"Whether you love or hate the Eaton's Centre, you have to admit it was a titanic improvement over the dreck in that picture."

Admittedly, I'm no fan of the new Eaton Ctr., so I don't know whether "dreck" is really the word I'd use to describe what was there before. Art deco isn't my favourite style, either, but I think the M&S building in the photo suffers from "remuddling" and neglect, more than anything. The ground floor facade / windows/ and pseudo-modern styled board above (for the signage) look like the equivalent of a bungee-cord facelift: cheap and way too tight.

For an example of a really good looking integration of Art Deco & modern construction, see the Sussex Building, which addresses the art deco style issue, but manages to do a great job of expanding on what was there before. It also deals elegantly with the absence of the classical pediment in Art Deco (you can see the pediment -- a sort of suggestion of a pitched roof -- in the old Eaton's store in Stuart's picture). Putting that flatter roof treatment together with the "classical" suggestion of "house" (pediment) is tricky in a streetscape (IMO anyway), esp. with lowrises. But Sussex managed it well.

What don't I like about the "new" Eaton Ctr.? It looks fake, and it's too squat/ graceless/ monolithic/ uninteresting, too. The inside, meanwhile, is visual chaos, cluttered up with ramps, stairs, escalators, and not especially worthwhile shopping. It's a bit like going to a garage sale, except slightly glitzier (but just as tacky & cheap). It looks very much of its time, except late by 10 years or so (think 80s, padded shoulders, Joan Collins, etc.). The Vic. Convention Ctr. is another style failure from the same mould, I think.

 out of  found this valuable. Do you find this valuable?