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

They repeated some of the pieces from the Gala - the beautiful duet from 'Lakme' being one of them, and the stirring chorus from 'Nebbuco'.
Click to expand...

I love Nabucco's 'va pensiero' chorus. I always thought that it should be the Italian national anthem. It was a revolutionary anthem during the Resorgemento and throngs spontaneously sang the chorus during Verdi's funeral procession in Milan. V.E.R.D.I. was also a revolutionary achronym for the Italian nationalists (Vittorio Emanuelle, Re d'Italia).
 
borgos:

There were small performances in the Bradshaw Aerial Ampetheatre at the open houses during the weekend. They will be doing the same next weekend, when the limestone fixated / gimme-a-starchitect-designed-loading-dock crowds roll up for their one and only visits.
 
adma:

Reading Rochon's review was like watching a ship slowly tacking to avoid hitting a half submerged rock. At first, it was full steam ahead for "the spectacular" exterior. Then, she sailed through the "good news" of the City Room, and into the calm waters of the beautiful performance of Verdi's 'Va Pensiero' where "The hall had entirely disappeared." and "there was nothing but the music that mattered."

I think that the rock she was in danger of running aground on was put there by her friend, who said he'd "go to opera in a cardboard box if the sound was good." This sobering truth forced her to turn the wheel hard to starboard and conclude lamely that the building was only "deceptively" ordinary on the outside, and that everything would be okay if "the whole maddening crowd" gets herded inside because "The future of opera and ballet depends on all those people who were absent on opening night." This bizarre claim isn't explained.

She comes face to face with the contradiction of advocating "the spectacular" for a building that works just fine, thank you very much, without it.
 
I don't think anyone is really now arguing that the building does not provide a great internal space for opera and ballet. Unfortunately that is only part of what the building is and in its other role, namely as an aesthetic exterior success for four corners of the city, it doesn't necessarily succeed.
 
But that imagined role is only imposed on it by you, and not by the people by whom and for whom it was built, and who judge it a complete, unqualified success.
 
But that imagined role is only imposed on it by you, and not by the people by whom and for whom it was built, and who judge it a complete, unqualified success.
Click to expand...

So let me get this straight...

1. The exterior aesthetics of the opera house are unimportant or an "imagined role" as long as the opera experience itself is successful.

2. The opera house was only built for people who like opera.

3. Those who do not like opera cannot comment on the building.

4. All opera-lovers deem the building a "complete, unqualified success".

Did I miss anything?
 
It is certainly not an imagined role. Every building, as long as it is on a public street and part of the urban realm, has this very important role.

A building has duties to both the people who have to pass it by everyday (the city and larger public) and to its users. To say that it works for the small percentage of the population who will use it as a theatre, and screw everybody else, is both arrogant and shortsighted. Imagine if every house or commercial building took this same attitude.
 
I agree with ganjivah and Alklay...especially considering quite a bit of public money and land were donated to make this project a reality.
 
Yes, ganja, you missed:

1. The opera house wasn't built for people who don't like opera.

2. The exterior aesthetics of the building are as much a part of the building as the interior aesthetics. The exterior acts as a complementary design opposite to the interior. The flash and fire and drama is inside, on stage, and the quiet, minimalist exterior sets you up for it. The public interior space - the City Room - is the transition between the two.

3. Those who do not understand the purpose or function of any building - not just this one - cannot intelligently comment on its success or failure, in either functional or aesthetic terms, since they have no sound basis for judgement.
 
But that imagined role is only imposed on it by you, and not by the people by whom and for whom it was built, and who judge it a complete, unqualified success.
Click to expand...

This is, really, rather trite.
I, as an avid opera afficionado, will no doubt be overjoyed by the quality of the musical experience when I finally grab my share of the remaining tickets for the Ring Cycle (now that I know I'll be in TO during that time). Indeed, given the glowing reviews presented by forum members and our cities journalistic and cultural intelligentsia, my expectations have been whetted to a fine point.
However, as pleased-as-punch as I will (no doubt) be, I adamantly refuse to accept the proposition that a building's sole role is its function. I agree that that is its most important role, and if it fails in function, than form is irrelevant, but that does not excuse a building from making overtures to the city at large, and to the people who populate it.
As such, criticisms of form are indeed valid points, even if the function is served impeccably. In this I acknowledge that different opinions will always engender some controversy, but I really don't think that, for most of us, that is the issue at play here. I for one feel that, all the talk of dissecting out functional elements and exposing them on in architectural form aside, this building does not succeed as a cultural beacon as most people would have it. I too, though pregnant with anticipation at savouring the music within, find the external aesthetic experience to be somewhat disappointing, if only because the design has certain strong elements which, however, fail to make up for lack of flair in the remainder.
Furthermore, I simply don't buy the arguement that "no one will see the York street facade" or "the Richmond street facade faces an unfriendly urban context" - the point is, I know those facades are there, and I see them regularly... and I'm sure many others do too.

Basically, I would like to know exactly how many of the FSC's defenders are true architectural purists, who honestly love the design, and how many are merely architectural apologists seeking to justify their (apparently well-placed) gratitude for a long-awaited home for opera in this city.
 
I love architecture, I love the Opera, I think it's an excellent building.

I frankly find the notion that the building's function is not its function absurd, to say the very least.
 
Junglab: Count me as a purist, for all the reasons I've been giving over the last couple of years, as this building has risen.

Beyond the beauty and functional success of the performance space, and the success of the exterior as a dignified and modestly Torontonian counterpoint to it, and the success of the City Room in mediating between the two, I am delighted that the loading dock has not been turned into some sort of grotesque and overblown starchitect "gateway to the backstage area" or something. It looks like what it is, a place to deliver stuff. Good! And the Richmond Street side, which is basically offices, hasn't been turned into some equally bloated "gateway to the unknown publicists and costume-sewers who toil in obscurity" or something. A few slitty windows, a ramp, a stage door and a continuation of the grey brick that gives unity to the entire form of the building is appropriate here. What is it about the "function" of wheeling crates of soft drinks, or racks of costumes hidden in garment bags, into the building, or the sight of mid-level opera functionaries occasionally getting up from their desks and going to the washroom or out to get a coffee, that so fascinates people that they think they have a right to see it showcased in full colour starchitecture? What "cultural beacon" of architectural "overtures" would you have made to the people of this city that would draw them to York Street, or Richmond Street, at all times of day and night to behold such fascinating activities?
 
The quality of the brickwork is kind of horrible, there's gaps and seams and whatnot everywhere. The Queen St. facade looks like shit compared to the University facade (not that it matters, that stretch of Queen is already hopeless...thank you chip trunks and Sheraton). The rest is fine.
 
Well, of course. Masonry facades always have seams, to allow for expansion and contraction. They also have gaps, called weeping holes, to allow any condensation that builds up behind the masonry to drip out. That's basic knowledge of the grade 11 drafting variety.

And the people who use the sidewalk on Queen between Bay and University (as opposed to those who sit in ivory towers complaining streets aren't urban, or decorated or well furnished enough) are plenty glad of the chip and ice cream and hot dog trucks, and use them daily.
 
It's a kind of "brick panelling". It is what it is, seams and all. Unfortunate as this might sound to Stern-o-phobics, one might compare it to the "stone panelling" of Robert Stern's condo tower. For what it is, it's "honestly of our time"--and that's not meant to be a sneer. It's like machine-made and glazed brick was honestly 50s. I don't mind *it*, though I'm not sure about the overall verging-on-gloomy effect here.

Anyway, I'm still straddling the middle here. Willing to acknowledge that its spartanness *might* be a problem...but not a disaster. And I still agree that this is less of a cop-out from what could have been "great architecture", than a welcome relief from so much self-conscious "great architecture". (Which might be a more genuinely "world class" tactic in the end. Hey, I'll betcha that well-versed style/taste-conscious Euro-visitors to Toronto would appreciate 4SC more than we do.)

But I still find BB + AP's defenses waaaay too arrogantly "vested interest" spin-doctory for their own good. "You don't know or understand opera, so pooh, pooh." Sheesh...
 
You must log in or register to post here.

Back
Top