Ah yes and there are those select few forumers who maintain an elitist attitude and dismiss the rest as ignorant of what constitutes good architecture and urbanism. They know what is best as their opinions are indeed facts. They pine over architects like Mies because his brilliance is not easily recognizable to the common folk. The subtly is lost and most will dismiss his work as plain boxes missing Mies’ design aesthetic. This ignorance feeds their self-importance and helps maintain their smugness. Much like the art, film and music world, elitists have a general disdain for anything that is populist. If the common folk admire it, it isn’t worthy. Gehry is on the opposite spectrum of Mies. Mies’ designs were all about form follows function, while Gehry is all about function follows form. Mies was all about subtle nuances; Gehry’s designs are audacious and in your face. They believe that the great unwashed who appreciate accessible designs are incapable of admiring other forms or understanding the sum of all parts that constitutes great architecture. They paint all with the same broad brush and prefer to hurl indirect insults rather than enter into a dialogue to support their position.
Yet you're overlooking an even more vivid element in the preference of so-called common folk *and* select "elitists" alike, and one that's taken a prominent role in this thread:
heritage. The existing built fabric. And these Doors Open-ing days, that's a category that can encompass not only "old buildings" but new or new-ish stuff like Mies *and* Gehry. And in that light, leaving aside the to-preserve-or-not-to-preserve arguments specific to Mirvish/Gehry in this location...
...what on earth is the problem with an everyday, magnanimous architectural/urban conoisseurship that can encompass Mies, and Gehry, and the older building fabric which surrounds us?!?
And that's directed *both* to you *and* to Traynor. Why should everything be either/or? Or, come to think of it (and this is more related to yourself), why be so dependent upon "big, impressive" projects? Believe it or not, "common folk" can be attracted to or perfectly accepting of or even protective of common, aged, bygone fabric--and that's a big reason why heritage is a
popular tourist draw, or why people lament when they see old pictures of "lost Toronto", or why they can, yes, empathize with the argument for the existing Mirvish properties, Gehry notwithstanding. In practice, you'll find a *lot* of people saying "gee whiz, too bad this stuff has to go"--a lot more than those saying "they're plain, ugly, obsolete old warehouses and a dull PoMo theatre, they've all had their day, good riddance".
And from here, we go to Traynor's quote...
Furthermore I don't believe these designs will hold up through time and be considered classic. Almost ALL classic architecture holds up through time and even spawns a revival of one kind or another. Two hundred years from now will we see Crumpled Revival or Neo-Crumpled? I think not. I think this style will go the way of the Blue Velvet Tuxedo: Once the height of fashion and avant-garde but considered kitschy and amusing now.
And yet: even a lot of that so-called "kitschy and amusing" (or even worse, considering the urban-disaster rep a lot of modernist urbanism has earned) has wound up crossing back over into being legitimate preservationist rallying points...largely as a response to the ham-handed thoughtlessness behind such kneejerk judgment...
