Toronto building boom

[Ladies Mile]

MP is straight-up awful from stem to stern.

I don't know why this isn't obvious to anybody possessed of two eyeballs and an undamaged brain.

 

[adma]

MP is straight-up awful from stem to stern.

I don't know why this isn't obvious to anybody possessed of two eyeballs and an undamaged brain.

Quite fatally subjective of you, given the overall context. As an indicator of why, substitute "Boston City Hall" for "Millennium Park", and you get a quite common (in every sense of the word) judgment--and one which I adore torpedoing now and again...

 

[Register123]

Ladies Mile's opinions don't hold much cred, she/he seems to love to pick apart anything south of the border. Why she/he chooses to live in that disgusting , shabby , rundown midtown Manhattan I'll never understand. She/he must not have too many American friends down there must be awfully lonely.....

 

[Thanos]

MP is straight-up awful from stem to stern.

I don't know why this isn't obvious to anybody possessed of two eyeballs and an undamaged brain.

I'm pretty sure LM meant to say HC.
Because Millenium Park and awful should never be used in the same sentence.

 

[adma]

Because Millenium Park and awful should never be used in the same sentence.

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

 

[Tewder]

Tax dollars vs private donors doesn't matter...the point is either could have been better re-directed to other projects where better value for money spent could have been realized.

... and we're back to 'bread vs circuses' again. For some of us public art is bread man, not circuses, which is sort of the fundamental difference that counts.

... and for somebody who is so critical of how public money is spent you seem to play pretty cavalier with the difference between 500K and 200K!

No it doesn't. You're implying there is nothing left worthy of investing in except this $1/2 billion project, which is of course, absurd. I guess Chicago has been "perfected" to the point that all there is left to do is install big, shiny $23 million beans.

It's clear you do not value art (it's just a bean!), that you view it as an extravagance and a waste, which sort of puts your whole position regarding the public realm in perspective for us. I mean, who cares if sidewalks are stained with gum and patched with asphalt as long as you can walk on them, that about right??

What is it that makes MP so "grand"? It's size or location falls short of "grand". Take away the Gehry roof of the $60 million bandshell and the big shiny, $23 million bean, and you begin to see the emperor has no clothes. Start looking at what is actually there, and things just don't add up..

MP 'falls short of grand'... LOL, as long as you're being objective about this!

Look, it's clear that things don't 'add up' from your perspective because we've already established that it's one that doesn't value art or the public realm. Fountains don't have to work for you and the idea that a community might spend money on a public space whose primary function is to feature art, design and architecture (as part of a bigger picture that does have other cultural and civic functions) is completely lost on you. We get it.

 

[Riverdale Rink Rat]

... and for somebody who is so critical of how public money is spent you seem to play pretty cavalier with the difference between 500K and 200K!

I know this is nitpicking, but it's one of those things that drives me nuts, so I'm going to pick the nit: k (kilo) = 10^^3, so you're saying this is the difference between $500,000 and $200,000 when you mean $500M and $200M M (mega) = 10^^6.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/International_System_of_Units

That itch having been scratched (sorry), if you were in Toronto and wanted to get the private sector to throw $300M at something, would it be a park at Harbourfront? As opposed to completing Downsview, building Sheppard subway, re-jigging the Don River to kick start the Portlands? Harbourfront and the central waterfront is leaps and bounds better than it was even ten years ago, and needs to continue its renaissance -- the re-jigging of QQ will be a huge step forward. But we need to throw $500M at it like we need a hole in the head.

 

[freshcutgrass]

... and we're back to 'bread vs circuses' again. For some of us public art is bread man, not circuses, which is sort of the fundamental difference that counts.

Nope...it's circus vs circus. If you've got me pegged as a "bread" guy, then my suspicion that you haven't payed careful attention to anything I've said is correct.

... and for somebody who is so critical of how public money is spent you seem to play pretty cavalier with the difference between 500K and 200K!

As I've already mentioned, it doesn't matter where the money comes from...it was a city-directed project. I'm not criticizing MP, but the choice to throw all their eggs in one basket, and borrowing more than half of the eggs to do it. And if you want to get more specific with the numbers, the city is on the hook for $270 million of it...all borrowed or redirected funds for other things. This was a bad move on the part of Daley. I'm not against a city going all out for a blockbuster at all....but not at any cost. To be fair, this was a situation that got out of hand from the original plan, but that does not excuse it.

It's clear you do not value art (it's just a bean!)

What's clear, is you have not picked up on the spirit of my message. Nothing could be farther from the truth. And you obviously haven't had time to come down from your rant high to see the what I thought was obvious humour I like to interject. If I were anti-art, I probably wouldn't be mentioning Jeff Koons in the discussion.

MP 'falls short of grand'... LOL, as long as you're being objective about this! Look, it's clear that things don't 'add up' from your perspective because we've already established that it's one that doesn't value art or the public realm.

That's the thing...I am the one being subjective...I've made a case. You're the one who hasn't gotten your head out of clouds long enough to be objective about it.

I like Gehry and Kapoor, and would probably rationalize getting this stuff more rigorously than the average guy. If both had been done on the $16 million they were supposed to cost, it would be quite easy to justify it. But to pay $83 million for them is sheer stupidity, and I wouldn't pay that no matter how much I loved them, even if I had the money (and Chicago didn't).

Fountains don't have to work for you and the idea that a community might spend money on a public space whose primary function is to feature art, design and architecture (as part of a bigger picture that does have other cultural and civic functions) is completely lost on you. We get it.

Pffft....you're just still putting words in my mouth...making false accusations. Not worth dignifying.

 

[Urban Shocker]

I like Gehry and Kapoor, and would probably rationalize getting this stuff more rigorously than the average guy. If both had been done on the $16 million they were supposed to cost, it would be quite easy to justify it. But to pay $83 million for them is sheer stupidity, and I wouldn't pay that no matter how much I loved them, even if I had the money (and Chicago didn't).

I don't know how much was paid for Toronto's outdoor Kapoor sculpture - which dates from 1995 - but, as with the two local examples of Mark di Suvero's work, which were also acquired early/mid career, I think it's worth pointing out that our status as a canny "early adopter" city, rather than one intent on accumulating trophies and monuments by big name artists once they've become reeely, reely famous, has probably allowed us to acquire significant examples of their work for a comparatively modest price.

 

[freshcutgrass]

rather than one intent on accumulating trophies and monuments by big name artists once they've become reeely, reely famous

The Texas phrase for that is...all hat and no cattle.

I think it's worth pointing out that our status as a canny "early adopter" city

You gain a lot more than just value for your art buck when you make it a policy to recognize and acquire up and coming talent.

 

[Johnny Au]

I don't know how much was paid for Toronto's outdoor Kapoor sculpture - which dates from 1995 - but, as with the two local examples of Mark di Suvero's work, which were also acquired early/mid career, I think it's worth pointing out that our status as a canny "early adopter" city, rather than one intent on accumulating trophies and monuments by big name artists once they've become reeely, reely famous, has probably allowed us to acquire significant examples of their work for a comparatively modest price.

What is Toronto's outdoor Kapoor sculpture and where is it?

 

[freshcutgrass]

The aluminum "mountain" (it's untitled) beside CBC.

 

[adma]

I don't know how much was paid for Toronto's outdoor Kapoor sculpture - which dates from 1995 - but, as with the two local examples of Mark di Suvero's work, which were also acquired early/mid career, I think it's worth pointing out that our status as a canny "early adopter" city, rather than one intent on accumulating trophies and monuments by big name artists once they've become reeely, reely famous, has probably allowed us to acquire significant examples of their work for a comparatively modest price.

Also cf. Calatrava at BCE (and Mimico)

 

[Tewder]

I know this is nitpicking, but it's one of those things that drives me nuts, so I'm going to pick the nit: k (kilo) = 10^^3, so you're saying this is the difference between $500,000 and $200,000 when you mean $500M and $200M M (mega) = 10^^6.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/International_System_of_Units

That itch having been scratched (sorry), if you were in Toronto and wanted to get the private sector to throw $300M at something, would it be a park at Harbourfront? As opposed to completing Downsview, building Sheppard subway, re-jigging the Don River to kick start the Portlands? Harbourfront and the central waterfront is leaps and bounds better than it was even ten years ago, and needs to continue its renaissance -- the re-jigging of QQ will be a huge step forward. But we need to throw $500M at it like we need a hole in the head.

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!

 

[Tewder]

Nope...it's circus vs circus. If you've got me pegged as a "bread" guy, then my suspicion that you haven't payed careful attention to anything I've said is correct.

What's clear, is you have not picked up on the spirit of my message. Nothing could be farther from the truth. And you obviously haven't had time to come down from your rant high to see the what I thought was obvious humour I like to interject.

My fault for not picking up on the subtleties of your posting style! 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?... oh and it has to be an unknown artist so we can get a bargain and demonstrate how cutting edge we are. Ok, I get it now. In that harsh light MP is clearly a boondoogle failure.

As I've already mentioned, it doesn't matter where the money comes from...it was a city-directed project. I'm not criticizing MP, but the choice to throw all their eggs in one basket, and borrowing more than half of the eggs to do it. And if you want to get more specific with the numbers, the city is on the hook for $270 million of it...all borrowed or redirected funds for other things. This was a bad move on the part of Daley. I'm not against a city going all out for a blockbuster at all....but not at any cost. To be fair, this was a situation that got out of hand from the original plan, but that does not excuse it.

It's more than fair to criticize the financing/politics and budget overruns. We are not immune to these issues in Toronto either... but to suggest that MP is a failure and a waste because of them is to lose perspective, plain and simple.