Toronto Aga Khan Museum + Ismaili Centre | ?m | ?s | Aga Khan Dev. | Maki and Associates

alklay said:
And we are losing a decent piece of modern architecture which could have easily been incorporated into the plans, if they were forced to do such (as another building on the campus).
Click to expand...

In almost all seriousness, would it even be worth keeping if it's tokenly swallowed up by the museum/centre? Bata definitely strikes me as a building that would lose a lot by being contextually raped.
 
Very good point. But it would be less of a loss than its total destruction.

And with the right sightplan, it didn't have to be swallowed up.
 
Indeed, it could have stood discrete--far from "contextual rape". The perceived risk, I guess, is that the old might have distracted from the new...
 
This is always a difficult issue. It came up on the ROM thread, where CanadianNational and I both posted images of buildings close to other buildings, with different styles clashing as a result.

I also broached the topic on WNY a few weeks back.

The best way to do it, in my opinion, is Quadricci Pavillion at Milwaukee Art Museum - where this addition by Calatrava was far enough away to not negatively impact Eero Saarinen's original building, that sits on an elevated site and is connected to the Calatrava by a long runway designed not to upstage Saarinen, while allowing Calatrava to create an entirely different look.

In this Toronto case, the site and the vision will work decidedly against Bata. While we may get a breathtaking replacement, the loss of this earlier building should be felt by anyone who could appreciate its value to this city.
 
There's probably no reason why they couldn't have tastefully incorporated Bata into the complex somehow (especially if forced, I agree). Still, it's not really *gone* until the new complex is finished. At this point, perhaps we should hope Aga Khan won't disappoint...it'd make the loss of Bata so much more bitter.
 
walli said:
Hope you guys don't mind me sharing.
Click to expand...

No one here will EVER mind someone sharing information on here. As long as there isn't any name calling that is <wink>.
Thanks for all the info. Really useful. I can't wait for the project to be done (and hopefully the Eg. LRT to take me there).
 
walli said:
Second thing, and it relates to the point above, is that the Bata building really doesn't use the large site very well. While it looks very nice from Eglinton, is has this massive surface lot out back which is, frankly speaking, not only ugly but a real waste of space. I know some people are attached to this building and might be offended at this comment, but drive to the back there and you'll see. It is very much wasted space for a large city.
Click to expand...

Er, has anyone stated that saving Bata is contingent on saving the whole property as-is? *Obviously*, that "massive surface lot" offers itself to intensification or Aga Khan-ization.

Even the "project never completed" alibi is an asinine anti-retention argument in its own right--you might as well argue that Eaton's College should have been demolished because only a portion was built...
 
The two views are not necessarily divergent - there was enough room to build more on the site without touching Bata...I was talking more about Bata becoming a literal wing of the museum, or a facadectomy, etc., in which case demolition could be sort of a mercy killing. Destruction might be preferable to certain forms of alteration.
 
walli said:
The Aga Khan Museum project falls under the Aga Khan Trust for Culture, which itself is part of the Aga Khan Development Network. The link below is for the Aga Khan Trust for Culture 2007 brochure, which beyond talking about this museum, also talks about some of the other works of the AKTC:

http://www.akdn.org/aktc/AKTC_Brochure2007.pdf

It is important to note that the museum has been positioned not as only a passive institution, but one that also brings in performances and educates in an active manner. Read the above brochure within this context - IE the music initiatives, etcetera.
Click to expand...


Thanks for the information update. This project will be a major addition to the cultural institutions of the city. Looking forward to watching it unfold.
 
walli said:
My surface lot comment was more a comment on the level of urban planning thoughtfulness of the original Bata project. Land usage was not as big a thing back then, and I hope you agree that putting as much parking below ground is a good thing.
Click to expand...

Well, duh. It's a 1960s office-park type of building in a 1960s office-park type of setting. And as far as "level of urban planning thoughtfulness" goes, what really matters, from a modern-heritage standpoint, is its stance and visibility from the Eglinton-Don Mills interchange, plus a certain aspect of physical discreteness. Everything else is open to change--virtually *no* sane Bata defender has offered to preserve the surface lot et al.

Remember: your kind of argument could just as well have been used on behalf of a less thoughtful office/condo/townhouse "intensification" project than Aga Khan. Less thoughtful, perhaps under the guise of wouldbe urban-correct "thoughtfulness"--in which case, the argument against heritage retention becomes little better than any yahoo anti-1960s-modern boilerplate. You might as well be arguing that it didn't fit "heritage" calibre because it didn't have "historical detail", or it wasn't 100 years old, et al...
 
As beautiful as the Beta HQ was I don't see how it could gracefully fit into the AKM plans. For one, I think it was successful architecture in that it looked like an office building. It would've been nice to use it as office space for the museum/center but then you have the problem of an office building in the center of museum grounds. It's too bad you couldn't move a building--it is beautiful.
But so will the new building. I'm especially excited about the open public space. I can't think of any museums in Toronto that have this. The entrances of both Power Plant and the Science Center have parking lots. The Gardiner Museum has a small, underused space out front. The Bata S.M., AGO and ROM have essentially wide sidewalks.
On a side note (but possibly more important), AKM is advertising Toronto as a cultural destination from within world class international institutions. Unbelievable! I still don't quite know how Toronto was lucky enough to get picked for this project. You don't often hear, if ever, Toronto being mentioned as a runner up to London. Toronto is quite lucky that London politicians didn't bend to their requests.
 
jaymckay said:
As beautiful as the Beta HQ was I don't see how it could gracefully fit into the AKM plans. For one, I think it was successful architecture in that it looked like an office building. It would've been nice to use it as office space for the museum/center but then you have the problem of an office building in the center of museum grounds. It's too bad you couldn't move a building--it is beautiful.
Click to expand...

Actually, Bata *didn't* look so exclusively like an office building; its templar form could easily have re-conveyed itself as an museological-or-otherwise institution...

You might as well say the Tate Modern wouldn't have been successful because the premises looked too much like a power plant;-)
 
You must log in or register to post here.

Back
Top