News   Apr 23, 2024
Shimmy
 170     0 
News   Apr 22, 2024
Ferris + Associates Merges with NAK Design Group, Reshaping the GTA Landscape
 910     0 
News   Apr 22, 2024
UrbanToronto Webinars: Building Sustainably — Industry and Individuals
 294     0 

Transformation AGO (5s, Gehry) COMPLETE

Urban Shocker said:
Oh lots of people wanted a swoopy-curvy Bilbao-effect Big Hair Gehry retread in January 2004. It is a known product. Look what it did for Bilbao, it can do that for us too and make us world class just like them, etc. etc. There were even a few fantasy renderings from UT members showing fantasist swoopy-curvy Big Hair Gehry things at Dundas and McCaul. The hollow spectacle crowd were going full throttle hereabouts in January 2004 and they voiced huge disappointment over the design once it was released.
Click to expand...

We get it, you think the criticism amounts to Bilbao-envy in a tangible sense, rather than just symbolic (we wanted an architecturally arresting art museum). If anything the Bilbao fantasy renderings were to say, "even a copy would have been better than this," but the yearning definitely did not stop at Bilbao.

I do like how you try to suggest that an AGO with a different, more interesting exterior, would have meant the interior would be a mess of hideous unworkable spaces. Or better yet, perhaps it really would had to have been hollow?

Others, who see buildings as experiential rather than mere
edifices, were rather happy with Gehry's design solution to the AGO's problems.
Click to expand...

That's an overly-simplified, but still rather self-righteous, way of looking at it. Why can't we discuss those two aspects of architecture separately?

Is it good enough for you that doors just open and close, without needing to waste further thought on what door might look best, or how we might improve the look of doors? Do you have fashionable clothes, or just pre-selected outfits rated for warmth and protection? Do you eat, or is it just vitamin, mineral, and nutrient injections? (I actually quite like the sound of that, and kind of hope you DO live that way)
 
People unhappy with the look of the AGO may never be soothed by anything if their interest is in spectacle rather than substance.
Click to expand...
Again, with the same false choice. Just because a building is practical doesn't mean one has to like it in its entirety.

It is possible to have a unique, attractive, creative and bold design that's also practical.

I for one didn't want Gehry to replicate Bilbao, but I certainly wanted to see him inject some of his creativity.
 
I think once people get to experience the interior they'll appreciate the building more. Those weird, out-of-place boxes on the roof are actually part of a design motif that runs right through the new addition. The new gallery areas (the rooms inside of the box on the south side) are built almost like self-contained cubes, with seemingly random cubes stacked on top here and there. It looks like piles of boxes everywhere. And somehow, the contrast between the heaped up boxes and the serpentine curves really works. It's all surprisingly playful, and I think it'll be fun to explore when it's done.
 
I don't understand the quibbling here. The AGO redesign *is* spectacle. It is just a different aesthetic of spectacle than Bilbao et al. Where is the lack of razzle dazzle? The gallery/shield along Dundas is dramatic and a perfect compliment to the assorted shapes and colours of the heritage block across the street. There are flights of fancy, albeit restrained ones, with the swoopy staircase protrusions and the bold blue colour of the central tower. The scale of the bulding on its south side is monumental, creating a bold and daring backdrop to a beautiful heritage building and park, and the new urban vista created along John Street all create a sense of spectacle out of what was once an utterly unassuming building and location on Dundas that you could pass by without even knowing it. In the AGO we get spectalce and we get a Gehry, and more importantly an original Gehry rather than some carbon copy of everything else he's ever done.
 
Yeah, but then, there's my Grammy analogy. We keep getting Feists when we oughta be getting Winehouses, if you get my drift
 
People wanted a Gehry. Now we've got one - and a uniquely Toronto design too. As with the Crystal and the Gardiner renovations, gallery space is created, visitors can more easily navigate through the institution, and it is rebranded - especially, in this case, as a place where contemporary art has priority.

The false dichotomy between aesthetics and function that TKTKTK poses - his notion that what an architect does with the inside of a building to solve problems and make it work better is of "secondary" importance - is contradicted by what Gehry has actually done. The exterior of the AGO reflects what happens inside rather well - the opening up of the street level along Dundas invites visitors in, the transparency of Galleria Italia makes sculpture visible, and the south wing for contemporary art has large windows giving views inside. The practical, programmatic requirements are outwardly expressed by the structure.
 
Urban Shocker said:
People wanted a Gehry. Now we've got one - and a uniquely Toronto design too. As with the Crystal and the Gardiner renovations, gallery space is created, visitors can more easily navigate through the institution, and it is rebranded - especially, in this case, as a place where contemporary art has priority.

The false dichotomy between aesthetics and function that TKTKTK poses - his notion that what an architect does with the inside of a building to solve problems and make it work better is of "secondary" importance - is contradicted by what Gehry has actually done. The exterior of the AGO reflects what happens inside rather well - the opening up of the street level along Dundas invites visitors in, the transparency of Galleria Italia makes sculpture visible, and the south wing for contemporary art has large windows giving views inside. The practical, programmatic requirements are outwardly expressed by the structure.
Click to expand...

^^^
I think you might be skipping.
scratched_record.jpg


You're still trying to justify the aesthetics of the building by pointing to the successes of its functional program. No one's denying that the building may work better inside (though we'll have to wait and see, won't we?) but its physical form is still up for debate.

I'm not sure why you're the only one in here who can't think their way around this.
 
Actually I'm celebrating a building that expresses what it is all about rather nicely. Your cruelly limited and nebulous "aesthetic critique" is based solely on the degree to which the AGO's exterior supposedly fails to measure up to your demand for a spectacular facade, without saying what that facade should look like, and you've stated that the programmatic considerations are "secondary".
 
Urban Shocker said:
Actually I'm celebrating a building that expresses what it is all about rather nicely. Your cruelly limited and nebulous "aesthetic critique" is based solely on the degree to which the AGO's exterior supposedly fails to measure up to your demand for a spectacular facade, without saying what that facade should look like, and you've stated that the programmatic considerations are "secondary".
Click to expand...

Secondary to this discussion, which has centred around the building's aesthetics, yes. You're still trying to pretend that the two can not, ever, be separated and that any conversation involving cladding material must necessarily also involve placement of washrooms and ticket kiosks.

This statement is rather rich though: "based solely on the degree to which the AGO's exterior supposedly fails to measure up to your demand for a spectacular facade, without saying what that facade should look like"

You're very nearly trying to suggest that I should redesign the building first, before being able to comment negatively on it. Is that why you're so reflexive (and so forthcoming) with praise? Are you afraid if you speak your mind someone will rope you in to correct these mistakes? Or are you so beholden to Starchitects that you're willing to accept whatever pablum they half-heartedly mix-up for you? Maybe you're so unsure of your own tastes that you're willing to let them be subverted by these big men? I mean, if THEY like it, it HAS to be good, right?
 
To break the monotony, ladies and germs, here are some (poorly) scanned pictures from this month's Toronto Life magazine. Sorry about the fact that they're generally trimmed and truncated - my scanner is only so big. Nonetheless, enjoy.

img002.jpg




img003.jpg




img004.jpg




img006.jpg
 
Ziggy said:
Well, I tend to prefer minimalism.

pimp5.jpg
Click to expand...

Fair enough, but one can become pretty confined, creatively speaking, if one is so terrified of the above that one is endlessly personally self-limited to plain, basic black...so to speak. In hindsight all successful 'expressionist' forms seem somewhat self-evident, but this is to completely dismiss the massive leap of faith required; where there is no risk, there is little or no reward...

I feel the AGO *is* a leap of faith in that a new form of Gehry spectacle is on offer. As for the FSC? Not so much. It is an attractive (on one facade, at least), stylish (on one facade, at least), simple and elegant building-on-a- budget that is the definition of 'safe' and 'acceptable'. It is the little black dress you can always rely on. This is not a crime, but it is somewhat incongruent to the long-held expectations people had for it.
 
Tewder said:
I feel the AGO *is* a leap of faith in that a new form of Gehry spectacle is on offer. As for the FSC? Not so much. It is an attractive (on one facade, at least), stylish (on one facade, at least), simple and elegant building-on-a- budget that is the definition of 'safe' and 'acceptable'. It is the little black dress you can always rely on. This is not a crime, but it is somewhat incongruent to the long-held expectations people had for it.
Click to expand...

Depends which "people". In fact, I'd imagine that most are/were as "neutral" as the building itself.

So it's Feist, rather than Winehouse. And AGO's a Feist-i-fied Gehry. But TKTKTK's making Feist out to be Celine Dion or something...
 
Which "people" indeed - not anyone who gets out much, or who takes their nose out of foreign archiporn magazines in the privacy of their parent's suburban basement, I suspect.
 
You must log in or register to post here.

Back
Top