced more bitterness
than the original decision to build."4

The question of the interior firnishings was virtually
ignored throughout the preliminary planning and construction
of the complex. Provisions had been made in the Architects'
Agreement for the built-in furnishings in the Council
Chamber, including the fixed Councilmen desks, the Mayor's

and Metro chairman's desks, and public seating gallery; but

provision for the loose furnishings throughout the building

 

3As quoted in "Singular Symbol for Toronto", Architec-
tural Forum 123 (November, 1966): 23.

4Robert Gretton, "The Great Furniture Debate", Canadian
Architect 10 (July, 1965): 53.

 

35

remained open:

The design and planning of such furniture and furnish-
ings is not provided for in the draft architects'
agreement. If it is desired that the architects

should be responsible for this work the City would be
required to pay the architects and addition fee for

the professional services involved and provision should
be made therefor in a separate agreement.

No further action was taken until the fall of 1961. At
an October meeting of the City Council, Alderman Horace
Brown, a strong supporter of the City Hall project, moved

that:

Whereas the new City Hall is an embodiment of much
that is breathtakingly vivid and strikingly beautiful
in modern architecture, and

Whereas this will be the new home of the City of
Toronto, and no home is complete without compatible
furnishings and decor, and

Whereas in the design of the new City Hall was given
to architects from all over the world to submit their
plans for the building, be it therefore resolved that
this City Council request the Board of Control to ask
the architect to report his views on how the building
should be furnished and/or consider the advisability
of a similar international competition among top de-
signers, to secure the best internal and external fur-
nishings possible, compatible with the edifice's
design and structure...

And if such a competition is considered advisable, to
institute it with all possible speed.6

Brown's proposal was approved by the Council and sub-

mitted to the Board of Control for further action.

 

5Corporation of the City of Toronto, City Council Min-
utes. Board of Control Report No. 11, "New City Hall and
Square--Architect's Agreement," 31 March 1959, p. 768.

6Corporation of the City of Toronto, City Council Min-
utes, "Furnishings--New City Hall", introduced by Horace
Brown, 2 October 1961, p. 213.

 

 

 

36

The Board accepted the recommendation that Revell be
requested to submit his design proposals. Council further
recommended that the Metropolitan Corporation and the
Library Board be requested to submit their views on the
question of the furnishings.

Complying with Council's request, Mr. Revell sent the
following memorandum dated November 30, 1961 to the Board of

Control:

With reference to the question on how the building
should be furnished, it is my belief that when Toronto
decided that the new City Hall would be built, based
on an international competition, and then commissioned
Viljo Revell-John Parkin Associates for the final de-
sign, an ordinary building was not asked for. It is
now obvious that the new City Hall, not yet built, has
become a "Trademark" of Toronto because of its design
and form language. To fully provide what is expected
of the new City Hall, it is essential that the fur-
nishings and art decoration correspond with the build-
ing design.

It is well known that especially in public building,
furnishings and the building must be completely inte-
grated to obtain a successful end result. This will
be especially true of the new City Hall, not only be-
cause circular and curved spaces cannot be furnished
efficiently or functionally with standard furniture
but the necessity to maintain the same form language
throughout the entire building, and especially in the
large public spaces, which can be easily visible and
overlooked from an upper level. Further, I believe it
is also the only way which, in this case, leads to the
expected results.

In a very early stage, when discussing the Agreement
between the City and the Architects, I asked to include
the furnishings, at least in principle, under the Arch—
itects' Agreement. However, it was understood to be
impossible at that stage because of the special circum—
stances of the City Hall question as to whether the
City Hall was actually going to be built. But it was
also understood that such a wish of the Architects
would naturally be considered at a later stage,

37

especially if the total building costs are going to
remain according to original estimates. Now, when
the contract with the general contractor has been
signed at considerable lower costs than expected, I
cannot see why such an agreement with the Architects
should not be executed.

It may be misconstrued that specially designed fur-
nishings are more expensive than the corresponding
quality of existing standard furniture. I wish to
express, as my considered opinion, that it is not the
fact in this case for the following reasons:

1. The exceptional conditions and form of the office
space in the City Hall.

2. The relatively large repetition of units.

3. The prestige afforded the manufacturers for the
supply of the Toronto City Hall furniture.

When obtained on a competititve price basis, the above
points would bring the costs of specially designed
pieces to an even lower than average price. It is
also self-evident that the furniture committment
should include ALL FURNISHINGS.

It is my firm opinion that City offices, together with
Metro offices should be handled as a definite entity.
The splitting of the total amount into half would, of
course, affect the unit prices, etc. and in some areas,
where Metro and City offices are close neighbors and
visible together from an upper level, the situation
would be ridiculous, if there is any difference in
furniture design between the City and Metro.

It is my.opinion, therefore, that the furnishings de-
sign should be handledfas a direct extension of the
building design and that this work should be implee
mented immediately in order that work may commence on
the design and selection of the furnishings.7

As stated before, the built—in furnishings of the Coun-

cil Chamber were included in the building contract. As such,

 

7Corporation of the City of Toronto, Toronto Citygoun-
cil Minutes, Appendix A. Board of Control Report No. 17,
"Furnishings in Toronto City Hall", 15 January 1962, pp.
1187-1189.

 

 

38

these furnishings were deeply integrated into the archi-
tectural design of the building. Revell felt that the
loose furnishings of the Chamber, the Members' Lounge, and
the gallery therefore must be designed in conjunction with
the built-in units. Indeed, he felt the furnishings through-
out the entire structure should be integrated with the
architectural design. He found it only "logical" that the
two parts of the interior furnishings--fixed and loose--be
under the direction of the Architects.

He concluded his statement:

While the foregoing are my views on the question as to

how the building should be furnished, indirectly, it

answers the question on the international competition

for the furnishings design. I am of the opinion that

there is no necessity for a competition for furnish-

ings design and that a furnishing competition cannot

be arranged intelligently.8

Also, in compliance with the Board's request, Mr. H. C.
Campbell, Chief Librarian for the Toronto Municipal Library
prepared a memorandum dated December 13, 1961, stating the
Library Board's position on the furnishing question for the
new City Hall Library. Referring to an earlier agreement
between the Library Board and the City of Toronto--which
stated that all the furnishings for the library could be
furnished by the lessee, providing the selection would cor-

respond with the architectural design of the structure as

well as with the design of the furnishings chosen for the

 

81bid., p. 1190.

39

City Hall; he stated it was the Board's intention to supply
its own furnishings in accordance to the terms of that
agreement:
While the Library Board will certainly be glad to
harmonize its requirements with those of Mr. Revell,
you will realize that the present arrangement only
requires that the Board deal with yourself and the
City Architect on this matter.9
At this time the Board received no comment from the
Metropolitan Corporation on the question of their handling
of the interior furnishings.
No further action was taken until the following spring.
In May, 1962, Revell and Parkin submitted to the Board of
Control a more detailed Proposed Furnishings Program, indi-
cating the scope of the work involved with the interior
design and selection of furnishings for the City Hall. The
need for careful coordination of the loose furnishings with
the architectural interior treatment was emphasized for a
completely integrated effect. And an early decision was en-
couraged to avoid wasting valuable time and handicapping the
design process. The Proposed Furnishings Program submitted
by the architects was quite comprehensive:
Stage 1: Analysis of Requirements
Consultation with the City to determine requirements
Establishing items to be designed or selected
Establishing design vocabulary--materials, colour,
and finishes

Assembly of samples, catalogues of related work
and the investigation of manufacturers

 

91bid., p. 1192.

40

Stage 2: Preliminary Design

Basic furniture units and prototypes
Preliminary selection of furnishings
Examples of layouts
Presentation to the City at the completion of

Stage 2.
Approval to proceed in principle
Establishment of a preliminary budget figure
Typical office layouts:

Department Heads' Offices

Deputy Department Heads' Offices

Section Heads' Offices

Clerks' Offices

Conference Room

Stage 3: Final Design

Final layouts

Working drawings and specifications of the developed
units, including final prototypes

Final selection of related furnishings

Accessories final design and selection

Carpet final selection

Color and finish schedules

Co-ordinating artwork.

Drapery final selection

Preliminary bidding of selected items and establish-
ing unit prices

Establishing purchasing procedure with regard to
final checking of accounts

Presentation to the City for final approval to pro-
ceed with the tender call.

Stage 4: Tenders -

Co-ordinate with the Purchasing Department in calling
of tenders for all phases of the work.

Analyze tenders received and submit recommendations
for City's consideration

Prepare itemized contract bill of quantities for
approval to proceed with purchase orders

Approval of contract figure

As determined by City policy: The placing of orders
on behalf of the Owners and/or coordinate with
City Purchasing Department on placing of orders

Stage 5: Supervision

Checking the shop drawings

Factory and shop production checking,

Supervision of installation.

Issuing of certificates of payment and itemized
accounting of the contract

Acceptance of the completed installationl0

 

10

Ibid., pp. 1194-1195.

41

Revell-Parkin concluded the Program by reviewing the
extent of the architects' responsibility: all office lay-
outs; all interior space planning--including walls and
partitions; the Council Chamber's furnishings--fixed and
loose; all furniture design and selection; carpeting and
drapery design and selection; all accessories--planters,
ashtrays, nameplates, deskplates, etcetera; upholstery
selection; wall-coverings; specially designed lighting fix-
tures; and coordination of the art work as determined by
the Committee on Fine Arts.

Mr. Revell also expressed his disappointment in the
Board's delay in reaching a decision on the method of imple-
mentation in the design or selection of the furnishings.
Due to the importance of the project and its international
recognition as an outstanding piece of architecture, Revell
felt that the question of the furnishings was even more.
demanding than customary for civic buildings; that neither
the Board of Control nor the City Council fully understood
the significance of having properly designed furnishings to
complement the architectural design of the new City Hall.
He continued that Council did not appreciate the role and
function of the furnishings in the total scheme, and instead
of contemplating the furnishings as only one progressive
step, the final or crowning facet, in the completion of the
project; Council tended to consider the furnishings as an

unrelated or foreign consideration outside the architects'

42

realm of responsibility. He suggested that if Council cone

tinued to ignore the design and selection of the furnishings,
the City Hall will never become what the world-wide
competition intended and what the citizens expect.

If the building and furnishings are not done simul-

taneously, the architect cannot take the responsi-

bility for the integrity of the entire result.11

Revell found Council's reticence in dealing with the
furnishings and reluctance to appropriate adequate funds out
of proportion with regard to the whole project. For compari-
son he quoted some pertinent figures concerning other city
halls. For example, in Copenhagen, the furnishings for the
new City Hall cost 24% of the total building fund, in
Toronto, only 6%. And the Copenhagen building cost 50% of
the annual city budget; Toronto's City Hall only 8% of the
combined Metro and City budget.

Upon receipt of this memorandum, the Board of Control
submitted a position paper to the City Council urging the
City to enter into an agreement with Viljo-Revell-John B.
Parkin Associates for the design of the furnishings for the
new City Hall, at a fee of 10 per cent of the net cost. The
Board further recommended that the City Solicitor, in con-
junction with the Commissioner of City Property, be authorr

ized to prepare such an agreement for submission to the

Board of Control for approval.

 

llIbid,, p. 1198.

43

When presented to the Council for final vote on June 4,
1962; the Board's recommendations were passed by a vote of
nine to seven. At that time it was further recommended by
Council that the furnishings purchased by the City for the
new City Hall be manufactured in Canada by Canadian crafts-
men. Also, it was recommended that the Metropolitan Corpor-
ation be requested to favourably consider entering into a
similar agreement with the architects for the furnishings
required of Metro in the new City Hall.

Mr. Revell had postponed a planned trip back to his
native Finland awaiting Council's action on the furnishings
question. And though pleased with Council's decision, he
was concerned about the delay in taking action.

The furniture committment has been settled, fortun-

ately. But I am afraid that the three-quarters of a

year delay has caused circumstances which indirectly

never will be fully corrected.12

This nine month delay in making a decision was followed
by another full year's delay in taking further action. The
furnishings contract between the City and the Architects had
been drafted by the City Solicitor. The contract stated
(in part) that:

Whereas the Client (City of Toronto) desires that the

furnishings of the new City Hall correspond with the

building so as to achieve a complete integration of
design,

 

12Viljo Revell, personal letter to Eric Arthur, June
25, 1962, The Toronto City Hall Files, City Archives,
Toronto, Ontario.

44

And whereas the Council approved the Board of Con-
trol's recommendation that the services of the
Architect be retained for the purpose of the design
and selection of the furnishings for the new City Hall
in accordance with the terms and conditions within,

And whereas, it is agreed that the Architects shall be
jointly responsible for performance of the services,
and fees be paid to the Architects in accordance with
the provisions of the agreement

Now therefore this agreement witnesseth that the
Client and the Architects mutually convenant and agree
as follows:

1. That for the purpose of this agreement, contract
work shall mean the design and selection of furnish-
ings for the following areas:

a. all office space-~City Departments, Board Rooms,

and Representative's offices

b. public access areas

c. four committee rooms

d. press, radio, and television offices and lounge

e. council chamber and members' room

2. That the Architects shall undertake, carry out, and

complete the contract work; and perform the professional

services as established in the Proposed Furnishing Pro-

gram.

3. The Architects will throughout the period of per-

formance consult and liase with the Commissioner

of City Property.13

The contract required the signatures of the Mayor of
Toronto, the City Treasurer, Viljo Revell, and John Parkin.
The agreement, however, was never signed.

In July, 1963, the Board of‘Control, under the direction

of the newly elected Mayor, Donald Summerville, requested

the City Solicitor to indicate to what extent the City was

 

13"Furnishings Contract--Toronto City Hall, Third
Draft," undated, City Coordinator's Files, City Archives,
Toronto, Ontario.

45

committed to the ArchiteCts for the design of the furnish-
ings and how this arrangement could be terminated.

Upon receiving the Board's request, the Solicitor
wrote to Revell:

As you are aware, the City Council has authorized

you to proceed on the design of the furnishings for

the new City Hall. However, I have now been in-

structed to report in regard to such furnishings and

consequently, it would be appreciated if you would
arrange to take no further action in this regard

until my report has been considered.14

The City Solicitor reported to the Board that although
some progress had been made on the Furnishing Agreement be-
tween the City and the Architects that the contract had not
yet been finalized. He advised that insofar as there was
not a sufficiently complete understanding between the City
and the Architects so as to constitute any binding contract,
that it was not likely that the City had any legal financial
responsibility for any work which the Architects may have
undertaken in regard to the furnishings, or any commitment
to implement to their designs.

He further reported that the Library Board had reversed
their earlier decision and had entered into agreement with
the architects for the design, purchase, and installation
of the Library's furnishings at a fee of ten per cent of the

total cost, and that the Metr0politan Corporation had decided

to independently furnish their general offices, the City

 

14William R. Callow, City Solicitor, letter to Viljo
Revell, 12 July 1963, City Coordinator's Records, City
Archives, Toronto, Ontario.

46

Registry Office, the County of YorkiRegistry'Office, and
the Land Titles Office. ‘Withqnearly'half‘of thekarea of
the new City Hall being furnished by tenants over whom the
City had little control, the probability of uniformrfnrnish-
ings throughout the building was lessened. Despite this
fact, the Solicitor advised that:
on a major project of the scope and interest of the
new Toronto City Hall, it is of utmost importance that
the furnishings comply with, integrate into, and en-
hance the character of the building. While the fur-
nishing form should comply with the aesthetics of the
structure, the function of the furnishings must satisfy
the needs of the City Hall operation.15
The Solicitor recommended that specially designed fur-
niture be used in all public areas, such as the Council
Chamber, Members Lounge and Ante-Room, Committee Rooms, the
Public Lobbies, and the offices of the Mayor, the Board of
Control, and the Aldermen. But for the departmental offices,
he suggested adapting existing departmental furnishings.
November, 1963, after considerable research including
conferences with "experts" in the furnishing field, the City
Solicitor suggested a furnishings procedure that would
"result in a more economical furnishing program for the new

City Hall without detracting in any way from its character

or dignity."16

 

15Corporation of the City of Toronto, City of Toronto
Council Minutes, Board of Control Report No. 33, November 10,
1963, Appendix B, p. 2949.

151bid., p. 2950.

47

The first stage of his suggested procedure was a pre-
liminary survey of all furnishings on inventory and the
removal of all items which could not be considered for use
in the new City Hall. All that furniture deemed unsuitable
would be transferred to City buildings or offices outside,
the new City Hall. Any furniture deemed unusable would be
discarded.

It was then suggested that all civic department heads
forward to the Co-ordinator a complete list of furnishings
required for accommodation of his department in the new
City Hall.

The next stage would be the City's public advertise-
ment for furnishings contract supply companies who would be
prepared to enter into a competition for the supply, de-
livery, and installation of all new furnishings and for the
refurbishing of existing furnishings. The Solicitor recom-
mended the qualifications necessary for the applicants to
merit consideration. He further recommended that Carl J.
Lochman, Director of the National Design Branch, Department
of Industry, be requested to nominate an expert in the field
of furnishings to be known as the Specifier, whose duties
would include preparation of a schedule of furnishings re-
quired for all offices, preparation of schematic layouts of
all areas involved illustrating layouts of the required
furnishings, assessment of the inventory of existing furni-

ture, and a decision on the allocation of such furnishings,

48

preparation of a schedule of furnishings which are to be
purchased together with a schedule of existing furniture to
be refurbished, and establishment of a total budget for the
supply, delivery, and installation of all furnishings and
refurbishings in the said schedule. The Solicitor recom—
mended payment of $5,000 to the appointed Specifier.

He further recommended a "Furnishings Design Committee"
delegated for the purposes of selecting from the applications
received, no more than five contract suppliers to participate
in the design competition; judging the merits of the final
submissions based on the excellence of design and the qual-
ity of the furnishings and refurbishings specified; and rec-
ommending the name of the successful competitor, or as an
alternative, the names of not more than two successful
competitors to share the furnishings contract. Recommended
to serve on this committee were Professor Eric Arthur; Carl
W. Lochman; Howard D. Chapman, architect; Robin Bush, fur-
nishing designer and former Design Director of the National
Gallery; the Specifier; and Mr. Viljo Revell. It was sug-
gested that the Board of Control and the City Council accept
the final decision of the Furnishing Design Committee as
binding.

The estimated cost of the proposed competition was
$30,000--$5,000 for the Specifier, $5,000 for each of the

unsuccessful competitors, and $5,000 for incidental costs.

49

The recommendations of the City Solicitor were approved
by the Board of Control and, on December 9, 1963, they were
submitted to the City Council for final vote. Only one
A1derman--Allan Lamport--voted against the approval of the
recommendations. It was further recommended by Council that
a copy of the Solicitor's report be forwarded to the
Metropolitan Corporation for their consideration of adopting
a similar policy.

When informed of the Council's decision to open a com-
petition for the design of the furnishings, Viljo Revell
wrote:

I am confused about the development and therefore I

have the feeling that I do not know what has happened

regarding the attitude of the furnishings.

When I asked for a decision about the furnishings

many years ago, the answer was "okay" when the final

sketches are accepted.... But the agreement was not

signed and we never had an official presentation of

the sketches. And now I hear that a competition is

going to be prepared. I hope you will understand

that I am confused and cannot answer questions any

more. Would it be possible to ask for some kind of

explanation or otherwise inform why the client has

lost his confidence in the architect?17

Carl W. Lochman recommended Mrs. Allison Bains to serve
as Specifier. The City hired Mrs. Bains, a longtime interior
designer in the Toronto area, to set the specifications of
the competition, to prepare preliminary planning and space

study, and to establish a budget and schedule of furnishing

requirements throughout the building.

 

l7Viljo Revell, personal letter to Eric Arthur, 2 May
1964, Toronto City Hall Files, City Archives, Toronto, Ontario.

50

Mr. Lochman, however, declined his seat on the Fur-
nishings Design Committee; recommending Budd Sugarman,
Toronto interior designer, for the position. The Furnish-
ings Design Committee then included two Toronto architects,
Howard Chapman and Jack Mar, of Parkin Associates; and two
designers, Robin Bush and Budd Sugarman. The Committee was
chaired by Professor Arthur. Mr. Revell had been invited
to serve as a member of the committee; he declined the
invitation:

As to my membership on the Furniture Committee, I con-

sider the proposed arrangement strange not only in the

fact of its existence, but even in its form.

Since I am the architect of the building, I cannot

understand how I could assume a position as a member

of that committee. The architect's relationship to
the building is different from that of all others....

You can ask his opinion, and take it into considera-

tion or not. You can make agreements with him for

further tasks. But, in my opinion, it is not right to
ask him to be a member of a committee where he is in
the same position as others.18

Early in 1964, the Metropolitan Corporation approved
the recommendations of Metro Council Chairman William Allen
regarding the furnishings in those areas of the City Hall to
be occupied by Metro. It was agreed that Metro would take
care of its own furnishings requirements for the general
offices, both on the podium floors and the towers; but that

the public access areas would be furnished in harmony with

the City's plan. It was decided that Metro employ the same

 

18Viljo Revell, personal letter to Eric Arthur, 4 March
1964, Toronto City Hall Files, City Archives, Toronto,
Ontario.

51

Specifier as the City in regard to the furniture of.those
public areas, at a fee commensurate with the'amount"of work
involved. It was-agreed by Council that the MetrO'Corporav
tion would make known its furnishings requirement to the
City and request the City to include these requirements in
the tender. It was also understood that all estimated
costs of furnishings be submitted to the Metro Council be-
fore any final decisions were made.

On March 15, 1964, advertisements were placed calling
for applicants for the furniture competition:

The City of Toronto invites Contract Supply Companies

from across Canada to submit their names as candi-

dates for consideration by the Furnishings Design Com-

mittee.

The Committee will select not more than five suitably

qualified applicants who will compete on an equal

basis for the design, manufacture, supply, and instal-

lation of all portable furnishings for the new City

Ha11.19

Also included in this advertisement were the require-
ments of the applicants: they must currently operate a
well-established contract supply business; submit brief
descriptions of five installations warranting their consider-
ation as a qualified competitor; employ a design staff (as
evidence of their ability to handle the design aspect of the

contract); maintain status in the trade and enjoy the cons

fidence of Canadian manufacturers and suppliers of furniture,

 

19Advertisement, "Furnishings Design Competitionv—the
New City Hall", 15 March 1964, City Hall Co—Ordinator's
Files, City Archives, Toronto, Ontario.

52

carpeting, draperies, and accessories; and finally, evidence
their ability to conform to the policy established by the
City Council that all furnishings shall be manufactured in
Canada by Canadian craftsmen. Those applications which did
not show evidence of the stated requirements would be
rejected.

Fifteen Canadian firms applied for consideration.

After careful examination of each application, the Committee
selected the five firms to participate in the competition.
Four were Toronto firms: the Robert Simpson Company; Knoll
International of Canada, Limited; Eaton's of Canada; and
Mitchell-Houghton Limited; and one a Montreal firm, Henry
Morgan and Company.

On September 14, 1964, City Council approved the Commit-
tee's decision despite the bitter objection of Alderman
George Ben. Ben had prepared a memorandum setting forth his
objections to the Committee's selection of qualified appli-
cants. He referred to the preamble of the advertisement
inviting applicants. Based on the words "Contract Supply
Companies", which have a specific meaning in the trade as
general contractors and not manufacturers; Ben contended that
manufacturers were neither asked, nor qualified to tender.
This would then disqualify Knoll International Canada Limi-
ted, who in their application stated: "Knoll is in fact the
only organization of its type in Canada; and markets and

manufactures in Canada products of its own design and the

53
design of others on a national basis."20

Quoting the first requirement of the applicants--cur-
rently operating a business of this nature (contract supply);
Ben contended that Mitchell—Houghton did not satisfy this
term, as evidenced in their application:

J and J Brook, limited will be responsible and super-

Vise the complete design aspect; Mitchell—Houghton will

be responsible for the scheduling, supply, installation,

and servicing of all furnishings; and Sunshine Office

Equipment Limited will act as the major manufacturer of

all office furnishings, all of which are designed and

manufactured in Canada.

Admitting the creation of a syndicate specially for the
purpose of making application to the Committee for participa-
tion in the Competition, Mitchell-Houghton could not there-
fore qualify as a currently operating business of this
nature, Ben argued that their application should therefore
be rejected by the Committee.

Ben also questioned the qualifications of the Henry
Morgan and Company of Montreal. He contended that the
submissions of five furnishing installations made by them,
were hardly of stature that would justify their considera-

tion as a serious competitor in this contest.

The Furnishings Design Committee responded to Ben's

 

0George Ben, Memorandum to The Board of Control,
Corporation of the City of Toronto, City Council Minutes,
Appendix A, Board of Control Report No. 27, Article 1,
"Furnishings Design Committee", 14 September 1964, p. 1699.

ZlIbid., p. 1700.

54

objections and reassured both the Board and the City Council
that his arguments had little'validity; ‘First, the Commit?
tee's interpretation of 'Contract Design Companies' was in
no way restrictive to manufacturers or to firms affiliated
with manufacturers. Also, the Committee welcomed theresign
association of Mitchell«Roughton“Limited with J and J Brook
Limited and Sunshine Office Equipment Limited. Contending
the MitchellvHoughton Limited was not a well—established
contractor was without basis. And finally, the Committee
was more than satisfied with the Henry Morgan and Company's
overall competence and their ability to meet the exacting
requirements for the furnishings of the new City Hall.

When Mayor Givens presented the'issue'toVCouncil, he
stated Alderman Ben's objections were ill—founded and warned
Council of a serious delay should these objections prevent
the Committee to proceed with the furnishings competition.
When the mayor called for a vote of confidence in the Com«
mittee's selection of participants in the competition, the
only objections were Alderman Ben's and Controller Allen
Lamport's. The Committee had been given the Council's
approval to proceed.

But Alderman Ben's vociferous objections were not‘withv
out effect. Discouraged by the sign of a political hassle,
Henry Morgan and Company withdrew from the Competition.

The four remaining participants were given the Condi—

tions of the Competition as prepared by the Furnishings

55

Design Committee. The Conditions stated the expectations
of the Committee and the criteria for judging the entrants
as well as the schedule of specifications as established
by the Specifier and the City Hall Co-ordinator.
Toronto's New City Hall is an outstanding piece of
architecture for which labels like modern or con-
temporary are inadequate. It is contemporary, but in
its own way; and the successful competitor will be
one who, in the opinion of the Furnishings Design Com-
mittee, comes most nearly to capturing the spirit of
the building as conceived by its designer, Mr. Viljo
Revell, the Finnish architect.... The Committee looks
for a sensitive and highly imaginative approach to the
furnishings in keeping with the building. Anything
less will not be acceptable.
It is expected that a character will be established
that will be apparent on every floor, in the greater
as well as the lesser rooms. For the preservation of
this character, the Committee will find unacceptable
any areas that appear foreign to the general scheme.22
The Conditions stated the opportunities for creativ-
ity--fabrics, draperies, and upholstery; floor coverings;
wall coverings; and desk and work stations. It was not ex-
pected that the competitors develop custom designed chairs
for the installation. The time involved for such develop-
ment was not available; while many well-designed chairs of
Canadian manufacture were available.
Included with the Conditions were schedules of all fur-

nishing requirements of the City as well as those specified

by Metro. Detailed instructions for presentation were

 

22Corporation of the City of Toronto, Conditions of
the Furnishings Design Competition--New City Hall, Toronto,
26 October 1964, Toronto City Hall Files, City Archives,
Toronto, Ontario.

 

 

56

given. The deadline for the submissions was March 30, 1965;
the date of the award of contract, April 20; and the final
completion date for installation of furnishings for the
podium and tower, August 15, 1965.

No budget was specified in the Conditions. It was
stated that the competitors would be provided with a maxi-
mum budget including the total cost of furnishings and design
at a later date.

It was not until January 19, 1965, that City Hall Co-
ordinator Bell issued Bulletin Number 3 to the four com—
petitors. This bulletin sparsely stated that the budget for
the new City Hall furnishings was established at $850,000.
The figure had been assessed by the Specifier. The bulletin
did not state whether the budget figure was an inviolable
condition of the competition or merely a guide to be used by
the competitors when establishing their tender. The com-
petitors faced a most critical decision--to adhere to the
stringent budget, and in doing so perhaps produce a lesser
quality product; or to use the figure only as a guide, plac-
ing the priority on quality and design, not cost.

From April 1 to April 6, the Furnishings Design Com-
mittee carefully examined and discussed the four submissions.
Each submission was accompanied by a brief statement explain-
ing the design approach.

J and J Brook, designers for the Mitchell-Houghton

entry wrote:

57

Toronto's new City Hall is a vigorous and dramatic
statement of a civic center for the citizens and a
building for their government. The public areas are
self-proclaiming and welcoming. The location and
extent of the administrative areas are clearly
apparent.

It was an early conclusion of ours that in designing
the interiors of this building, the architecture had
to be the prime visual statement and that all furnish-
ings should be an extension of this statement. The
furniture should avoid all flamboyancy and should not
vie with the architecture for attention. This is not
the type of building that should be used as a stage
for the furniture designer. We did not look for a
quick Visual impact, but rather a restrained expres-
sion in all of the furnishings with emphasis on their
compatibility with the architectural surroundings.23
Their choice of color reflects the Brooks' desire to
achieve a restrained expression. The warm, earth tones--
clay, ochre, copper, chestnut, and brick red--were felt to
contrast and compliment the quiet neutrality of the archi-
tecture. Materials chosen were natural, rugged, and strongly
textured. Woods chosen were teak and rosewood. The carpet-
ing recommended was woven from natural undyed wool yarns.
A natural tan leather covering was suggested as most compat-
ible and suitable for the surface of the shell-like structure
of the Council Chamber. Nearly all the furniture proposed
by the Brooks had been custom designed for the City Hall.
Murray Oliver, head designer for the T. Eaton Company
Limited and project director, stated:
Toronto's new City Hall is a structure of great cour-

age and conviction. Its powerful architectural state-
ment imposes on the designers of the furniture a

 

23Joanne and John Brook, "Furnishings Design Competi-
tion--Competitor Statements", Canadian Interiors (July,
1965): 34.

 

58

respect for the elements of form and the nature of
the materials which dominate it. The discipline of
this building becomes the discipline of the designer.

Here is a building that is visually organized through
a few major statements of form; the design is direct,
honest, and uncompromising....

Materials in the building are boldly expressed in
their natural state. Concrete and marble are accepted

for their own textural qualities. Wood and metal are
allowed to express their intrinsic properties.

H

Just as the building is uncompromising in its state-
ments, there has been no compromise in our furniture
design. The building is simple; so is the furniture.
Like the building, it shuns excessive refinement; it
avoids being too elegant or too involved with itself.
Rather it is direct in its statement, generous in its
proportions, and appreciative of the human scale. Its
materials are warm, textured, and natural.2
The emphasis of the Eaton's submission was on the
materials chosen and appropriate usage of those material.
All materials recommended were identical or closely related
to those of the building. Steel was used in structures of
concentrated stress, in all chairs, in all areas of concen-
trated wear; wood enclosed volumes and formed slabs; plastic
laminates recommended for all hard-wearing surfaces; sturdy
woven fabrics and leather for upholstery; no materials for
decorative purposes only; all materials selected to age
well. The materials were as close to natural expression as
possible--the wood always oiled; the steel always chrome-

plated; the leather, natural and unglazed; drapery and car-

peting fibres natural and undyed.

 

24Ibid., p. 34.

59

Structural form was also of high priority. Form ele-
ments of the furniture were felt to reflect that of the
architecture, and to establish an atmosphere of strength and
serene dignity.

Although concerned with color, texture, and structural
materials; the approach pursued by the designers of the
Simpson entry was design continuity. Gordon Forrest, David
Bodrug, and Harold Murphy stated:

In assessing the furnishing requirements for the City

Hall, the dominating architectural features of the

building must be taken into account. Mr. Revell

created a concept which can only be described as inte-
grated in style.... Successful furnishings in this
building will therefore be an extension of the strong
style and bold detail as laid down by the architect.

Materials used will be monolithic in nature and uti-

lized in static designs....

We feel our approach to the interior furnishings will

present a continuing statement throughout the building

dramatizing and creating a continuity within the total
architectural statement.25

The Simpson submission evidenced recurring use of simi-
lar detail throughout the building; a refined scale, but
hold detail and form; a monolithic nature of all desks; and
a minimized interplay of materials in each piece of furni-
ture. 'f

Knoll International Canada, Limited labeled the City

Hall as "international" and "the first civic center of this

century worthy of the name". Knoll continued:

 

25Ibid., p. 35.

60

Our approach to the problem of furnishings design
therefore endeavored to keep this outstanding archi-
tectural solution in mind, by attempting to find both
space and individual solutions in keeping with this
most un-North American of buildings, retaining at the
same time, local solutions to office planning.
It was obvious that the case designs developed to a
high degree in North America since.the war--the A-frame
or corner-post structure in tension--whi1e eminantly
suitable for a Chase Manhatten Tower in New York or
a Place Ville Marie in Montreal, had no place in a
building which was both sculptural and monolithic.26
Emphasis was placed on finding a successful solution to
space organization, forming a compatible system throughout
the building. The designers developed a cantilevered wedge-
shaped work station for the tower floors to reduce regimenta-
tion, facilitate access, and increase usable space.
Reflecting a basic structural method employed by the
architect, Knoll's case furnishings were of simple post-and-
beam construction, table, desk, credenza, and cabinet de-
signs and candid use of the same pre-cast concrete and finish
as specified by Revell in his architectural interior treat-
ment. Simple, sculptural concrete piers supported slab
surfaces of white oak with a textured plastic—laminate in-
lays. Chairs recommended were Saarinen and Platner designs,
some modified to incorporate a newly developed stainless
steel swivel base.

The Furnishings Design Committee had previously estab-

lished five criteria for judging the entrants' submissions:

 

261bid., p. 35.

61

philosophy of concept (as related to the character of the
building), creativity and originality; function--p1an,
design of rooms and furnishings, material chosen (texture,
color, suitability). and quantities specified (as related
to the conditions' requirements); examination of the sup-
pliers; and competence of the designers.

The Committee presented its recommendations to the
Board of Control on April 7, 1965. They had been unanimous
in their selection of Knoll International as the winning
entrant:

The Conditions of the Competition stated that a

"character will be established that will be apparent

on every floor, in the greater as in the lesser

rooms." More than any other competitor, Knoll's

designers captured the spirit of the building and

maintained it consistently in major as well as minor
areas.27

The Committee's report to the Board analyzed the Knoll
submission with regards to each of the pre-established
criteria. They distinguished those aspects of the design
which successfully met the criteria, and suggested revisions
for the weaker areas of the proposed design.

In its philosophy of concept, the Knoll entry was found
by the Committee to be the one that would not have been dis-

pleasing to Viljo Revell himself. The Committee felt confi-

dent that the architect's doubts about the quality of the

 

27Report of the Furnishings Design Committee as quoted
by Corporation of the City of Toronto, Citngouncil Minutes,
Board of Control Report No. 15, Article , Furnishings«v
New City Hall", 12 April 1965, Appendix A, p. 1008.

62

design in furnishings emerging from a competition would be

removed by the Knoll's installation. The Committee further
agreed that the Knoll submission exhibited both creativity

and originality to the highest degree.

When discussing the functional success of the plan, the
Committee found Knoll's to be considerably far in advance
of the other competitors: highly praised were the mayor's
office, the committee rooms, the council members lounge,
and the tower floors. It was recommended that the reception
rooms, alderman's interview area, and conference room he re-
examined for possible redesign.

The furniture design was also highly praised; the desk
and casegoods design displayed great ingenuity. More infor-
mation was requested on typing facilities at work stations.

The proposed furnishings were found to display a wide
range of materials, all of top quality. The fabrics were
rated highly, as were the color and texture schemes.

All specified quantities were checked and found to be
in order with the schedule requirements. Knoll's suppliers
were known by the Committee and judged as most satisfactory.
The competence of the designers was found to be beyond ques-
tion. The Committee agreed that the designers evidenced
superior skill and design knowledge.

The Committee recommended the Board approve the award-
ing of the furnishings contract to Knoll International,

recognized winner of the competition; and not approve the

63

using of old furniture in the new City Hall. The Committee
advised the latter action in view of the limited amount of
such furniture, the limitations of its practibility in the
areas contemplated, and its aesthetic incompatibility to
both the building and the new furnishings.

Although the rules of the competition allowed them to
do so, the Design Committee did not indicate a second choice,
as the Knoll entry was found outstandingly superior to all
other submissions.

The Committee's decision was one based on design.
Throughout their discussions, the envelopes containing the
entrants' price specifications remained unopened in a vault.
On April 7, the Board of Control met to accept the recom-
mendations of the Design Committee. At that time, the Knoll
pricing entry was opened. The bid stood at $1,015,030--or
$153,030 above the specified budget figure in Bulletin
Number 3.

Baffled by the situation, Mayor Givens proposed that
either the Board accept Knoll's entry or open the other three
tenders for comparison and further discussion.

The following day the Board re-convened to open the
bids of Eaton's, Mitchell-Houghton, and Simpson's. They
stood at $1,049,084; $848,491; and $848,316 respectively.

Upon studying the tenders, the Controllers favored
awarding the furnishings contract to the Robert Simpson

Company, the lowest bidder. Mayor Givens, however, strongly

64

supported the Furnishings Design Committee's decision,
stating:

Design is design, and I cannot see how the amount of

money would affect that.... The Knoll submission is

by far the best from the point of view of design and
harmony with the overall building. The $850,000 was
not a firm figure; it could not be.2
He urged the Board to approve the awarding of the contract
to Knoll International.

The Toronto press sharply criticized the Mayor's posi-
tion:

Mr. Givens' decision to ignore the ceiling price is

amazing.... The ethics of Toronto politics has been

put on trial of the Board of Control's decision con-
cerning the furnishings for the new City Hall.

In a written statement to the Board of Control, John
Quigg, manager of Knoll International Canada, stated the
firm's position. He claimed Knoll understood the competi-
tion to be a design contest, not a tender call; and the
$850,000 budget figure had been established only as a guide-
line. He further stated that Bulletin Number 3 had been
received at such a late stage in Knoll's preparation of its
submission, that the designs were too far advanced for al-

teration. He concluded that Knoll did consider itself the

winner of the competition, though an unsuccessful tenderer.

 

28Mayor Philip Givens, as quoted by John Brooks,
"Blasts Ethics of Furniture Decision", Toronto Star,
10 April 1965.

ngbid., p. 22.

65

Knoll believed it deserved to be awarded the furnishings
contract by virtue of its design submission which had been
so highly recommended by the Furnishings Design Committee.
On April 12, Mr. Quigg met with Professor Arthur and
City Hall Co-ordinator George Bell to discuss Knoll's price
submission. It was agreed that by making minor changes--
alterations in original design of clerical and secretarial
desks to eliminate certain features not required; change in
design of drafting stools from a specially designed model
to a standard design; adjustment in the quantity of chairs;
change in finish of inside of cabinets and bookcases; sub-
stituting birch for oak for the shelving; and reduction of
the number of wastebaskets--the bid could be reduced by
$50,000. Professor Arthur was most pleased with the re—
sults of the arbitration; the cost of Knoll's installation
was lessened, yet the spirit of the design remained un-
changed.
This meeting between Knoll and representatives of the
City brought strong criticism from John Houghton, president
of Mitchell-Houghton Limited. Declaring the meeting highly
unethical, he called for a new start in the competition.
A gross injustice is being suggested in allowing the
winning design, which came in over the budget, to
negotiate their prices downward. Surely the budget
ceiling was an important aspect controlling the design.
Otherwise all competitors would have submitted a more
elaborate presentation on more expensive items, show-
ing complete disregard for pricing and accordingly

would have put themselves in'a more favorable position
of winning.

66

Mitchell-Houghton is not just fighting for the chance
of receiving the order, but rather for the principles
of fair tendering ethics. Surely, the officials of
our city cannot disregard the rules they themselves
set up....

The competition has been handled poorly and should be
started over again.

Thus, on April 14, the Board of Control was faced with
three choices: to award the contract to Knoll International,
the only acceptable design in the opinion of the Design Com—
mittee; to heed the cries of the press and keep faith with
the tendering system by awarding the contract to Simpson's;
or to take the advice of Houghton and recommend beginning
anew. By a vote of three to one (the Mayor voting against
the motion), the Board approved the awarding of the furnish-
ings contract to Robert Simpson Company Limited.

This vote should have settled the issue. The Board of
Control possessed the authority to award contracts. But at
this point the Furnishings Design Committee proved it was
more than a token force, reminding the City that it had been
agreed earlier that the decision of the Committee would be
binding. Professor Arthur submitted a report on behalf of
the Committee:

I am requested by my Furnishings Design Committee to

say that it is unwilling to accept the two lowest sub-

missions on the basis of design. It is the unanimous

view of the Committee that the design concepts of
these submissions, while perhaps acceptable to the

 

30Jack Houghton, letter to City Hall Co—ordinator
George Bell, as recorded in the Board of Control Report
Number 15, April 12, 1965, p. 1019.

67

modern office building, was not of a standard com“
patible with the new City Hall.

The Committee is aware that the Board‘s decision to
take the lowest tender waS'basedwmore on.ethics than.
on saving money. Even so, the Committee begs to rev
mind the Board of the famous words of Mayor Robert
Shaw when he opened the present City Hall--’Why people
will spend large sums of money on great buildings
opens up a wide field of thought. It may, however, be
roughly answered that great buildings symbolize a
people's deeds and aspirations. It has been said that
wherever a nation had a conscience and a mind, it re-
corded the evidence of its being in the highest
products of this greatest of all arts.‘

_His words, today, have a relevance in the matter under
discussion because a building and its furnishings are
complimentary and indivisible.

May we quote also from the Conditions of the Competi-
tion for the new City Ha11--'How to suggest an atmos-
phere about a building that suggests government,
continuity of certain democratic traditions, and serv-
ice to the community are the problems for the designer
of the City Hall.’

Equally, it is the problem of the interior designer,
and if he fails, the proud symbol of civic government
is reduced to the level of just another office build-

ing. It was that such a concept would emerge from a

furnishings competition that haunted Viljo Revell.

It is the danger that we now face.

The matter of the furnishings contract was then taken
to the City Council. It was suspected that the decision of
the Board of Control could be easily reversed. Professor
Arthur's report was read for Council's consideration.
Supporting the decision of the Furnishing Design Committee,

Alderman Mary Temple spoke in favor of awarding Knoll the

contract:

 

31Eric Arthur, memorandum to George Bell, 14 April 1965,
City Hall Co-ordinator's Files, City Archives, Toronto.

68

I am very disturbed by the Board of Control'S'decie

sion. After spending thirty million dollars on the

new City Hall, it is of utmost importance that we

get furniture that blends well with the design of

the building.... After looking at the submissions,

I feel we have no other choice. Knoll should be

given the contract.
Alderman Oscar Sigsworth also spoke in favor of contract-
ing Knoll: "Considering the cost of the building it would
be folly to pinch pennies on the furniture." Siding with
the Board of Control, Alderman Paul Picket stated: "We have
a duty to uphold city policy and watch the dollars. I will
not vote for Knoll unless I hear a very good reason." And
Alderman June Marks simply commented: "I don't like that
ultra-modern furniture. I think the low tenderer should get
the contract."33

When asked by Controller Dennison to explain his feel-
ings in regards to Knoll's submission, Mayor Givens re-
sponded:

Why I find it beautiful ... this is very hard to do.

It would be like explaining love to you. It sends me,

it grabs me, it moves me. The other designs are ex-

cellent, but they do not give me the charge this one

does.34

It did not, however, "move" a majority of Council mem-

bers. When the Mayor called for a vote to approve the

 

32"Five Aldermen Favor Re-opening City Hall Furniture
Contest", Toronto Star, 15 April 1965.

33Ibid.

34Philip Givens as quoted by Gretton, p. 55.

69

awarding of the contract to Knoll, it resulted in a ten to
ten deadlock. Horace Brown moved that the firms be given
another opportunity to submit designs. He was supported by
five other Aldermen, an insufficient number to carry the
motion. Then, the unexpected happened.

Regarding the deadlocked vote and defeated motion as
an end to the furnishings issue, Alderman Ken Dear left the
meeting. After Dear's departure, the Mayor called for a
second vote to approve the contracting of Knoll. This time
the vote was ten to nine in favor of the motion.

Alderman Dear was most upset with the outcome. "It was
my mistake. I just never thought the Mayor would re-open

35

the matter." With the support of several colleagues, Dear

recommended Council's reconsideration of the matter.
The Toronto press spoke sharply against the Council's
decision. The Toronto Telegram asked:
What sort of competition is this where the entrants
are promised they will compete on an equal basis and
the prize is given to a contestant that breaks the
rules? Council must choose between aesthetics and
ethics. ,
The Star attacked Mayor Givens:
The fast and loose way of dealing with the furnish-

ings matter opens the way to abuses in the future.
The Mayor has shown little regard for sound principles

 

35"Rookie Alderman Goofs--New Furniture Okayed",
Toronto Star, 17 April 1965.

36"Preserve Integrity", Toronto Telegram. 17 April 1965-

70

at doing the City's business. we wish he would show
the same energy and determination in every good cause
as he has shown in this bad one.37

And Scott Young in an editorial for the Globe and Mail

 

wrote:

To try to get around this by suggesting that the two

lowest bidders are not acceptable is political chi-

canery at its very worst.

Architect Howard Chapman, a member of the Design Commit-
tee, criticized the press for an endless stream of mislead-
ing and inaccurate articles and reports. Emphasizing that
the design competition should be regarded as such, and not
as a standard tendering call, Chapman wrote:

To criticize the City for unethical bidding procedures

and to talk of awarding the contract to the lowest 39

bidded are both irrelevant to the present Situation.

By the end of April, Knoll had reduced its bid to
$849,000. Yet the furnishings contract remained unsigned.
The Board of Control had never endorsed the decision of
Council. In early May, Professor Arthur submitted a posi-
tion paper to the City Hall Co-ordinator stating the Commit-
tee's views on several proposed options. That all four com-

petitors should be given the opportunity to resubmit designs

was regarded by the Committee as impractical and highly

 

37"Mayor's Bad Precedence", Toronto Star, 19 April 1965.

38Scott Young, "Politics and Furniture", Globe and Mail,
22 April 1965.

39Howard Chapman as quoted by Gretton, p. 55.

 

71

unfair. All competitors were now too familiar with Knoll's
designs not to be influenced by them. That the contract
should be divided between all four competitors was denounced
as a political, not a design compromise. The Committee
warned that such an action would result in a contract tangle
impossible to unravel. Also, it would defy the goal of com-
patibility of furnishings throughout the building and harmony
of the furnishings with the building design. The suggestion
that Knoll design the furnishings for the podium floors

and Simpson's supply the furnishings for the towers would
suffer the same weaknesses--incompatibility and complicated
contracting.

Arthur warned that the Committee was very near to
resigning. He repeated that the Committee had done what it
had been assigned and that the City should recognize the
Committee's decision as final.

On June 2, 1965, the Board of Control voted once again
in favor of awarding the contract to Simpson's. And Mayor
Givens once again strongly opposed the action, defending the
decision of the Committee. The issue had reached a stale-
mate; it could bounce from the Board to the Council in per—
petuum. Controller Orliffe aptly expressed the general mood:
"We should have had a design competition, picked a winner,
and then called for tenders on the basis of the winning

design."40

 

40Herbert Orliffe as quoted by Gretton, p. 54.

72

The controversy had consumed valuable time. In mid-
June there seemed to be little possibility that any new
furnishings could be provided by the official opening of
the new City Hall set for September 13. It was generally
accepted by both the Board and Council, that unless some
immediate action were taken, the new City Hall would open
with old furnishings.

As a compromise measure, the Board of Control proposed--
despite the objections of Professor Arthur--that Knoll be
contracted for the furnishings in all public areas, and
Simpson's supply the furnishings for the towers. Should
this not be approved, the Board would maintain its previous
decision to award the contract to Simpson's.

Co-ordinator Bell wrote to the firms requesting their
reactions to such a compromise. Simpson's responded that
by reducing the number of units involved in the installation,
the unit prices would be increased. They did, however, of-
fer an alternative: that their contract include all general
offices, on the podium floors as well as the towers; and
that Knoll's contract be extended to include Commissioners
offices in the towers. This would allow both firms to main-
tain original unit quantities and prices--Knoll would be
supplying all the executive office furnishings, and Simpson's
the furnishings for all the general offices.

Knoll, however, flatly refused consideration of split-

ting the contract, stating that to share the contract and

73

still maintain original unit pricing would result in a
financial loss for the company.

The Board re-affirmed its decision to award the fur-
nishings contract to Simpson's. The issue was once again
taken to the Council. To reverse the decision of the
Board, Council needed a two-thirds majority. Mayor Givens
moved that Council not confirm the decision of the Board,
and further moved that the furnishings contract be awarded
to Knoll International Canada Limited at the amount of
$759,719.00 (the carpeting had been sub-contracted through
Anglin-Norcross and was no longer included in the furnish-
ings contract reducing the bid by nearly $100,000).

The first vote was taken; the result, thirteen affirma-
tive, nine negative. The motion was decided in the negative
for want of a two-thirds majority. The Council was adjourned
for dinner recess.

After two hours, Council reconvened. A second vote was
called. Three Aldermen reversed their earlier decisions.
The motion was carried by a vote of sixteen to six. It was
now confirmed--despite the objections of the press, the
Controllers, and the other competitors; Knoll International
Canada Limited would be awarded the contract for the furnish-
ings of the new City Hall. On July 14, 1965 that contract
was signed and witnessed.

Three months had elapsed between the submission of the

design and the execution of the furnishings contract. This

74

period of stalemate had seriously affected the designing
process. With the official opening of the new City Hall set
for September 13, Knoll had only forty working days to order
the necessary materials, develop and test prototypes, have
all plans and prototypes approved, and complete the manu-
facture and installation of all furnishings for the podium
floors of the City Hall. And during those forty working
days, many of Knoll's manufacturing concerns were closed for
their summer vacation period. Indeed, considerable pressure
was placed on Knoll for the completion and installation of
the specified furnishings by the official opening.

As a result of this situation, many of the prototypes
had to be examined at the manufacturing plants. In mid-
August Professor Arthur and several colleagues visited three
manufacturers to inspect the components parts of the furni-
ture prior to its assembly. After examination of chair
components, desk tops, concrete pedestals, and case goods;
Professor Arthur stated he was impressed with the organiza-
tion of production as well as the quality of the work being
done.

Later that month, Arthur visited the principal manu-
facturers to review production and completed prototypes of
the sofas, chairs, tables, and desk units.

By the beginning of September over 1000 units desig-
nated as the first priority for the opening of the City Hall,

were complete. Nearly all the furnishings for the rotunda

75

were ready for installation. Furnishings were complete for
the Mayor's office, the controllers' and aldermen's offices,
and the committee rooms. All the Council Chamber's furnish-
ings were ready except thirty Platner chairs for the mem-
bers' lounge. The podium and first two floors of the towers
would be ready for opening day. It would seem that Knoll
accompliShed the impossible. The question that remained was
"how well?"

Critiques written after the opening day ceremonies
discussed the architectural features of the city hall and
plaza. Few, however, mentioned the interior furnishings.
And those few that did, implied disappointment. Nathan
Phillips, the "father" of the civic complex, remarked on the
question of the furnishings:

At the earlier stages, it had been understood that

Revell would design the furnishings. That is the

building's greatest fault, that he was not allowed

to do 50.41

Shortly after the opening of the City Hall, one report-
er aptly stated: "Knoll had won the battle, but is losing
the war."42 One of the first items of business done by the
City Council in its new accommodations was to confess it was

out of order in awarding the furnishings contract to Knoll.

This confession was followed by a series of complaints

 

41Nathan Phillips as quoted by William Bragg, p. 11.

42Richard Snell, "New City Hall Furniture Fine in Pic-
tures But...." Toronto Star, 23 September 1965.

76

generated by the new furnishings: the partition arrange-
ments created awkward spaces; the desk chairs were too low;
the desks were impractical and non-functional. Controller
Margaret Campbell, who had voted against awarding the con-
tract to Knoll, stated: "The furniture is surprisingly

beautiful; but it is not functional."43

Completely dis-
satisfied with her $800 desk, she decided to replace it with
the first good second-hand desk that was found in the sur-
plus furniture from the old City Hall. Several department
heads followed her lead requisitioning old furniture for
their offices.

Other executives found it necessary to order credenzas
to provide needed storage lacking in their drawerless desks.
Controller Dennison described his desk as "a double-sized
restaurant table with a crow foot pedestal. It has two
tiny drawers one inch deep where I can store a few pencils
and business cards."44

At the following Council meeting, Dennison stated that
his opposition to the contest-winning furniture was proving
justified. During a heated argument with the Mayor,

Dennison announced:

You are not happy with your furniture, and Prof.
Arthur is not happy either.... I see you have decided

 

43Margaret Campbell, ibid., p. 4.

44Ibid., p. 4.

77

to get rid of the concrete legs and replace them
with more conventional furniture.45

Mayor Givens chided Dennison for doing "a lot of snoop-
ing around" and denied that the furniture had been replaced
because he had been unhappy with it. Those pieces which had
been replaced were only temporary; they had been replaced
upon the completion of the originally planned furnishings.

Within a month of the opening of the City Hall, most of
the general office furnishings had been installed in the
towers. On October 14, the Board of Control held a special
meeting to discuss the furnishings. They sharply criticized
Knoll for its nonfunctional furniture and the Furnishings
Design Committee for never having tested the furniture for
its practibility. Most criticized were the desks: the
units with the typing wells had no writing or work surface;
there were too few drawers, and those that were provided
were not deep enough to contain files; when used for typing,
the entire unit wobbled terribly; there were no modesty
panels; and the concrete pedestals ruined nylons.

Stated Controller Orliffe:

Anyone can look at the secretaries' desks and see that

they are just not practical. How anyone can overlook

that, I don't know. Before she even used it, one girl

took one look and said she would not be able to work
at it. 6

 

45"Fatuous Ass, Snoopere-They Cry in City Hall",
Toronto Star, 6 October 1965.

46As quoted in "Wobbly Desks at City Hall Spark New
Furniture Controversy", Toronto Globe and Mail, 14 October
1965.

 

78

In response, John Quigg,pmanager’of.Knoll.Intaznational
Canada Limited, stated:

Knoll had done a wonderful job in supplying and in-
stalling the furnishings for the September opening--
You are lucky to have any furniture at all. I do not
know why everyone is so passionately interested in
finding something wrong with the furniture. Knoll is
interested in making the necessary adjustments and
corrections--We have handled major clients around the
world and we have a fine reputation for making adjust-
ments; but we expect to be told quickly what needs cor-
recting. We have not had any of your complaints brought
to our attention.47

The Board then proceeded to verbally attack City Hall Co-

ordinator George Bell for not having contacted Knoll of the

various deficiencies in the furnishings. Bell responded:
If I listened to everyone around here about the furni-
ture, I would go crazy. Everyone from the office boy
up is talking about the furniture.... I cannot ask to
redesign this and that....48

The following day Bell resigned as the City Hall Co-ordina-

tor. Feeling his supervising duties were now complete, he

stated:
A person gets a bit fed up with the constant criticism
of the design of the furniture. I am tired and fed up
with the job.49

Several days later at a Metro Executive Council meeting; as

a member leaned back on his new Knoll chair, the chair

 

47"Furniture Row is on Again at the City Hall", Toronto
Star, 14 October 1965.

48As quoted in "Bell Quits After Row Over Desks",
Toronto Telegram, 15 October 1965.

49Ibid.' p. 2.

79

collapsed throwing the reeve to the floor. It set the stage
for more criticism and jokes of the Knoll furniture. As
Chairman Allen pounded his gavel to call the assembly to
order; it broke, Allen quipped: "It too must be made by
Knoll."

It was recommended at this meeting that the Metropoli-
tan Corporation not pay Knoll until each area specified to
be done by Knoll had been fully furnished and in good work-
ing order. Both the City and the Metropolitan Councils
approved the recommendation, basing their decision on the
Contractor's Responsibility Clause of the Furnishings Con-
tract.

The Contractor agrees that he will carry out the work

of this contract at his own risk until the same is

fully completed and accepted; and will in the case of
any accident, destruction, or injury to the work and/or
materials before its final completion and acceptance
repair or replace forthwith the work or material so in-
jured, damaged, or destroyed at its own expense and to
the acceptance of the City Hall Co-ordinator.50
In December, the architectural drafting tables were in-
stalled. These bore no resemblance to those tables orig-
inally requested, and proved to be completely impractical for
use by the draftsmen. Each table was removed and later

replaced by a more functional model. When Knoll asked the

City to absorb half the cost; the City refused, basing their

 

50Furnishings Contract between the City of Toronto and
Knoll International Canada Limited, 14 July 1965, Article 27,
City Hall Co-ordinator's Files, City Archives, Toronto.

8O

decision on the Contractor's Responsibility Clause and claim-
ing that Knoll should have submitted the altered design
before its production and installation.

By January, 1966, three-quarters of the furnishings had
been installed, yet Knoll had received no monies. There were
many re-adjustments to the original specifications, contri-
buting to the dragging furnishings process. Civic Depart-
ments had been expanded, requiring furniture not included
in the original contract; other pieces, no longer needed,
were deleted from the specifications. The newly appointed
City Hall Co-ordinator was given the authority to proceed
with the purchase and supply of new furnishings and deletion
of those not required.

Bremner requested that all department heads submit a
report evaluating their accommodations and furnishing.
needs. Also, they were to report any damages or deficien-
cies in their furnishings. He further recommended that Knoll
receive a portion of their payment commensurate with the
portion of the work satisfactorily completed:

It is my opinion that Knoll International Limited is

fulfilling the spirit in terms of the contract; par-

ticularly in view of the fact that the supply of 51

furnishings was required of Knoll under pressure.

On February 16, 1966, Knoll received payment of
$300,000. The City would pay the balance upon final comple-

tion and acceptance of the furnishing installation.

 

51David Bremner, report to the Board of Control, 15
January 1965, Co-ordinator Files, City Archives, Toronto.

81

Early spring, Bremner submitted a revised schedule of
furnishing requirements based upon the evaluations of each
department. Also submitted was a six-page report listing
damaged or deficient furnishings as supplied by Knoll.
Included were such defects as warped desks, checked veneers,
chipped finishes, split seams, worn upholstery, inoperative
swivel bases, and unsanded shelving--to name only a few.

Knoll supplied the newly specified furnishings and
attended to the specified defects and deficiencies. By the
spring of 1967, the City finally recognized the furnishings
contract to be satisfactorily executed by Knoll.

The supply and installation of the furnishings have

now been completed in accordance with the terms of the

contract between Knoll International Canada and the

City of Toronto.... The total value of the contract

amounted to $782,481.00.52
The City chose to maintain an open contract with Knoll for
the maintenance of installed furnishings as well as the sup-
ply of any new furnishings deemed necessary. The responsi-
bility for all furnishings--requests for new or changes in
present installations must be processed through the Property
Commissioner.

In 1971, Alderman Sewell had moved that new furnishings

be considered for the lobby, and plants and pictures placed

throughout the building:

 

52City Hall Co-ordinator's Report to the Board of Con-
trol, Board of Control Report Number 21, April 8, 1968,
Article 13, "Furnishings Contract", City Council Minutes,
Appendix A, p. 889.

82

There is nowhere to sit in the lobby except a few
benches leading to the cafeteria.... The whole build-
ing is so void of plants and pictures which would add
visual excitement.... It is as though the architecture
is allowed to dominate the fact that the City Hall is,
above all, a people building.53

The item had been deferred until the next Council meet-
ing. It has yet to appear on a Council agenda for further
consideration.

Little is said of the furnishings today. Workers when
asked about their furnishing usually express dismay, not
with the design, but the function. Persons touring the City
Hall usually remark on the scarcity of the furnishings in
public areas. The recorder for the Property Commissioner
who had been working in the City Hall since its opening,
briefly summed up the situation:

Well, you don't hear the complaints anymore. Most per-

sons have just learned to adapt to the furnishings.

For myself, I am considered one of the lucky few given
an aged surplus desk from the old City Hall.5

 

53"Toronto Alderman wants to Brighten up Interior",
Toronto Star, 17 September 1971.

54Harold Starling as quoted from interview, November
30, 1973.

CHAPTER III

THE ART WORK CONTROVERSY

Certainly an important part of any interior space--and
especially that of public areas--is the art work that
embellishes that space. In the case of the Toronto City
Hall, a controversy closely paralleling the selection of the
furnishings surrounded the choosing of "proper" works of art.

It had been decided by the architect in the early plan-
ning stages of the City Hall that the forty-foot wall off
the main entrance into the lobby be reserved for a mural.
This mural, as well as other works of art to be exhibited,
would play a most vital role in creating an interior atmos-
phere of the rotunda. Realizing this, the Board of Control
had recommended the establishment of an Art Advisory Commit-
tee for the new City Hall. In June, 1964, the City Council
approved this recommendation and appointed Professor Eric
Arthur to chair the committee of nine including artists,
art collectors, and art gallery directors. Also on the com-
mittee were John C. Parkin, representing Mr. Revell;
Aldermen Oscar Sigsworth and Horace Brown, and Controller
William Dennison, representing the City. The goal of the

committee was to select a mural and other works of art which

83

84

were in harmony with the form and spirit of the building
itself.

Professor Arthur emphasized the need for the Art Adv
visory Committee to carefully study the interior spaces of
the City Hall:

This is no ordinary building.... We are dealing with

one of the greatest buildings of the world. My first

two visits there have convinced me of the need for a

thorough understanding of the various areas where

murals, paintings, and sculpture would be appropriate.

He further stated that the budget allotment for the art
work should not be determined on a percentage basis, but
upon need. Such a budget could be established after a seri-
ous study of the interior space.

August, 1965, the Committee submitted a budget proposal
for the art work as well as for the operating expenses of the
Committee--$125,000 and $7,000 respectively. Both the Board
and the Council approved the proposed budget. In a separate
report, the Committee recommended the guidelines for a City
Hall Mural Competition. Three artists would be invited to
study the building and submit design sketches. Each artist
would be paid $1500 for his sketch--to be submitted no later
than March 1, 1966. Judging of the sketches would take

place within one week; and the winner, if any, would be

 

1Board of Control Report No. 21, Article 1, "Establish-
ment of Art Selection Committee," June 8, 1964, Corporation
of the City of Toronto, City Council Minutes, Appendix A, p.
1131.

85

announced. It was a condition of the competition that an
award need not be made.

On October 6, 1965, the Board of Control met to discuss
the Committee recommendations. The meeting was among the
most bitter in the history of the City. Controller Dennison
strongly objected to the Committee's proposal to invite only
three artists to compete. He took the position that many
artists of varied schools of thought should be invited to
submit designs. He complained that the Committee was trying
to force an abstract mural on the City. As the lone commit-
tee member preferring a traditional, representational mural;
Dennison stated:

I did not go on the Committee to be a rubber stamp

and I did not expect to approve all the Committee's

decisions.... I hope Council will not go along meekly

with the so-called experts, but will use their own
common sense.2

Alderman Horace Brown, appalled by Dennison's referring
to the Committee as 'so-called experts', demanded an apology.
He further accused Dennison of undermining the Committee and
suggested his resignation. Dennison, losing his temper,
shouted to Brown: "You are a fatuous ass. I have never

heard of anything so ridiculous. I will not resign."3

 

2"Fatuous Ass, Snooper They Cry in City Hall", Toronto
Telegram, 6 October 1965.

3"Name-calling, Shouts, Gavel Pounding and Giggles
Sparked by City Hall Mural", Globe and Mail, 6 October, 1965.

 

86

Mayor Givens, a modern-art lover, supported the posi«
tion of the Art Advisory Committee and accused Dennison of
having "Neantherdal tastes".

I poked my head into Dennison's office for a few

seconds and saw those paint—by-number sets. (A series

-of six landscapes painted by Dennison's Wife.) To me

they represent the past, not the future we should be

building for.4

Alderman Sigsworth, a member of the Committee, agreed
with his colleagues that the modern tone of the building set
the tone for the work. Four lady aldermen, although per-
sonally favoring traditional art, were willing to trust the
Committee's decision concerning the mural.

I know what I like, but I am no art critic (Alderman

Mary Temple).... I think the mural must be done in a

modern way to be in keeping with the building, but it

should mean something to the public (Alderman Alice

Summerville).... I am not a lover of abstract art,

but traditional art is not adaptable to the new City

Hall (Alderman Helen Johnson).... My personal pref-

erence would be traditional, but we have to consider

the next generation (Alderman June Marks).

Controller Dennison had recommended earlier that the
City establish a theme for the mural competition, but the
Art Committee had voted eight to one in favor of free expres-
sion. Alderman Fred Beavis supported Dennison's recommenda-

tion:

The mural artist must be told what the City wants so
he does not go off on a tangent and produce some

 

4"Dennison and Mayor Blaze Away", Toronto EEEEEEEEJ
7 October 1965.

‘

51bid., p. 14.

87
mystifying mess the average guy cannot understand.6
Also supporting Dennison was Alderman Harold Menzies:
"I would hate to see some of the trash I have seen around

7 Alderman Ken Dear simply stated

that is labeled art."
"I can feel another furniture hassle coming."8 His remark
sparked a bitter exchange about the furnishings. Controller
Margaret Campbell pleaded for an end to the "childish" argu«
ments:

I would like to look at myself in the mirror someday

and feel I was rising to the ideals embodied in this

new and wonderful building.9

The meeting was adjourned. It had been decided that no
further action be taken on the question of the mural. The
issue of the nature and rules of the Mural Competition was
referred back to the Art Advisory Committee for further conv
sideration.

The following day, Professor Arthur submitted a letter
to the Mayor stating the position of his Committee:

‘I am sure you will agree with me that the Art Advisory

Committee for the City Hall has been placed in an ex-

tremely difficult position....

No member of the Advisory Committee would question the
right of one of its members to disagree with a majority

 

6Ibid.

71bid.

81bid.

9"Name Calling, Shouts, Gavel Pounding, and Giggles
Sparked by City Hall Mural".

88

recommendation—-especially in Committee.discussions.
when disagreement is normal.and desirable- ”But-the
Committee's authority is seriously undermined when a
dissenting member publicly attacks the reputation and
judgment of his colleagues....

As you know, your Committee is made up of persons dis-
tinguished in the arts, and persons equally distin-
guished in their professional fields, and well-known
for their interest in the arts and their knowledge of
international culture. Indeed, the Board of Control
could not find more knowledgeable people without re-
cruiting top experts from abroad....

The work of the Advisory Committee is aesthetic, not
political. Its recommendations will be discussed and,
we hope, approved by Council and the Board of Control;
-but approval should.surely mean that Council is con-
fident about the authority of its committee of judges.

The vital question, then, is whether Council and the
Board believe that they can find better-qualified
persons to serve on the Advisory Committee. I have
been requested to ask whether the Board of Control may
wish to review the membership of the Committee so that
it may undertake its future duties with order and dig-
nity, and the knowledge that it has the complete con-
fidence of the civic governors.lo

On October 8, Controller Dennison did apologize to the
Committee for his slur on their reputations. He did not,
however alter his position:

I do not believe the Committee has any right to impose
their taste on the public against its will.... The
average person will freely admit he knows little about
art. The Art Advisory Committee obviously does, but it
is still their job only to advise, not dictate....

I cannot imagine the people of this city being satis-
fied with something dull, austere, or completely non-
representational. I think they want something

 

10Eric Arthur, letter to Mayor Philip Givens, 7 October
1965, City Hall Co-ordinator's Files, City Archives, Toronto,
Ontario.

89

monumental, historical--something to lift the 11
spirits of the taxpayer as he enters the building.

Late November, the Art Advisory Committee submitted
a more comprehensive proposal for the mural competition for
the approval of the Board of Control. Three p0ssibilities
had been explored: a competition by invitation, limited to
three artists; a competition by invitation, widened to
fifteen artists; an open competition. It was the goal of
the competition that "the mural chosen for the new City Hall
be compatible with and complement the edifice."12

In evaluating the various methods of competition, the
Committee concluded that the advantages to both the open
competition and invitation of fifteen artists——widening the
scope of entries to represent varying theories of art——was
outweighed by the disadvantages-«no guarantee that the best
artists would compete: amateur entries, more jury time re“
quired in the judging. and considerably greater overall cost.
The advantages of the competition by invitation of only three
artists--freedom of the Committee to select artists best-
suited to the work and lower operating costs of the compe-
tition--were felt to overcome the disadvantage of a limited
range of entry. Thus, having examined all possibilities,

the Art Advisory Committee firmly supported its original

 

11"Dennison Apologizes for Slur on Art Committee",
Toronto Star, 8 October 1965.

12Board of Control Report No. 45, Article 2, 8 December
1965, Corporation of the City of Toronto, Council Minutes,
Appendix A, p. 3032.

90

recommendation of a competition by invitation of three
selected artists. However, should this recommendation be
denied by the Board, the Committee advised that it was will-
ing to accept, as an alternative, a competition of fifteen
artists by invitation.

On November 8, the Board of Control met to discuss the
Art Committee's recommendations. Controversy was eminent.
Controllers Archer and Campbell suggested abandoning all
plans for a mural competition until the Board was without
controversy. Controller Orliffe commented that there was no
sense in waiting: "We are always going to have conflicts;

there is no use in avoiding this one."13

Controller Dennison
again voiced strong opposition to the proposal that only
three artists be invited to compete. He did, however, agree
that the invitation of fifteen artists was a reasonable and
acceptable compromise. By a vote of three to two, the Board
recommended that the competition for the City Hall mural be
held among fifteen artists selected by the Art Advisory Com-
mittee, each artist being paid $1000 for his design sketch.
The Board further recommended, as suggested by Dennison, that
any other artist would be permitted to submit a sketch for

consideration by the Art Committee, though no compensation

would be paid.

 

13"Art Committee Ordered to Widen Contest", Toronto
Globe and Mail, 9 November 1965.

91

The Board submitted its recommendations to the City
Council for approval. The issue was floored at the Council
meeting held December 8, 1965. Despite Mayor Given's plea
for positive action, the Council voted twelve to eight to
postpone any decision on the mural competition until March,
1967. The vote had been taken on the motion by Controller
Archer to delay the decision. "The furniture fiasco would
seem like play acting compared to the stage being set for
the selection of a City Hall mural."l4

Alderman Brown found Council's indecision an insult to
the Art Advisory Committee. Mayor Givens, perhaps the most
disappointed by the vote, scolded Council for its indecision
and addressed it as a "Council of Despair". "I had hoped
this Council would show the same imagination as its predeces-
sor had in choosing such a dynamic new City Hall."15 He
warned that the City Hall would remain sterile until filled
with objects of beauty and intelligence.

In the summer of 1966, Controller Dennison announced
his candidacy for Mayor of Toronto opposing incumbent Givens.
Among the major campaign issues was the selection of the art
work and mural for the City Hall. Mayor Givens continued to

advocate modern art: "The past is wonderful; but it is the

stimulus and challenge of facing the new that can make us a

 

14
1965.

15"The Mayor and the Controller", Toronto Star!
16 October 1966.

"Mural Put Off to 1967", Globe and Mail, 8 December

 

92

great city, help us know ourselves through our public

16

art." Dennison stood firmly in favor of traditional art:

... I don't like to see representational artists being
pushed aside by the establishment just because taste-
makers at the moment are running wild in some particu-
lar field of abstract art.... When artists can do
better work, I see no point in turning out abstract
work that requires less skill. The day of impression-
ism is not gone, and I would hate to see the artist
abandon the real, and drop the substance of reality, so
to speak, to pursue the shadow.... The public will
always prefer the real.
William Dennison won the election by less than 5,000 votes.
In February, 1967, the Art Advisory Committee met for
the first time in fourteen months. Realizing that their
recommendations had little chance for approval by Mayor
Dennison's Council, they proposed a temporary alternate solu-
tion to the mural competition--a program of painting and
sculpture exhibitions in the space designated for the mural.
These works would be on loan from the various Toronto art
galleries, and exhibited on a rotating basis changing month-
ly. All works to be exhibited would require the approval
of the Committee.
This recommendation was approved by both the Board of
Control (March 9) and the City Council (May 10); and was
instituted June, 1967. The program would extend until August,

1968. Once again the matter of the mural competition was

postponed.

 

lsIbid.

17Ibid.

93

The Art Committee, however, was not inactive. In addi-
tion to approving the monthly painting and sculpture
exhibitions, the Committee also was responsible for the
disposition of all paintings which had been exhibited in
the old City Hall, the placing of paintings in the committee
rooms, the production of a proposed City Hall flag, and the
establishment of a policy for accepting objects, or the
donation of monies to purchase objects, given to the City
for the new City Hall.

Yet at a Board of Control meeting held February 14,
1968, Controller Fred Beavis moved that the City Hall Art
Advisory Committee be dissolved:

Whereas the Art Advisory Committee was established for

the purpose of making recommendations respecting

placing of works of art, etc. in the new City Hall ...
and whereas it would appear that the Committee has ful-
filled its objectives and the Administration can now
handle any further matters of this nature itself;

Therefore be it resolved that the Art Advisory Committee

be disbanded and that His Worship the Mayor be requested

to take whatever steps are necessary to ensure that the
members of the Committee are suitably recognized for
their very capable work and for the generous manner in
which they devoted their time to this work.18

No immediate action was taken on the motion; it was
referred to the Commissioner of City Property for considera-

tion. Upon the Board's request Property Commissioner Harry

Rogers submitted a report considering Beavis' proposal:

 

18Board-of‘Control Report Number 26, Article 3,
14 February 1968, Corporation of the City of Toronto, City
Council Minutes, Appendix A, p. 399.

 

94

The wisdom in appointing an Art Advisory Committee
cannot be denied. Professor Arthur as chairman was
intimately acquainted with the late Viljo Revell, and
was in an ideal position to interpret the design con-
ception as desired by the architect. His zeal and
spirit in preserving the architect's beauty of design,
free from inappropriate accoutrements has materially
assisted in making the City Hall a world reknown
architectural masterpiece....

Now I am requested to answer the question as to whether
there is any need for the Art Advisory Committee in
connection with the Nathan Phillips Square and City
Hall. An answer would be difficult to furnish for the
reason that the Committee was appointed by the City
Council within their sole discretion, and its discon-
tinuance would be a matter of policy. I would how-
ever venture to say that as all members of the Commit-
tee are very busy persons within their own line of
endeaVor, they may not be adveige to being relieved of
their duties on the Committee.

The Committee members when asked, however, expressed
the desire to continue their work. They felt their objec-
tives had not all been realized and that their dismissal at
this time would be premature and detrimental to the artwork
development of the City Hall.

The Board of Control received several strong objections
to the dismissal of the Art Committee from concerned citi—
zens:

A city is more than garbage collection, expropriation,

and the paving of roads; and it is time our civic

leaders realized this. Every visitor to Toronto sees
the beauty and grace of our City Hall and every citizen
is justifiably proud of this structure. Give us also

the pride of knowing that the art hanging in this
building is worthy of it. The Art Advisory Committee

 

19Board of Control Report Number 3, Article 48, 10 May
1968, The Corporation of the City of Toronto, City Council
Minutes, Appendix A, p. 101.

95

is willing to work towards this end without costing

the people one penny of tax money. How can our elected
leaders refuse this? Reconsider your decision and you

will be helping the City to take its rightful place as

a centre where artistic growth is of prime concern....

Mrs. D. Vanek, Willowdale.

Toronto has one of the great city halls of all times.

It would be a sad state of affairs if future decisions
about artistic matters were dealt with by others than

an unprejudiced, competent art committee such as we have
had.... Mrs. Kathleen Graham, Toronto.

Toronto is now a major centre of the Arts. Everyone who
visits Toronto knows of the beauty and grandeur of our
City Hall. Toronto's maturity in the art world should
be apparent in this setting. The members of the Art
Advisory Committee could contribute enormously to
achieving this impression. We sincerely hope that the
City Council will invite the Committee to continue its
work, and thus benefit our city artistically....

H. R. Sanders, President, Patrons of Canadian Art,
Toronto.20

Also protesting the dismissal of the Art Advisory Com-
mittee was Mrs. Harry Davidson, a member of the Committee
and the director of the program of monthly art work exhibi-
tions. She warned that the dismissal of the Committee meant
the end to the painting and sculpture exhibitions, for there
would be no properly qualified body to approve the works to
be exhibited.

I can no longer perform the service required of me.

Further, the Art Dealers of Canada are in full agree-

ment of my considered opinion ... and they join me in

disassociating themselves from any future participation
in the programme.21

On May 23, 1968, the Board of Control once again recom-

mended disbanding the present art committee, and suggested

 

2orbid., p. 102.

211bid., p. 104.

96

the formation of a new advisory committee. This proposed
committee would include representatives of Art Societies
and would advise and assist the Commissioner of City
Property in placing works of art in the City Hall. These
resolutions were endorsed by the Board, awaiting Council
approval. Controller June Marks was the sole member of the
Board to object to the formation of a new committee.

At a December City Council meeting, she moved that the
present Art Advisory Committee be invited to continue func-
tioning within its present structure. The motion, however,
was decided in the negative by a vote of eight to twelve.

January, 1969, the Board submitted its proposal for the
formation of a new advisory committee to the Council. The
proposal was approved. A new Art Advisory Committee would
be eStablished under the chairmanship of Commissioner of
City Property.

Twelve art societies were invited by the Council to
send representatives. Only four accepted; many had declined
on principle, stating "the Board of Control and the City
Council had done the City and the arts and the City Hall a
disservice in abolishing the first Arts Advisory Committee."22

Mayor Dennison, extremely pleased with Council's ap-

proval of a new Art Committee, felt that four was a

 

22Parks, Recreation, and City Property, Report Number
10, Article 2, "City Hall Art Advisory Committee", Corpora-
tion of the City of Toronto, City_Counci1 Minutes, Appendix
A, p. 3091.

97
sufficient number for an effective advising body. The new
Art Advisory Committee was officially inaugurated March 5,
1969.

Within one year the Committee had grown to seven repre-
sentatives. Regaining the cooperation of Toronto art
galleries, the Committee had re-instituted the monthly paint-
ing and sculpture exhibitions. The issue of a mural was
never approached.

In 1971, it was recommended that the Committee be fur-
ther expanded:

The Committee has been doing a diligent and useful job

under Mr.,Rogers' chairmanship. But it is not repre-

sentative of most major professional and other inter-
ests in Toronto's visual arts commmunities; such as

the leading private art galleries, the art critics,

major art collectors, and almost all of Toronto's lead-

ing professional artists.

The recommendation was approved; and six new members
were invited. This action did result in a more well-rounded
committee, representing varied interests in the arts thus
contributing meaningfully to the decisions of the committee.

Today the Art Advisory Committee continues to function,
but solely in an advisory capacity. The mural which had
been proposed by the architect and the competition planned
by the first Art Committee have never been realized. The
mural no longer is an issue; it remains only as a vague

memory in the minds of those men who had fought the mural

"battle", but had lost.

 

23Ibid., p. 3092.

CHAPTER IV

ANALYSIS

"TheorEtically, the cycle of public design is assumed
to develop in a particular, logical way. Political initia-
tion to meet public demands, administrative support followed
by the allocation of design resources, then design. However,
it does not always work out that way."1

Indeed, practice can differ from theory. In the case
of the Toronto City Hall, the design cycle did progress
differently, at least in the earlier stages. The initial
demand for the City Hall came not from the public, but from
a strong administrator, Nathan Phillips. He proceeded to
gain political support of the Council, who then took the
issue to the public. The original citizen response for the
appropriation of funds for the project was negative. Mayor
Phillips refused to recognize this ballot as final; he did
not abandon his plan. Once again he gained the support of

Council. And upon taking the issue once again to the public,

he gained citizen approval. Then came the matter of design--

 

1John Page, "Planning and Protest," in Design Partici-
pation, ed: Nigel Cross (London: Academy Editions, 1972),
p. 114.

98

99

and the most extensive architectural competition the world
has ever known. Throughout the planning of the project,
Mayor Phillips maintained a dominant role. His re—election
as mayor was not only a victory for Phillips, but also for
the unique, yet distinctive design of Viljo Revell for the
new City Hall. Phillips had overwhelmingly won the support
of the citizens of Toronto--those taxpayers willing to
finance the project, although the revised cost of Revell's
design was $6,000,000 over the earlier approved appropria-
tion. Indeed it was a great victory.

But like so many great victories, it was not without
sacrifice. When presented the Architects' revised cost
estimate, Mayor Phillips knew the figure was too high for
Council approval. To reduce the cost estimate and subse-
quent tender, adjustments had to be made. Included in this
cost estimate was $1,000,000 for loose furnishings to be
designed by the architect. One such adjustment was the
elimination of this provision from the original architectur-
a1 contract. It was not that the Mayor opposed Revell's
designing the furnishings for the City Hall; he only felt
that it would be better to consider appropriation for the
furnishings as a separate issue at a later date. Throughout
the planning and early construction stages, though no formal
commitment had been discussed, the Mayor "understood" that

Revell would design the furnishings for his interiors.

100

Mr. Revell, however, wanted more than an "understanding".
Displeased with Council's apathetic attitude, he urged an
immediate action on his furnishings proposal. He emphasized
the necessity for the building and furnishings to be done
simultaneously to achieve an integrated end result.

The furnishing program established by Revell was an ex-
cellently designed, comprehensive approach. From an analy-
sis of the City requirements, throughout the preliminary and
final design stages, the tendering process, and the super-
vision of prototypes and production, to the final installa-
tion, Revell's program evidenced concern for furnishings
which not only harmonized with the structure and spirit of
the building, but also fulfilled the needs of City Executives
and staff. Every phase of design had been considered; the
end result, an integrated, unified whole.

In June, 1962, Council approved the Board's recommenda-
tion that the City enter into agreement with the Architects
for the design of the furnishings at a fee of ten per cent
of the net cost. This decision should have settled the ques-
tion of the furnishings. A contract, as requested, was
drafted by the Property Commissioner; however, it was never
signed.

In December, 1962, after eight years of administrative
dominancy, Nathan Phillips was defeated by Donald Summerville
in the mayorial campaign. Had Phillips not been defeated,

Viljo Revell would have continued with his furnishings

101

program. Phillips had strongly supported an integrated
design approach; Summerville questioned if such an approach
warranted a ten per cent architect's fee. His doubts were
strengthened by a letter from Jack Houghton, president of
Mitchell-Houghton Limited, dated June 1963:

It appears to us that the taxpayers.of Toronto are

going to pay dearly for a new city hall if we allow

an architect to charge a 10% design fee on furni-

ture....

Why our Board of Control has ever allowed any type of

contract to be agreed upon with an architect_for a

special design fee does not to us seem reasonable....

I fail to understand the reasoning of some of our

executive officers at City Hall and quite frankly have

become disillusioned and disappointed in the whole

manner in which the City has gone about erecting the

so-called "architectural wonder".2

One month after receipt of this letter, the City re-
quested Revell to cease any further plans for the furnish-
ings; and the possibility of a furnishings design competition
was explored. December, 1963, Council reversed its earlier
decision--the furnishings for the new city hall would not be
designed by the architect, but determined by a national de-
sign competition. Council's decision was labeled as econom-
ical, not political. The ten per cent architects' fee was
judged by Council as unwarranted and unnecessary. The ethics

of Council's reversing an earlier decision was never ques-

tioned.

 

2J. M. Houghton, personal letter, 17 June 1963, City
Hall Co-ordinator's Files, City Archives, Toronto.

102

Most disappointed by the action was Viljo Revell.
Confused and frustrated, M y'Revell stated:

I cannot believe that thiS’kind'of solution (a design

competition) will lead to a cheaper.result; but I.am

convinced that it will lead t0“a worse entirety....

I have lost my confidence in the Council's ability to
make decisions in architectural and design matters.3

Revell declined the invitation to serve as a member of the
Furnishings Design Selection Committee.

Philip Givens, appointed Mayor upon Summerville's un—
timely death, claimed "wrangling about the furnishings and
other details of the City Hall led to Revell's fatal heart
attack."4 The Toronto press seemingly agreed:

The City politicians' final blow came last year when

they refused to allow Mr. Revell to design the furni-

ture for his new building.5

Revell himself had attributed an earlier heart attack
to the mental stress caused by the project:

If I were able to keep the City Hall out of my mind,

I feel my collapse in Mexico might not have happened
at all.6

 

3Viljo Revell, personal letters to George Bell and Eric
Arthur, dated March 6, 1964 and March 4, 1964, City Hall Co-
ordinator's Files, City Hall Files, City Archives, Toronto.

4"Insanity Tag in Furniture Row," Toronto Globe and
Mail, 26 June 1965.

5"Designer of New City Hall, Viljo Revell, Dies at 54,"
Toronto Star, 9 November 1964.

6Viljo Revell, letter to Eric Arthur, 4 March 1964.

103

Despite his doctor's warnings that such“a‘trip“could be
risky, Revell had come to Toronto in October, 1964, to in«
spect the progress of the City Hall. Less than two weeks
after his return to Helsinki, Revell suffered a fatal heart
attack.

One questions here the ease by which the original de-
cision of Council was reversed. Had a more structured frame-
work for decision-making been recognized, the original
decision may have been more binding. And had this original
decision been enforced--had politics not entered into the
design process; Revell would have continued with his pro-
posed furnishings program. The reversal of the decision and
the subsequent Furnishing Design Competition gave birth to
the "great furniture debate" and, perhaps, rendered death
to Revell. Without question, it destroyed an integrated
design approach. The architect, offended by the actions of
the City politicians, had refused to serve as a judge on the
Selection Committee. Political intervention had severed the
lines of communication between architect and designer, and
destroyed the chances for collaboration.

Interior design in the context of the total design con-
cept can be defined as

the shaping and design of the interior space, includ-

ing furnishings and finishing ... creating the essen-

tial spirit, mood, and character of that space.

The architect, in shaping the space, establishes a pro-
gram, analyzes internal relationships, and then

104

assembles and molds shape as a result of his findings.

The aspect of embellishing this space with furniture,

fabrics, colors, and coverings, enhances and heightens

the design concept and brings it to its conclusion.

This phase, done by an appropriate design consultant

working together with the architect in a close rela-

tionship, achieves the goal of design unity.7
Viljo Revell did successfully shape the interior space of
the City Hall. He had done so with imagination and sensitiv-
ity. But he was denied the opportunity to complete the total
design process. Council had decided that the winner of a
competition--a stranger to Revell and to the City Hall--
would be given the responsibility for the furnishings. Yet
at the time of the decision, Council was seemingly uncon-
cerned, or perhaps unaware, of the effect of the action upon
the total design process. Council had never realized the
inherent weaknesses of such a decision; Viljo Revell had.
He predicted that the furnishings resulting from such a
competition would not be suitable.

Revell believed the architect had a responsibility to
carry his design concept into the building; that successful
design could result only from an integrated approach. In
Europerthe total design concept was more widely accepted and
practiced. Interior furnishings were considered as a vital

part of the total design process; architects and designers

collaborated to achieve an integrated design. Revell,

 

7J. Gordon Carr and John Field Kelsey, quoted by
Thomas H. Creighton in "The Architecture of Interiors,"
Progressive Architecture 44 (October, 1962): 151.

105

together with a team of design associates, had designed

the interiors for most of his architectural projectSve
luxury villas, housing and apartment complexes, office
buildings, schools, and factories. His interiors reflected
the sculptural simplicity of his architecture. His design
process evidenced his "eye for a practical solution, a pro-
pensity for systematic thought, and a talent for organiza-

8 There can be little wonder why such a man would be

tion."
so disturbed by the cursory, unpredictable decision-making
policies of Council.

The question of the furnishings should have been settled
at the very outset of the planning process; a firm policy
should have been established and accepted. But Council was
reluctant to act; Council seemingly did not understand the
complexities of an integrated design approach nor the im-
portance of an appropriate furnishings program. Revell en-
couraged Council not to ignore the issue; he emphasized the
need for an early decision supporting an integrated approach.
His words fell upon deaf ears. Perhaps Council, limited in
its design knowledge, should have established an advisory
committee at the start of the City Hall project to study the
possible alternatives, and to establish the most feasible

furnishings program. This would have placed the responsibil-

ity for design decision-making in professional, not political,

 

8Kyosti Alander, "Viljo Revell", Encyclopedia of Modern
Architecture (New York: Harry Abrams, Inc., 1964).

 

106

hands. Perhaps this advisory committee would have recog-
nized one feasible alternative that was overlooked by
Council: that Revell collaborate with Ontario designers
for the design and installation of the furnishings for the
City Hall. Just as the City had required Revell to have
architectural associates from Ontario, it could have
required him to have local interior design associates.

This alternative would have allowed an integrated approach;
involved Canadian professionals; and lessened the contro-
versial architect's fee (presumably a consulting/collaborat-
ing fee would be less than ten per cent). Certainly it
would have been a reasonable compromise solution worthy of
investigation.

In addition to determining the best design program, the
committee could also have been responsible for establishing
guidelines for the implementation and continuity of the
program. Council seemingly needed such guidelines. For
although a policy had been established (that Revell be
awarded the furnishings contract); no provision was made to
implement the policy, no date was specified for the signing
of the contract. As a result, a year had elapsed before
the contract was drafted and ready for signing. During that
year, there had been a change in administration and a subse-
quent change in policy. The furnishing contract between

the City and the Architect was never finalized.

107

That this change in policy was entirely an economical
decision is questionable. Certainly it is sad that a City
willing to pay nearly $30,000,000 for a distinctive City
Hall would object to paying $1,000,000 for the prOper fur-
nishings. (In fact it was not the $900,000 appropriated
for the furnishings per se, but rather the nearly $100,000
architect's fee that was debated.) The City had earlier
financed the most expensive architectural competition of
the century for the design of the City Hall; then refused
to pay $100,000 for the design of the furnishings. Donald
Summerville, in the mayorial campaign in which he defeated
incumbent Phillips, argued that the City had invested too
much time and money into the City Hall; and that it was
time to re-channel City funds into more vital demands--
better city transportation systems, improved housing condi-
tions, downtown redevelopment. Certainly his interest in
funding these projects was worthy; but it is questionable
that $100,000 would have made any great difference in
realizing these goals. As Philip Givens later implied that
perhaps the decision was more political than economic:

Revell had very definite opinions regarding the fur-

nishings of the new City Hall ... but the furniture

issue became a conflict of political Bersonalities
and there was nothing we could do....

 

9"Designer of New City Hall Dies at 54". Toronto SE22!
9 November 1964.

108

To prevent a "conflict of political personalities" in
the Furnishings Design Competition, the City entrusted a
qualified committee of design professionals with judging the
submissions and selecting the winning design concept. It
was agreed that the decision of the committee would be final:

The City's sole influence in the competition initial-

ly was to say that the decision of the Furnishings

Design Committee would be binding.... The Mayor had

set up the committee to take the furnishings choice

out of the hands of the politicians.10

Unfortunately this decision of Council was readily
forgotten. Despite the noble efforts of Mayor Givens, the
selection of the furnishings did fall into political hands.
Heated political controversy ensued.

The Furnishings Design Committee had unanimously agreed
that the Knoll submission was not only the best design con-
cept, but also the only acceptable approach. Knoll, the
Committee's choice as winner of the competition, should have
been awarded the furnishings contract. But the process was
not this simple; a major complication had arisen.

The design competition had suffered one major, irre-
parable weakness: Bulletin number 9, establishing the
$850,000 budget figure, failed to distinguish whether the

figure was an inviolable ceiling price for the furnishings

or merely a guideline estimate. Interpretation of the

 

10"Toronto City Hall Competition: What the Experts
Say", Canadian Interiors 10 (June, 1965): 29.

 

109

bulletin varied. Simpson's and Mitchell-Houghton respected
the figure as a budget limit; Eaton's and Knoll regarded it
as an estimate. To further complicate matters, the Con-
trollers supported the former interpretation; the Mayor the
latter; and the Council remained undecided. The ensuing
controversy was a battle between ethics ("the rules of a

1

competition cannot be broken" 1) and aesthetics ("Design is

the guts of the situation, otherwise we could have ordered
from a catalogue"lz).

The Controllers, respecting the tendering process,
awarded the contract to the lowest bidder. The Mayor,
despite strong criticism, supported the decision of the Com—
mittee and pleaded with Council to award the contract to
Knoll. Council, after a controversial second vote, approved
Givens' plea. The Board refused to recognize the decision
of Council. The furnishings issue was at a stalemate;

political hassling rendered an impasse. The citizens of

Toronto began to question the competence of the city politi-

 

cians. "The man on the street thinks there is collective
insanity in City Hall."13 One concerned Torontonian aptly
remarked:

11

Margaret Campbell, Gretton, p. 54.

12phiiip Givens, ibid., p. 54.

l3"Insanity Tag in Furniture Row".

 

110

The late Viljo Revell's masterly CityfiHall"concept,.
has survived all obstacles.unimpairediuntil now.~»r

The smalleminded, pennyhpinching”antic3'of our,adminv
istrators have turned the choice of appropriate fur-
nishings into an embarassing farce. We seem to have

a penchant in this city for bungling bold ideas at the
last minute, sometimes through short-sighted budgeting;
always through lack of care. 4

And a Toronto designer found it to be

a sad and sobering fact that a city courageous enough
to produce a superb building by international competi-
tion seemed incapable of establishing empathy with the
design concept when it came to selecting furniture.
Good honest servants of the City have been unable to
arrange a system whereby the level of design for the
structure could be carried into the building. What
should have been a challenge for any talented designer
diminished into a maelstrom of.aesthetic.nit—picking
and pious demands to protect the bidding system.

Another disappointed citizen simply asked, "I wonder if those
members voting for cheaper furnishings would also order a

16 (This is a most apt

Cadillac with burlap upholstery?"
analogy for Simpson's submission was indeed too rustic,
too overestuffed for the sculptural, sophisticated simplicity
of Revell's building.)

It has been written that "many persons make decisions,

or fail to make decisions, that affect the end result of

the building design process."17 Certainly in the case of the

 

l4Derek Fuller, Letter to the Editor, Toronto Globe and
Mail, 28 June 1965.

15Gretton, p. 55.

16Jack Budgell, Letter to the Editor, Toronto Star,
28 June 1965.

17"Building in Flux ... Changing Procedures, Changing
Roles", Construction 44 (April, 1968): 98.

 

111

Toronto City Hall, it was failure to make a decision that
affected the resulting interiors. Indeed, most damaging
to the furnishing process was not the controversy itself
(for in the end Knoll had lowered its bid and was awarded
the contract); but the time consumed by that controversy.
Had Council accepted the decision of the Design Committee
at the time it was announced, the resulting furnishings
may have been more successful. But, after a three month
political impasse, Knoll had only forty working days to
supply and install the furnishings. Even the best of fur-
nishing programs would weaken under such conditions.

One questions here if indeed Knoll's was the best de-
sign program for the City Hall. It had been unanimously
agreed by the Committee that it alone had captured the
spirit of the architect; it was the only concept Revell
would not have found displeasing. But was Knoll's approach
comparable to Revell's proposals? Certainly this is a most
difficult question to answer. The furnishing program sub-
mitted by Revell would suggest that his was a more compre-
hensive approach than Knoll's. Revell's concern for detail
in every stage of his program was commendable. xFurthermore,
Revell would have had more time to successfully execute his
program. He would have had the time to test the prototypes
of his designs, perhaps eliminating the functional diffi-
culties experienced by Knoll. Surely Revell's designs would

have captured the dynamic spirit of his architecture.

112

His interiors evidence masterful integration of glass, wood,

and concrete; it could be assumed his furnishings would

reflect the same. But these are only assumptions. How can

one honestly compare what may have been to what is? It
interesting to note, however, that the interiors of the
City Hall library designed by Revell and his associates

quite successful, and the furniture was never subjected

criticism. It had been agreed that Knoll's was the best

is

are

to

of the four designs submitted. But was it an outstanding

design concept? Was it worthy of the City Hall? One lead-

ing Toronto designer suggested that it was not:

I do not think that the standard is as good as the

pression given of it. I do not consider Knoll's an

exceptionaly good furniture scheme. The City Hall

im-

deserves something better.... Knoll is good, but it

is not exceptional. The design has merit, but it does
not go far enough. Knoll has humor, but lacks excite-
ment. It is 200% or 300% better than the next competi-

tor and stands far ahead of all the rest.by a long

way.... It should have been a difficult task to select

the very best furniture design. In this case, the

good

one was picked from a mediocre selection. I would like
to see Knoll told to go away and come back with some-

thing better.18

Perhaps this was a worthy suggestion (as evidenced by the

installed furnishings), but unfortunately, an impractical

one. There simply was no time for Knoll to "go away and .

come back with something better."

Time, unquestionably, was the major factor in transform-

ing designs, which on paper were generally praised, into

 

18Allan Moody, "What the Experts Say," p. 30.

113

actual furnishings, which in use were highly criticized.
Time, or rather the lack of it, eliminated a most crucial
step in the furnishings process: people-testing the furni-
ture prototypes. Although Professor Arthur and his col-
leagues did inspect the prototypes on the production sites;
they did not have the opportunity to test the pieces for
functional suitability. And no furniture, regardless of
its aesthetic finepoints, when found non-functional can be
considered successful.

Seemingly, many of the criticisms and complaints,
especially of the office furniture, should have been elimi-
nated by common sense. It should have been recognized that
concrete pedestals would snag nylons; that most secretaries
prefer the presence of modesty panels and require a writing
as well as a typing surface; and that it is only the rare
executive who needs no drawer storage in his desk. It is
surprising, and rather disappointing, that a contract fur-
niture firm with such a fine reputation in office furnishings
could overlook such obvious considerations. One questions
whether the fault lay with the design, the specifications,
or the production itself. Wherever the weaknesses lay, if
the prototypes had been tested by actual users, most likely
the deficiencies would have been discovered and corrected.
Frankly, that Knoll produced as many units as they had in
the brief time allotted was amazing; that all these units

would be perfectly constructed and finished was hardly

114

possible (workers still complain of rough edges and loose
screws). The irony is that those councillors complaining
most about the furnishings, never realized that they them-
selves were in part responsible for the situation, simply by
their reluctance to act earlier. Their indecision had cut
production time in half. The furnishings controversy was

a political football between the Council and the Board of
Control; and neither realized the cost of such a "game".

Poorly defined policy and political controversy had
caused a serious delay in the furnishings process. Unfortu-
nately, Council's policies in the mural issue were no
stronger. Once again political indecision ensued, this
time with even more serious consequences. The program was
not merely delayed, but completely abandoned.

Realizing that only art work of the highest caliber
should be exhibited in the City Hall, and recognizing its
own naive artistic sense; Council had appointed a profes-
sional Art Advisory Committee. A major responsibility of
this committee was to establish a competition for the City
Hall Mural; and later to act as jury in judging the competi-
tion. Yet when the Committee submitted its proposals for
the competition to the City; it met with strong political
opposition. Controller Dennison, an outspoken traditional-
ist in both the furnishings and art work issues, blatantly
disapproved of the Committee's intent to invite only three

artists to submit sketches in the mural competition.

115

Knowing the preferences of the committee, he feared that all
three designs would be too abstract to be understood, or
appreciated by the Toronto citizen. Though the only member
to favor a representational, traditional mural for the City
Hall, Dennison made his preference known, and not without
effect:
Controller Dennison is a professional politician; he
is also a member of the Art Advisory Committee. So
are Aldermen Brown and Sigsworth, eleven architects,
artists, academics, gallery directors, and patrons of
the arts. The whole is chaired by Professor Arthur of
the University of Toronto School of Architecture. In
the matter of deciding how a competition for the mural
in the entrance hall should be held, Professor Arthur
carries a majority opinion within the Committee.
Controller Dennison airs his minority opinion in the
Council Chamber; and so far the result has been acri-
mony and inaction.19
Council had delayed the decision on the mural competi-
tion for eighteen months. By the time the issue was re-
examined, William Dennison had been elected Mayor, and the
Committee realized the futility in resubmitting its original
proposals for the mural competition. A major issue in the
mayorial campaign between Givens and Dennison had been the
art work and mural controversy. The Committee had inter-
preted Dennison's victory as a victory for traditional,
representational art; yet realized that such an approach was
inappropriate for the City Hall. As a temporary alternative

to the mural competition; the Committee proposed a program

of monthly painting and sculpture exhibitions in the entrance

 

19Barrie Hale, "Our Artless Council", Toronto Telegram,
10 September 1966.

116

hall area. This alternative was recognized by the Mayor

and his Council as an acceptable compromise. The issue of
the mural was again postponed. Later, with the dismissal

of the original Art Advisory Committee, an act encouraged by
Mayor Dennison, the mural issue was abandoned altogether.
Patrons of the arts questioned and criticized the disband-
ing of the Art Committee. One might assume that the Mayor,
remembering past controversies, no longer could tolerate

the "so-called experts". The role of his new Art Committee
was reduced to purely advisory activities.

There are two major issues here. First, that the ex-
hibited art work and City Hall mural should compliment
Revell's design; and secondly, who is the more qualified to
decide what does best reflect the architectural design: the
professional politician or the professional artist-designer?
Council, admitting it was not an expert in the fine arts,
had appointed an Advisory Committee to make decisions in the
matter of the arts. Certainly this was a wise, and commend-
able, approach. Yet, when this advice was given, it was
ignored. Once again, Council had assigned the responsibility
for a decision, but delegated no authority for the execution
of that decision. One wonders why advisory committees are
established if their advice is only to be ignored; especial-
ly when their decisions are knowledgeable and well-founded.
The City Hall had been built to awake the City to the twen-

tieth century; why exhibit nineteenth century art?

117

A traditional mural hardly reflects the unique, imagination
approach of the architect. The Committee was right to
realize that no mural would be better than a traditional,
representational one. The entire mural issue leads one to
ask if indeed the City Hall had awakened the City to cultur—
al demands of the latter third of the twentieth century.
Had it established a climate for contemporary visual arts?
Seemingly not, as evidenced by the overwhelming public sup-
port of William Dennison and his conservative artistic views.
Seemingly the distinctive design of the City Hall was "a
magnificant accident, grafted on a Nineteenth Century City,
whose inhabitants still see space and form and movement with
Victorian eyes."19

Revell had changed the City's architectural vision.
Torontoians were proud and boastful of their distinctive
City Hall. Similarly, the Arts Committee wanted to change
the City's anachrononistic artistic vision. They had been
appointed to select the art work that best reflected Revell's
designs; yet upon doing so, they were ignored, and later dis-
missed. Disappointed with the City's handling of both the
furnishing and art work issues, one Toronto reporter aptly
wrote:

Surely it is time our Councillors do what one assumes

they are elected to do--let themselves be advised by
the advisors they themselves had freely chosen.

 

19Ibid., p. 4.

201bid.

 

118

Perhaps it is time for all governments to study the decision-
making policies and design processes necessary for successful
public design--architectural and interior--and to define
roles, assign responsibilities, and establish policies to

achieve that end.

CHAPTER V

CONCLUSIONS

"No problem is more momentous for the modern democratic
state than its capacity to develop rational, responsible,
goal-oriented policy."1

This was not only the problem faced by the City of
Toronto in the designing processes for the new City Hall; but
by any town, city, state, or nation undertaking a building
program. It has often been said that one can learn from
past mistakes. This study has been done that future public
design participants can learn from the mistakes of the City
of Toronto. Its purpose has not been to criticize contro-
versial furnishings or an "artless council", but rather to
evidence the need for a more structured framework for re-
sponsible public design decision-making and policy.

The major weaknesses plaguing the design processes for
the City Halls furnishings, including the selection of proper
works of art were: 1) conflict in decision-making and sub-
sequent political indecision, 2) poorly defined design

policies that were susceptible to political intervention,

 

lNorton Long, "Public Policy and Administration, in
Administrative Questions and Political Answers, edited by
Claude Hawley and Ruth Weintraub’YPrInceton: D. Van Nostrand
Co., Inc., 1966), p. 275.

119

120

and 3) failure to recognize the importance of the interior
furnishings as an integral part of the total-design concept
and the need for an integrated design approach.

Thus, in structuring a public design framework, it must
be recognized that only well-defined objectives can reduce
conflict in decision-making; that responsible decisions are
essential for effective policy; and that only well-defined
policy can eliminate political controversy and establish an
integrated design approach.

By defining goals and objectives at the very outset of
the project, public design participants can enjoy a greater
competence and a lesser fear in decision—making. The reluc-
tance to make a decision is universal:

The making of a decision is a burdensome task. Off-

setting the exhiliaration that may result from a

correct and successful decision, and the relief that

follows the terminating of a struggle to determine
issues, is the depression that comes from the failure
or error of decision and the frustration that ensues
from uncertainty.2
This reluctance to render a decision, combined with an
effort to pass the responsibility onto someone else is
especially inherent in bureaucratic or political structures.

In any democratic society, one maintains certain con-

cepts concerning the role of the politician. Certainly, it

is recognized that the politician plays a vital role in

decision—making processes for any public design project.

 

2Chester I. Barnard, quoted by Felix A. Nigro, in
Modern Publig Administration (New York: Harper and Row Pub-
lishers, 1965), p. 182.

 

 

121

The politician is the link between the public and the de-
signer. In this position, he may experience conflict between
his political sense and his design sense. The greater the
conflict, the more difficult the decision, and the more
reluctant he is to render a decision.

In the past, disinterest or disregard for good design
"has permitted too much to grow up in our environment which
is the essence of the mediocre and the shoddy."3 When the
responsibility for public design is placed solely in the
hands of the apathetic or design-ignorant politician; medi-
ocrity can result. It is therefore, the responsibility of
all architects and designers to educate political decision-
makers that good design should be an inherent objective of
any civic building project; and that with care in planning,
good design need cost no more tax dollars than mediocre, or
poor design. It must be recognized that civic design should
"elevate the standard of public taste ... lift the spirits
and stimulate imagination."4 Good public design can erase
environmental apathy and create civic pride.

Once these goals are accepted by the government under-
taking the building project; once good design is established
as a foremost objective of the building program, each polit-

ical decision-maker would need to recognize that "design

 

3"The New City Hall", Toronto Globe and Mail, 27 Septem-
ber 1958.

4

 

Ibid.

122

muSt be inherent at every stage of the decision—making lad-
der. If design is not recognized by the decision—makers, or
if it is left until too late" its creative potential is

lost."5 '

The acceptance of the forementioned goals of good civic
design would give more direction to decision-making. Design
would be considered a determinant in all responsible deci—
sions; the policies resulting from such decisions would
encourage, not eliminate creative design potential.

Should the political participants feel incompetent in
rendering responsible design decisions, they must willingly
assign the responsibility for the decision to those more
qualified.

The responsibility for decisions must be so allocated

that all decisions requiring a certain expertise can

be made by persons possessing that expertise.6
The more knowledgeable the decision-maker; the more responsi—
ble is the decision.

Decision—making can be defined as "the rational process
of defining a problem, identifying the alternatives, selec-
ting the most appropriate; and translating it into a course

7

of action." Responsible decision-making involves careful

 

5John Lindsay, "Public Servant Looks at Design", AIA
Journal 48 (August, 1967): 52.

6Herbert Simon, Administrative Behavior (New York: The
Macmillan Company, 1957), p. 10.

7C. E. Dimock and G. G. Dimock, Public Administration
(Chicago: Holt, Rinehart, and Winston, Inc., 1969), p. 22.

 

 

123

analysis of the problem; studying all the alternatives and
the impact of each; selecting that alternative which most
effectively would achieve predetermined objectives; and pro-
viding the mechanism by which the decision can be imple-
mented. Responsible decision-making determines not only
the most effective policy, but also the most effective
administration of that policy; it assures policy continuity
and concrete results. On the other hand, rash or unknowl-
edgeable decisions can result in poorly defined policy
susceptible to criticism and reversal. Unfortunately, this
is a characteristic of many political decisions:
Municipal Councils are known for their ability to re-
verse decisions, even those previously arrived at by
unanimous consent.... Municipal governments lack
political responsibility ... and policy continuity.
Only more responsible decision—making and better de—
fined policy can overcome this threat of reversal. In public
design programs, Councils' assigning the responsibility of
design decisions to design professionals assures a more
knowledgeable decision and more comprehensive policy.
However, responsibility without authority is meaningless.
Council must also delegate the authority necessary to execute
the policy. This delegated power would give design policies

sufficient weight to withstand shifts in political Councils

and administration. It would insure policy continuity

 

8Raymond Peringer, "How Parties Can Come to the Aid of
City Hall“, Toronto Globe and Mail, 21 September 1966.

 

124

throughout the life of the project. This delegation of re-
sponsibility and authority should be written as a law, a by-
law, or a contract condition. To guarantee its irreversi—
bility, it must be recognized as legally binding. (If during
the process of administration, weaknesses in the policy are
discovered; it could be amended through the prOper political
channels.)

Once goals have been stated, responsible decisions made,
well-defined policies established; design participants must
determine a framework of roles and responsibilities for the
successful administration of those policies. "Only when
objectives, directions, and roles are clear to everyone; is

9 The

there a maximum chance of securing desired goals."
assigning of roles and responsibilities is a crucial factor
for a successful design program.

In delegating responsibilities, all design participants
should be considered--administrators, councillors, executive
boards, architects, designers, artists, advisory committees,
and the electorate. For each stage of the proposed program,
the participants would be hierarchially ranked and responsi-
bilities assigned. Dominant and subordinate roles once
determined would be respected by all participants. This

hierarchial structure would maximize the chance of policy

continuity by minimizing the threat of political intervention

 

9 . .
Dimock and DlmOCk, p. 404.

125

and ensuing controversy. It would be understood at the out-
set of each design program who held the dominant position,
who was responsible for the final design decision and re-
sulting policy. Assumably, the most dominant role would be
enjoyed by the person or persons most qualified to make
responsible decisions. For example, in matters of prelimi-
nary planning policy requiring knowledge of governmental
budgeting, funding allocations, and public approval of pro-
gram appropriations; the elected politician would be respons-
ible. Once the program has been approved and funds allocated;
a committee of qualified professionals would be responsible
for selecting a good architectural design. In architectural
matters, the architect and his associates would have the
dominant responsibility. And so it would continue through-
out the entire designing process. By determining roles and
responsibilities at the outset of the program; the necessary
importance can be given to the furnishings and art work pro-
grams. As in the case of the Toronto City Hall; these pro-
grams are all too often neglected until the final stages of
building process. Establishing a time framework as well as

a hierarchial structure would further insure the success of
these programs. Throughout the design process this struc-
ture would encourage architect, designer, and artist collabor-
ation. All design participants would work together towards

a unified, integrated whole.

126

Developing a hierarchy of public design decision-making
roles and responsibilities, and setting this into a practical
time framework, is a most formidable task. But it is not an
impossibility: "We can restructure our government operations
to make design a more important part of our decision-making

10 Such structuring would require intensive re-

processes."
search not only in the designing processes, but also in pub-
lic administration, political responsibility, and policy
planning. Certainly it is a project worthy of further
research and investigation. Development of such a structure
would be a major breakthrough in coping with the many irreso-
lutions in public design.

Good public design should be a goal of all responsible
design participants. And only through a total awareness of
the advantages of an integrated design approach, and a struc-
tured framework of decision-making roles and policy responsi-

bilities encouraging such an approach; will this goal ever

be fully realized.

 

10Lindsay, p. 50.

APPENDIX

ILLUSTRATIONS

127

.mumcvm mmflaaflzm cmnumz mam Hamm hpfio ouconoa

"msflnmpcmm m.uomufl£0H¢

.H musmflm

 

128

AV.

133.1.

.cmHm m.#oouwaoH< .N mucmwm

/\ 1
. i

UCCSC. 0544:: 84:53!
92

.35.. rho

............... ‘5‘ 8‘4;

 

 

 

 

 

 

.......

 

 

 

 

Til

   

>I3°lIC
easy.

\g

 

 

   

3.1.10

——1

.I ‘ A“ ' U." ‘ I. ..A .. ‘r
, (It n 1 -
." 3 A
. mum"
."é. ' '
‘ ‘ . ‘ —, -

,,j s o

 

'...— _ . *

 

Figure 3. City Hall and Square: Opening Day, September 13,
1965.

 

 

Figure 4.

130

 

 

\

 

 

 

 

\MV‘

Knoll's Desk Design. Base is precast
concrete; top is teak (executive) or
Formica white oak (clerical).

131

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Figure 5. Knoll's Mayor's and Controllers' Swivel Chair.
Leather or fabric upholstery; sleeved stainless
steel base.

 

 

 

 

 

Figure 6. Knoll's Clerical Swivel Chair. Naugahyde back,
fabric seat, sleeved stainless steel base.

132

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Figure 7. Lounge Chair, Mayor's Figure 8. Chair, Committee
Office. Room.

 

 

'—

 

Figure 9. Reading Chair, Figure 10. Lounge Chair,
Council Lounge Council Lounge
(William Platner (Wllllam Plat-

Design), ner Design).

SELECTED BIBLIOGRAPHY

SELECTED BIBLIOGRAPHY

Books

Dimock, E. C. and Dimock, G. 0. Public Administration.
Chicago: Holt, Rinehart and Winston, Inc., 1969.
(Fourth Edition)

 

Fesler, James W. "The Case Method in Political Science,"
and Bock, Edwin A., "Case Studies About Government:
Achieving Realism and Significance." In Essays on
theyCase Method in Public Administration. New’York:
International Institute of Administrative Sciences,
1962, pp. 72-90. '

 

Kaplan, Harold. "Central City Politics." In Emerging
Party Politics in Urban Canada, pp. 182-191. Edited
by Jack K. Masson and James D. Anderson. Toronto:
McClelland and Stewart Limited, 1972.

Mika, Nick and Helma. Portrait of Toronto City Hall
(Beldeville, Ontario: Mika Silk Screening Limited,
1967).

Nigro, Felix A. Modern Public Administration. New York:
Harper and Row, Publishers, 1965.

Page, John. "Planning and Protest." In Design Participa-
tion, pp. 113-119. Edited by Nigel Cross. London:
Academy Editions, 1972.

 

Phillips, Nathan. Mayor of All the People. Toronto:
McClelland and Stewart Limited, 1967.

Simon, Herbert. Administrative Behavior: A Study of De-
cision~Making Processes in Administrative Organization,
with a Foreword by Chester I. Barnard. New York:

The Macmillan company, 1957.

 

Reagan, Michael D. The Administration of Public Policy.
Glenview, Illinois: Scott, Foresman and Company, 1969.

 

Rose, Albert. Governing Metropolitan Toronto: A Social and
Political Analysis 1253-1971. ,Berkeley: University of
California Press, 1972.

 

 

133

134

Wilensky, Harold L. "The Nature of the Decision." In The
Administration of Public Policy, pp. 212-214. Edited
by Michael Reagon. Glenview, Illinois: Scott, Fores-
man and Company, 1969.

Journals

Arms, Brock. "Interiors: What is the Architect's Role?"
AIA Journal 46 (December 1966): 34-35.

"Building in Flux--Changing Procedures, Changing Roles."
Construction 44 (April 1968): 98-99.

"City Hall Project for Toronto Hits Snag." Architectural
Forum 110 (May 1959): 9.

 

Creighton, Thomas H. "The Architecture of Interiors."
Progressive Architecture 41 (October 1962): 140-145.

"Finn Wins Toronto City Hall Competition." Progressive
Architecture 37 (November 1958): 34-35.

 

"Finnish Entry Wins Toronto Civic Center Competition Over
Jury Reservations." Architectural Record 124 (November
1958): 10-12.

Foxhall, W. B. "How Architects Practice Interior Design."
Architectural Record 136 (November 1964): 89-96.

Gretton, Robert. "The Great Furniture Debate." Canadian
Architect 10 (June 1965): 53-63.

Gueft, Olga. "Canada: Prevalence of Enlightened Total
Design." Interiors 127 (July 1968): 60-65.

 

Jonason, W. R. "How Do We Bridge the Gap Between Architects
and Designers?" Interior Design 39 (July 1968):
151-152.

Lindsay, John V. "A Public Servant Looks at Design."
AIA Journal 48 (August 1967): 49-51.

"Progress Report--City Hall." Canadian Architect 9 (December
1964): 49-56.

135

"Singular Symbol for Toronto." Architectural Forum 123
(November 1965): 15-23.

Smith, J. C. "International Competition Offers $25,000
First Prize." Architectural Record 122 (September
1957): 44.

Smith, J. C. "Toronto Unveils Its Scheme for a Civic Square."
Architectural Record 117 (April 1955): 26.

 

Thom, R. L. "Toronto City Hall: A Critique." The Canadian
Architect 10 (October 1965): 58-60.

"Toronto City Hall and Square Competition." Journal Royal
Architectural Institute of Canada 35 (October 1958):
360-385.

"Toronto City Hall and Civic Square, Ontario." The Canadian
Architect (October 1965): 45-46.

 

"Toronto City Hall Competition: What the Experts Say."
Canadian Interiors (July 1965): 29-51.

"Which Building Won the Competition?“ Architectural Forum
109 (November 1958): 7-9.

Newspapers

 

The Toronto Globe and Mail .

"The New City Hall." 27 September 1958.

Westhall, Stanleyo "City Hall Cost Seen $30,000,000
27 September 1958.

Westhall, Stanley. "Abandoning the New City Hall?"
4 October 1960. . .

Westhall, Stanley. "Who Will Pay for City Hall?"
5 October 1960.

"Vote Indicates New City Hall is Favored." 7 December
1960.

"Chosen as Designer of Toronto City Hall, Viljo Revell
Dies in Helsinki." 9 November 1964. .

Young, Scott. "Politics and Furniture.". 22 April 1965.

"City Hall Will Open with Old Furniture, Board Members
Say." 22 June 1965.

Fuller, Derek. Letter to the Editor. 28 June 1965.

O'Malley, Martin. "Last Minute Rush for City Hall
Furniture." 8 September 1965.

Carmichael, David. "City Hall Ceremony Will Recall
lO-Year Rivalries." 11 September 1965.

136

The Toronto Globe and Mail (cont'd)
"Name Calling, Shouts, Gavel Pounding, and Giggles
Sparked by City Hall Mural." 6 October 1965.
"WObbly Desks at City Hall Spark New Furniture Contro-
versy." 14 October 1965.
"Art Committee Ordered to Widen Contest." 9 November

1965.
"Mural Put Off to 1967." 8 December 1965.
Peringer, Raymond. “How Parties Can Come to the Aid

of City Hall." 21 September 1966.

The Toronto Star

Budgell, Jack. "Thanks for Givens." 12 April 1961.

"Designer of New City Hall Viljo Revell Dies at 54."
9 November 1964.

"Winning Firm Puts Board in Tizzy." 8 April 1965.

"Blasts Ethics of Furniture Decision." 10 April 1965.

"Read the Print, Mr. Mayor." 12 April 1965.

"5 Aldermen Favor Re-opening City Hall Furniture Con- .
test." 15 April 1965.

"Alderman Left--Knoll Bid Wins." 16 April 1965.

"Rookie Alderman Goofs-~New Furniture Okayed."
17 April 1965.

"Mayor's Bad Precedence." 19 April 1965.

Bragg: William. "Nate Phillips' Soft-Sell WOn the
City Hall War." 11 September 1965.

"Fatuous Ass, Snooper--They Cry in City Hall."
6 October 1965.

Snell, Richard. "New City Hall Furniture Fine in
Pictures, but...." 6 October 1965.

"Dennison Apologizes for Slur on Art Committee."
8 October 1965.

Snell, Richard. "Pencils to Become Swords in City Hall
Mural Fight." 12 October 1965.

"New Chair Collapses Under Reeve Pivnick." 15 October
1965.

"Insanity Tag in Furniture Row." 26 October 1965.

"No Windows--That's What's Hardest to Take at New City
Hall." 26 October 1965.

"Man Who Chose Furniture to Tackle City Hall Mural."
3 November 1965.

"Council Delays City Hall Mural." 9 December 1965.

Haggart, Ron. "Controller Dennison vs. Mayor Givens."
6 June 1966.

"Council Puts Off Decision on $35,000 Mural."
9 December 1966.

"Toronto Alderman Wants to Brighten up Interiors."
17 September 1971.

137

The Toronto Telegram

The

Nobleston, Allen. "Moment of Truth Comes to City
Hall." 19 April 1961.

Arthur, Eric. "Those Were the Hectic Days."
11 September 1965.

Jones, Frank. "An Inspiration of the Future."
11 September 1965.

"That Furniture." 23 September 1965.

"That Troubled World of Art: Dennison and the Mayor
Blaze Away." 7 October 1965.

Tumpane, Frank. "Throw the Bum Out! He Likes Modern
Art." 8 October 1965.

"Bell Quits After Row Over Desks." 13 October 1965.

Adilman, Sid. ”Just One Year Old? It Feels More Like
100." 10 September 1966.

Hale, Barrie. "Our Artless Council." 10 September 1966.

Public Documents

Corporation of the City of Toronto. City Council Minutes.
2 October 1961
5 January 1962
5 June 1963
15 April 1965
7 June 1965
28 June 1965

. City Council Minutes. Appendix A. Board of

Control Reports. 4 .

-No. 11, Article 1, "New City Hall andquuare--
Architects' Agreement," 31 March 1959.

-No. 28, Article 1, "Architects' Stage One Report on
New City Hall and Civic Square," 9 November 1959.

-No. 17, Article 3, "Furnishings, Fixtures, etc.
re Toronto City Hall and Nathan Phillips Square."
15 January 1962.

-No. 33, Article 3, "City Solicitor Report re
Furnishings--New City Hall," 10 November 1963.

-No. 21, Article 1, "Establishment of Art Selection
Committee." 8 June 1964.

—No. 27, Article 1, "Furnishings Design Committee,"
14 September 1964.

-No. 15, Article 3, "Furnishings--New City Hall,"
15 April 1965.

-No. 24, Article 2, "Furnishings--New City Hall,"
28 June 1965. ’

-No. 45, Article 2, "Mural Competition--New City Hall,"
8 December 1965.

138

Appendix A. Board of Control Reports.(contld)
-No. 3, Article 48, "Art Advisory Committee--
New City Hall," March, 1967.

-No° 13, "Furnishings Contract," 25 April 1968.
-No. 3, Article 48, "Mural Disband—-City Hall,"
January, 1969. .

-No. 3, Article 49, "Painting Exhibits for Mural
Wall--City Hall," January, 1969.

. City Council Minutes. .Appendix C.
-Nathan Phillips. Inaugural Address. 18 January 1962.
-Donald Summerville. Inaugural Address.
7 January 1963.
-City Hall Opening Day Ceremonies. 13 September 1965.

Corporation of Metropolitan Toronto. Metropolitan Council
Minutes. 5 May 1964.

 

. Executive Council Report No. 8. 8 February 1964.

. Executive Council Report No. 35. 16 July 1965.

Unpublished Materials

 

City Hall Files. .City Archives. Toronto, Ontario.

Conditions of Competition: City Hall and Squarg.
Foreword by Nathan Phillips. -September, 1957.

A Synopsis of the City Hall and Square Competition
for.Toronto, Canada. December, 1958.

Viljo Revell, letter to Eric Arthur, 25 June 1962.

New City Hall.and Nathan Phillips Square.
Introductibn by Eric Arthur. June, 1963.

Viljo Revell, letter to John B. Parkin, 1 February 1964.

Viljo Revell, letter to Eric Arthur, 4 March 1964.

Viljo Revell, letter to Eric Arthur, 2 May 1964.

Viljo Revell, letter to Mayor Philip Givens, 7 October
1964.

 

City Hall Co-ordinatorls.Eiles. City Archives. Toronto,
Ontario.

Third draft. Furnishings Contract. June, 1963.

Jack Mitchell, letter to Allan Lamport, 17 June 1963.
City Solicitor report to Mayor Summerville, 10 July
1963.

139

City Hall Co—ordinator's Files (cont'd)

William Callow (City Solicitor), letter to Viljo
Revell, 12 July 1963.

Viljo Revell, letter to George Bell (City Hall Co-
ordinator), 6 March 1964.

Advertisement: Furnishing Design Competition, New
City Hall, 15 March 1964.

Furnishings Contract, 31 May 1965.

Eric.Arthur, Memorandum to George Bell, 11 May 1965.

John C. Quigg, letter to George Bell, 1 October 1965.

Eric Arthur, letter to John R. Quigg, 22 October 1965.

Commissioner H. H. Rogers, letter to City Hall Co-
ordinator David Bremner, 9 December 1965.

 

Interviews

 

Parkin, John B. Parkin Associates, Toronto, Ontario.
Interview, 30 November 1973.

Phillips, Nathan. Former Mayor of Toronto.
Interview, 23 March 1974.

Starling, Harold. Department of City Property, Toronto,
Ontario. Interview, 29 November 1973.

 

HICHIGRN STQTE UNIV. LIBRQRIES

31293102623927