Toronto Paintbox | ?m | 26s | Daniels | Diamond Schmitt

[condovo]

Diamond + Schmitt never misses an opportunity to miss an opportunity. Predictable, joyless, orthodox D + S building. Too bad this wasn't handled by Kohn Shnier or Will Alsop.

 

[cassius]

It looks like it takes a few queues from the Opera Centre at Queen & University. Also, that spiral staircase is pretty nifty. Hopefully that makes it through to the final constructed design.

 

[Urban Shocker]

Good design to the rescue - though, as the ever-modest Jack Diamond pointed out in his talk at the Reference Library a few months ago, architects can at best enhance a dynamic that is already working and can't create a social dynamic through design.

Success stories such as the Regent Park School of Music, which may move into this place, are part of the existing local dynamic. There's something nicely democratic in the shared forms of sensible Modernism that our best local firms work with - applied equally to aA's nearbye Regent Park condos, KPMB's ballet school, D+S's Community Health Centre at Dundas and Parliament, or their unpretentious, practical, and popular new home at Queen and University for Canada's leading opera and ballet companies.

 

[condovo]

Good design to the rescue - though, as the ever-modest Jack Diamond pointed out in his talk at the Reference Library a few months ago, architects can at best enhance a dynamic that is already working and can't create a social dynamic through design.

Of course he'd say that. The guy has no imagination.

Success stories such as the Regent Park School of Music, which may move into this place, are part of the existing local dynamic. There's something nicely democratic in the shared forms of sensible Modernism that our best local firms work with - applied equally to aA's nearbye Regent Park condos, KPMB's ballet school, D+S's Community Health Centre at Dundas and Parliament, or their unpretentious, practical, and popular new home at Queen and University for Canada's leading opera and ballet companies.

But there is no existing local dynamic here. It's entirely new. That's the promise of Regent Park's renewal that's being squandered here à-la-Corus Quay. Also, this is an art centre for crying out loud. Enough already with sensible Modernism.

 

[Urban Shocker]

There are a number of cultural groups, including the School of Music, operating in that neighbourhood. Diamond, being the It Boy of cultural building design right now, will doubtless produce a centre that works as well for Regent Park's artists and audiences as Washington's celebrated Harman Hall does for that city, or the new Mariinsky Theatre will do for the arts community and audiences in St. Petersburg.

 

[AlvinofDiaspar]

condovo:

But there is no existing local dynamic here. It's entirely new. That's the promise of Regent Park's renewal that's being squandering here à-la-Corus Quay. Also, this is an art centre for crying out loud. Enough already with sensible Modernism.

Where did you read that renewal of Regent Park equate to having crazy architecture? Come to think of it, another well known renewal project in Toronto - St. Lawerence - is filled with examples of sensible Modernism and it is working just fine, thank you very much.

AoD

 

[CanadianNational]

Diamond, being the It Boy of cultural building design right now, will doubtless produce a centre that works as well for Regent Park's artists and audiences as Washington's celebrated Harman Hall does for that city, or the new Mariinsky Theatre will do for the arts community and audiences in St. Petersburg.

Well, that's a lovely, lofty bit of speculative hankering. But this is to be a local neighbourhood arts center, not an iconic civic symbol. With markedly less funding per square foot.

It looks - like Corus before it - a dead-ringer for basic functionalism. Though the rendering is already promising more than it can deliver - that glassless, wall-less aerie around the (perhaps-to-be) spiral staircase, for example. Maybe in looks it will end up gracing the area at least as well as his medical building around the corner. We shall see. It'd be good to see some more renderings and floorplans, etc., before praising or damning it too much.

Jack designs solid, if unexciting buildings. I'm glad Regent Parks is getting this, and I hope it turns out well. Depending on what's inside and how it's handled, it could work very well.

 

[condovo]

condovo:

Where did you read that renewal of Regent Park equate to having crazy architecture? Come to think of it, another well known renewal project in Toronto - St. Lawerence - is filled with examples of sensible Modernism and it is working just fine, thank you very much.

AoD

Who says it has to be crazy? Playful and joyful, however, would be nice for a community arts centre. Even Jack seems to agree, albeit reluctantly of course, as evidenced by those quirky stairs he slotted in as an afterthought. And, yes, St. Lawrence works very well. It's quite, um, serviceable.

 

[AlvinofDiaspar]

condovo:

The point being - just how does a serviceable piece of architecture lead to the promise of Regent Park being squandered? The last time I checked, the main promise is liberating the ghetto, no?

As to the building being playful or otherwise, I'd rather leave it up to those who will be using it to decide.

AoD

 

[condovo]

condovo:

The point being - just how does a serviceable piece of architecture lead to the promise of Regent Park being squandered? The last time I checked, the main promise is liberating the ghetto, no?

As to the building being playful or otherwise, I'd rather leave it up to those who will be using it to decide.

AoD

Well, it's likely users will decide only once the building's a fait accompli. The idea is to generate discussion now, before it's built, to produce something better. Hopefully, such a process is underway though it appears to be a done deal. And, of course, just by its scale, the promise of Regent Park, like the waterfront, extents well beyond the immediate neighbourhood to the rest of the city too. Surely, Toronto has enough serviceable pieces of architecture already.

 

[AlvinofDiaspar]

Well, likely users will decide only once it's a fait accompli. The idea is to generate discussion now, before it's built, to produce something better.

Better for whom, may I ask? The organizations that have put in significant time and resources to come up with the plan - or someone who really haven't had much of a stake in the outcomes other than the lack of eyecandy? And in case you haven't noticed, this is a stimulus project - time is of the essence.

And, of course, the promise of Regent Park, like the waterfront, extents well beyond the immediate neighbourhood to liberating the rest of the city too.

And just how did the project as proposed lead to that liberation being forestalled? As far as I am concerned, Corus didn't lead to the East Bayfront turning into a dump; nor will a D+S community arts centre lead to the wholescale failure of the Regent Park project. If the underlying plans are that sensitive to the shortcoming of single buildings, then you know what - it is the plans that are messed up more than anything else.

Surely, Toronto has enough serviceable pieces of architecture already.

And quite a crop of atrocious ones in the private realm too, perhaps more would be gained from directing one's energy to deal with THAT sector? Where's the call the arms to banish those instead of this unhealthy fixation on how everything must be a masterpiece regardless of resource limitations? Like seriously, the litany of complaints on this what, $28M community level project sounded like someone who wanted to get a Gehry for a community centre but not wanting to foot the bill for it.

AoD

 

[condovo]

Better for whom, may I ask?

Better for everyone.

The organizations that have put in significant time and resources to come up with the plan - or someone who really haven't had much of a stake in the outcomes other than the lack of eyecandy? And in case you haven't noticed, this is a stimulus project - time is of the essence.

Well, perhaps it should have been handled by a more capable firm.

And just how did the project as proposed lead to that liberation being forestalled?

I've already argued that point in the posts above. You may want to refer to the discussion on Corus Quay as well.

And quite a crop of atrocious one in the private realm too, perhaps more would be gained from directing one's energy to deal with THAT sector?
AoD

Both private and public sectors are fair game for criticism.

Like seriously, the litany of complaints on this what, $28M community level project sounded like someone who wanted to get a Gehry for a community centre but not wanting to foot the bill for it.

I doubt Kohn Shnier's Claude Watson School for the Arts, for example, had a Gehry-sized budget.

 

[AlvinofDiaspar]

condovo:

Better for everyone.

Really? So reopening the call for proposals, having an entirely new architectural selection process with a focus on the exterior appearance of the building will be better for everyone even with the very obvious risk of delays? That's not to mention the tradeoff that architectural flourish will exact on the rest of the programme.

Well, perhaps it should have been handled by a more capable firm.

Like who, exactly? KPMB? Another proven firm in the area? I am afraid even that's pretty "boring".

I've already argued that point in the posts above. You may want to refer to the discussion on Corus Quay as well.

You haven't shown me an iota of evidence as to how both projects managed to destroy either plans. Rhetoric and bruised egos nothwithstanding, the world didn't end in either case.

Both private and public sectors are fair game for criticism.

It's not about public or private - it's about dealing with competent vs. truly incompetent architecture with horrendous public realm effects.

I doubt Kohn Shnier's Claude Watson School for the Arts, for example, had a Gehry-sized budget.

I happen to like that piece of architecture - but at the end of the day, just how significantly "better" is it? What you end up is differing architectural tastes, not competence. It's like comparing Libeskind to Gehry to Foster. (though yes, I have actually heard arguments that Kohn Shiner is actually "wanting" in terms of quality, see what I mean?) I would hope that one isn't saying that Claude Watson is better seeing a few honeycombs to an essentially boxy building. Beyond that, what if you are choosing between quality materials and boring design vs. cheap materials but interesting design? And how does that fit for the organization that will ultimately be responsible for maintaining the building? These are significant issues that a cursory look in renderings cannot inform.

And if you want to see another KS building - I would suggest the UTM student centre - and that's not a very pretty sight after all the years. And re: OCAD - I love the building, but have you even been inside and noticed how sh*tty it is? All the talk about industrial spaces that need to withstand abuse by students notwithstanding, it is NOT lovely by any means inside. Using this frame of analysis, OCAD is not a good building.

AoD

 

[condovo]

AoD, your points are well-articulated and most appreciated. I've made my arguments too, though perhaps not as well as you. I'll leave it at that for now. Great discussion!

 

[AlvinofDiaspar]

condovo:

Thanks. It is actually funny for me to argue for sufficient instead of exemplary architecture - but I think D+S is actually less of an issue here than something like the Opera House, where the show factor is a much more legitimate argument given the landmark nature of the building.

Oh well, in the meantime we still have to deal with those horribly built faux-Vics and precast disasters from hell.

AoD