Toronto Four Seasons Centre for the Performing Arts | ?m | 5s | COC | Diamond Schmitt

subdued doesn't have to mean cheap looking.

If changing the cladding from brick to limestone was the only change made, the resulting exterior would be much better.
 
Despite Rochon's claim, the glass stairs do not reach Ring 5, so patrons cannot "manoeuvre down them" from there. There are two sets of stairs and elevators that lead down from Ring 5 - and both were in use on Wednesday and traffic moved just fine.

Ring 5 seats about 360 patrons. Ring 4 seats about 260. We're not talking about a Maple Leaf Gardens type pedestrian crush here!


MetroMan1000:

There you go again.

The COC doesn't need a building to "lure" people inside. The company has a strong subscriber base and productions last year were 95% sold out. The ROM and the AGO need starchitecture to "lure" casual passers-by in, but not the COC. I can assure you that subscribers such as myself don't need to be "convinced" to enter this building either. We put up with years of opera in the acoustical nightmare that is the Hummingbird Centre and are thrilled by the beautiful new house. People of the arts do, indeed, enjoy beauty.
 
I was there on the subscriber tour this morning, with my best friend who has just moved back to Toronto and who is subscribing with me this year. Now he's lived in Montreal, and Paris (where he instituted the Saturday habit of "chateau & a show"), Tokyo, New York, San Francisco and Santa Fe, and he said it was one of the most beautiful theatres he's ever seen, and probably the most spectacular building in the country.

And babel is right, of course. People don't go there for the bricks, people go for the music, and the dance, and the drama, and the sets, and the costumes.
 
ap: The "of course" is much appreciated.

And now, I'm off to do it all over again, this time in the company of my baritone friend - who knows opera inside and out and from both sides of the footlights ...

Over on the TSO site the new house is getting rave reviews from musicians.
 
And babel is right, of course. People don't go there for the bricks, people go for the music, and the dance, and the drama, and the sets, and the costumes.
Click to expand...

Yes, but when it comes to the *urban context* sphere, wouldn't this smack a little of narcissistic hubris? As in, "You don't like the way it looks? Sod you, you're not an opera fan." You might as well be justifying Harbour Square-style concrete condo bunkers on behalf of the residents--not that 4SC sinks to that level; but, you're still letting your opera-fan vested interest get the better of you.

Still, Lisa Rochon's critique of the exterior is kind of a weird one--almost more of an allusion to a critique, than a critique proper. (It's like the story headline says more than she does.)
 
You forget that Jack Diamond wasn't hired to create a superficial spectacle for people who admire glitzy decorated facades for their own sake. He was hired to build an excellent opera house, which is what he has done.
 
Again, I fail to see why it's either "starchitecture" or function. There is room for both interesting design and functionality.
 
SD:

Not when your budget is limited as it was for the Opera House. If it is either 6M for acoustic isolation or limestone, it's only natural (and right) that they chose the former.

AoD
 
It you were to, say, actually go to the Opera House, and take the tour, the guides will happily tell you that Jack Diamond decided early on that the building shouldn't be about him, but about the Opera, and that he gave the acousticians final say on design elements (balcony fronts, &c.) that affected the acoustics.

Some architects do still work for their clients, rather than for their own PR.
 
Another beautiful concert last night. We are so fortunate to have a great hall to showcase great voices. They repeated some of the pieces from the Gala - the beautiful duet from 'Lakme' being one of them, and the stirring chorus from 'Nebbuco'. There was a hypnotic quality to the evening - I think it'll take some time for our good fortune, as an audience, to actually sink in.

I was in the 13th row of the Orchestra. The sound is clear as a bell, and every modulation of voice and instrument is heard.

During the orchestral piece by Mussgorsky, the music flowed out and almost "inhabited" the auditorium like a separate entity. Extraordinary!

My baritone friend was in Ring 5. He has been to several of the great halls, and believes that ours is definitely one of the best. He says it is as good as the Royal Opera House Covent Garden, though perhaps the sound is rather dry compared to Munich - which is considered the very top, acoustically. He heard a CBC radio interview with Ben Heppner during the week which said much the same. We have 3 months before 'The Ring' opens - plenty of time for the orchestra and the singers to get used to how the hall plays, and fine tune for it, though this process could take up to a year.

Again, every cough or noise in the audience sounded quite loud.

Afterwards, we went across the street for a drink in the Hilton. They've had a lot more business in the past few days. We saw lots of post-concert stage door activity on Richmond Street - fans and autograph seekers.

A few quibbles:

* As usual, Bradshaw conducts a bit too loud in relation to the voices.
* I couldn't order a drink for intermission when I first arrived!

( I went to the open house today and chatted to one of the volunteers. He said that an acoustical report indicates that the very "best" seats are in the front row of Ring 3, just off centre! )
 
Another thing I realized last night is how democratic this building is, compared to the Hummingbird Centre.

In the Hummingbird, if you were close to the stage you were able to see, and to a limited extent even hear, a quite different concert from the people waaaaay up in the balcony, or at the back of the main floor.

Whereas in the Four Seasons Centre, based on my experience of sitting in both Ring 5 and the Orchestra level and the experiences of others I've spoken to - the sound is uniformly excellent everywhere.

The client - the COC - wisely instructed Jack Diamond and the acoustical designers to produce something the audience and performers actually need - a beautiful and acoustically superb hall that showcases sublime artistry. That it is set in a quietly dignified building rather than some vacuous shell designed to "lure" curious gawkers inside ( once, and once only, next weekend at the open house! ) is all the more credit to them. Bravo!
 
SD:

Not when your budget is limited as it was for the Opera House. If it is either 6M for acoustic isolation or limestone, it's only natural (and right) that they chose the former.

AoD
Click to expand...

I think they still could've got a better exterior design for this building, even with budget constraints.
 
I think they still could've got a better exterior design for this building, even with budget constraints.
Click to expand...

Maybe, maybe not. It's hard to say unless you're intimitely involved with the project. IMO, the real important question is, why was he so budget-constrained? Why are we (publicly or privately) so unwilling to invest in architecture in this city?
 
I think they still could've got a better exterior design for this building, even with budget constraints.
Click to expand...

That is, y'know, easy to say...
 
Maybe, maybe not. It's hard to say unless you're intimitely involved with the project. IMO, the real important question is, why was he so budget-constrained? Why are we (publicly or privately) so unwilling to invest in architecture in this city?
Click to expand...


That is, y'know, easy to say...
Click to expand...

True, but keep in mind, I said better. I didn't say more complex and/or elaborate.
 
You must log in or register to post here.

Back
Top