Toronto building boom

[Riverdale Rink Rat]

Hey, I enjoy a good scratch too every now and then... 'k' is used commonly enough to be acceptable, imo. K= kilo = thousand... you do the math!

I did. You didn't. That is STILL my point.

500 * 1000 (k) = 500,000. Not 500,000,000. Which is what you meant. Which is abbreviated M. Which means that you should have wrote $500M.

 

[freshcutgrass]

So let me see now, you like 'art' but only if we don't pay too much for it and as long as there isn't something else more 'functional' that we could spend the equivalent money on, and as long as it doesn't run over budget?

Let's see...no....no....and....no.

but to suggest that MP is a failure and a waste because of them is to lose perspective, plain and simple.

Nope...I'm saying the "legacy" didn't provide the civic boost you seem to think it has. And the negative effects to the city as a result of it are just as much of a legacy.

I'm not completely against the idea of White Elephants, but I'm just picky about them.

 

[Tewder]

I did. You didn't. That is STILL my point.

500 * 1000 (k) = 500,000. Not 500,000,000. Which is what you meant. Which is abbreviated M. Which means that you should have wrote $500M.

You are absolutely right, and thanks for the correction... if only we were talking about $500K!

As a sidebar though... is 'm' truly the abbreviation of 'million' or is it 'mm'? I often see 'm' and 'k' used interchangeably.

 

[Ladies Mile]

Unless you're a bread-not-circuses debunker sort, of course.

Or unless you are able to recognize substandard, literal-minded "playing to the gallery" cynicism.

I have no problem with investment in monumental sculpture and think it has served Chicago generally pretty well--think of the popularity of the Picasso, which is also a work that bears repeat viewing. But MP is, largely, the dumbing-down of that tradition to a level of mass tepidity. Even well-intentioned elements such as the Burnham colonnade are barely plausible as theme-wedding decorations.

The Kapoor is the one element that really hits the high note, IMO.

 

[Riverdale Rink Rat]

You are absolutely right, and thanks for the correction... if only we were talking about $500K!

As a sidebar though... is 'm' truly the abbreviation of 'million' or is it 'mm'? I often see 'm' and 'k' used interchangeably.

Some english-speaking folks use mn (i.e. $10mn) for million. Small 'm' is 1/1000 (milli-, as in 1mm is one millimeter.) A small k is always kilo (x100), a big K is degrees Kelvin, rather than a numerical suffix. Big M (Mega) is 'add six zeros.'

 

[Tewder]

Or unless you are able to recognize substandard, literal-minded "playing to the gallery" cynicism.

I have no problem with investment in monumental sculpture and think it has served Chicago generally pretty well--think of the popularity of the Picasso, which is also a work that bears repeat viewing. But MP is, largely, the dumbing-down of that tradition to a level of mass tepidity. Even well-intentioned elements such as the Burnham colonnade are barely plausible as theme-wedding decorations.

The Kapoor is the one element that really hits the high note, IMO.

Let's not judge MP too glibly. The Crown Fountain hits a wonderful note too, and the Lurie Garden is quite spectacular... and if the Pritzker or some other elements aren't to your taste or are too passé for you just give it some time and perspective. MP was designed to last the ages and how it is viewed 100 years from now will certainly be different than how an internet poster views it now, less than a decade after it's been open.

... and as interesting as it may be to deconstruct the various elements of MP you are missing something if you aren't able to put it into its wider context, how the elements play together and how it interconnects with its surroundings. It's like trying to appreciate Central Park without looking at the interplay with the built form that surrounds it. It's myopia, pure and simple... and sorry for the NYC reference. I know the place is anathema to you.

 

[freshcutgrass]

and as interesting as it may be to deconstruct the various elements of MP you are missing something if you aren't able to put it into its wider context, how the elements play together and how it interconnects with its surroundings.

But that's where it actually falls apart. It's an theme park put together with a shopping list...too affected. As the "grand gesture" to celebrate the Millennium, it doesn't project the desired effect (beyond the fact that it was 4 years late for the millennium). Buying a bunch of consumer-approved celebrity-branded art and plunking them all in one site with the intention to overwhelm you is not the home-run concept you seem to think it is. If most of these items had been placed individually elsewhere, I think it would have had a better collective impact.

In this sense, I find it very similar to Yorkville Park, which as a concept, is more geniune IMO.

 

[Urban Shocker]

Also cf. Calatrava at BCE (and Mimico)

And we're an early adopter city in all sorts of other ways too, not just architectural, a sort of gateway culture for the continent in the sense that our music audiences, for instance, welcomed punk, and those early new wave bands from the U.K., very early on - and more recently provided venues for a classical musician such as Montreal's Yannick Nezet-Seguin ( could there be a hotter conductor anywhere, now? ) to thrill local audiences years before his "arrival" at the Met, and in Europe. I think that what underlies the Chicago/Toronto comparisons that crop up now and then on the forum is the difference between our more dynamic upwards trajectory compared to their approach. I think Millennium Park is a perfect representation of their "monumental" way of doing things, just as Harbourfriont, being considerably less grandiose, is sooo Toronto. It doesn't matter to me if Chicago overpaid for their big shiny bean ( the art market is so up and down all the time anyway ... ), nor do I think we missed the boat in getting an early and somewhat obscure Kapoor, since they're both representative examples of the different approaches taken in both cities.

 

[freshcutgrass]

And we're an early adopter city in all sorts of other ways too, not just architectural, a sort of gateway culture for the continent

And to think less than 50 years ago, the opposite was true. Toronto arrived puking and mewling into the modern age with the arrival of The Archer. Givens lost an election over it (despite it not costing the City a cent to purchase, ship or even instal).

 

[Tewder]

But that's where it actually falls apart. It's an theme park put together with a shopping list...too affected. As the "grand gesture" to celebrate the Millennium, it doesn't project the desired effect (beyond the fact that it was 4 years late for the millennium). Buying a bunch of consumer-approved celebrity-branded art and plunking them all in one site with the intention to overwhelm you is not the home-run concept you seem to think it is. If most of these items had been placed individually elsewhere, I think it would have had a better collective impact.

In this sense, I find it very similar to Yorkville Park, which as a concept, is more geniune IMO.

I would disagree. Your impression of MP as an amusement park - which would imply isolation and disconnection - leads me to believe you've never been to MP and so I must ask whether you have or not??

If you've been to MP you will understand how central it is and how connected with the city and waterfront. As with Central Park there is a strong dialogue between the park and the built form of Michigan Avenue, the park and the architecture of the Loop, the park and the waterfront/Navy Pier, and the park and the Art Institute, etc...

As for judging the public art and architecture on display there I would reiterate my response to Ladies Mile which is to say 'chill', come back and judge it in 100 years (well if you could). As populist and immensely popular as the park is now it will take on a different importance over time, as all things do. It's a little like those around here who say 'enough with the aA/Clewes already, it's so passé!' Again, it's myopia.

... and as for embarrassing delays remember your position here as you enjoy Fort York's bicentennial project visitor centre in about, oh 2016?!

 

[freshcutgrass]

I would disagree.

I'M SHOCKED!!!

ha ha

Your impression of MP as an amusement park - which would imply isolation and disconnection

But I didn't call it that, or make that implication. You're just making that up in your head. The "theme park with a shopping list" implied something else entirely.

If you've been to MP you will understand how central it is and how connected with the city and waterfront.

I'm gonna have to disagree (are you shocked? ha ha)

MP does revitalize what was a dead zone, and in that sense it is successful. But it is an "annex" of Grant Park, which is a fine park, but has its downsides...which is that it isn't contiguous. It is surrounded and bisected by large, busy streets, making access a bit of a pain. It's more like a "string" of parks. It's an example of how "proximity" doesn't necessarily mean good "connection". If MP was so wonderfully connected to the city, it would't require two pedestrian bridges to get there. But i'm slightly nit-pickingng here...the site is the site...not much van be done about it.

As populist and immensely popular as the park is now it will take on a different importance over time, as all things do.

Besides questioning your idea of what constitutes "immensely popular" (again...HC draws 4 times the attendance), I'd say the opposite may very well be true. MP is about hype and flash, and that always tends to wear off over time. What determines attendance is not how many people want to spend time looking at a giant $23 million bean, but the events, festivals and programs that take place there. As long as they can keep people coming there with those, then yes, it may retain or even increase its popularity with locals and tourists.

The Pritzker Pavilion is a good outdoor concert venue, so as long as the programs keep the people coming...great. The main problem may be MP's year-round ability to attract people. I'm not sure the ice rink is enough. It also has only one restaurant (and attached to a scandal).

The Harris Theatre, while not adding much to the architectural/design aesthetics of the park, is actually a much needed city venue for smaller performances. I'd rank the Harris Theatre as one of the more important attractions at MP.

The one thing MP has that I would very much like to see something similar at HC, is the McDonald's Cycle Center.

 

[adma]

Essentially, regardless of the actual quality of the elements, the reason why MP "resonates" with certain sorts the way that HC might not is akin to why Evita and Les Miz "resonates" with certain sorts the way that independent theatre might not. It's got "oooh". It's got "aaah". A lot of people need that "oooh" and "aaah" to feel that they got their money's worth.

 

[Ladies Mile]

Let's not judge MP too glibly. The Crown Fountain hits a wonderful note too, and the Lurie Garden is quite spectacular... and if the Pritzker or some other elements aren't to your taste or are too passé for you just give it some time and perspective. MP was designed to last the ages and how it is viewed 100 years from now will certainly be different than how an internet poster views it now, less than a decade after it's been open.

... and as interesting as it may be to deconstruct the various elements of MP you are missing something if you aren't able to put it into its wider context, how the elements play together and how it interconnects with its surroundings. It's like trying to appreciate Central Park without looking at the interplay with the built form that surrounds it. It's myopia, pure and simple... and sorry for the NYC reference. I know the place is anathema to you.

I think Central Park is a masterpiece. But part of its quality is the ability Vaux & Olmstead had to parcel out the visuals into independent "zones." They were able to do this with very small spaces too, as their park system in Boston shows.

MP is "family buffet" style-monumental: what you see is what you get--and you see all of it at once, a la Thanksgiving dinner. The effect is simply too jarring--it's like a literal version of a surrealist painting minus the pathological elements that make Surrealism a unique form of art.

Again, the one element that does address the streetscape is the Cloud Gate, which is brilliantly sited and beautifully mounted. Freshcutgrass's dismissal of it as a "bean" is the sort of philistine blow-off leveled at any abstract sculpture anywhere.

 

[adma]

Again, the one element that does address the streetscape is the Cloud Gate, which is brilliantly sited and beautifully mounted. Freshcutgrass's dismissal of it as a "bean" is the sort of philistine blow-off leveled at any abstract sculpture anywhere.

Actually, the "bean" label has become pretty universal shorthand, and more affectionate than dismissive. Sort of like The Gherkin in London.

It's at times like that, Ladies Mile, when you're like a counter-phillistine relative to the so-called philistines. You might as well be a symphony orchestra enthusiast sneering at that puerile she-loves-you-yeah-yeah-yeah teenage music...

 

[freshcutgrass]

Actually, the "bean" label has become pretty universal shorthand, and more affectionate than dismissive.

Well, my "big, shiny $23 million bean" comment wasn't intended to be either....it was just humour at the expense of Kappor's work (which I like) to make a different point....which at no time dismissed any art at MP.