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

AP:
Let me be very clear - a building's FUNCTION, is its function. This is way beyond being a tautology - it is identity.
I don't think it at all inconsistent, however, to state that a building's role strays beyond the borders that function imposes. One such role may be to "be a good citizen", whatever that means, or to "complete a collection of buildings at an intersection" a la Barber, or to "draw in the masses" a la Rochon - these are all potential (but by no means definitive, or exclusive) OTHER roles for a building, aside from its function.

Let me also be quite clear that I am not saying this building is a disaster, should not have been built, I can do better, blah blah blah.
I am not an architect, and I DO see something tantalizing in Diamond's deconstructivist approach - I just don't feel that it succeeded in being sufficiently compelling IMHO. He is equally deconstructivist in designing community centres and the like - this being a cultural lighthouse (in more than one sense) I simply feel it should shine a bit more.

BB, as for your comments on the York and Richmond facades, I am not advocating some sort of rambunctious Starchitect wunderbau. In my mind, the rear facade is constantly on display to pedestrians and drivers westbound on Queen, and yet it simply fails to convey any sense of the structure's importance. From tis perspective, if you will allow me the conceit of making the fly tower disappear (or the ignorance of not knowing its function), this building so efficiently fades into the background that it's function becomes unintelligible.
 
I just don't feel that it succeeded in being sufficiently compelling IMHO
Click to expand...

You just don't get it, do you? The building wasn't designed to be compelling in and of itself. It was designed to house the opera and the ballet. Fans of the opera and ballet need no compulsion to go; we go because we love it. Now we are fortunate enough have a vessel equal to its contents.

It's such a pity that the whole starchitect fad has made quality design that does not whirl and spin and light up incomprehensible to most people.
 
Give us a break with the 'Starchitect' stuff. None of us are saying that only good architecture is produced by a few named architects...and none of us are arguing that so I am not quite sure what or who you are debating.

And with the most respect, I don't think you get it: the opera house has more than the function of housing space for opera and ballet and has a wider audience and duty than to just those who go to view ballet and opera. That is the argument.
 
If that's the argument, it's a failed one. It has no basis in fact, only in uninformed fantasy.
 
"It has no basis in fact." Huh? You mean that it does not exist outside of the inner theatre? It cannot be seen on Queen, Richmond and York? You mean there are not thousands of people who pass it by everyday? It does sit in a city full of other buildings and people? It has no public presence?

I did not know the opera house was just theatre, only to be seen by a small minority of the population. The building I see when I stand on Queen street must be an illusion...sorry, 'fantasy'.

?????????????????????????????????????????
 
No, the fantasy is yours - that the opera house has a function other than housing the opera and ballet - that it owes something to those who will never attend opera and ballet.

The opera house exists for the purposes for which it was built, not the ones that exist only in your head.
 
My head? There is not an urbanist or architect in the world who does not think that buildings exist outside the realm of their function? Even Meies understood the importance of outward appearances.
 
For chrissakes, andrea. Just because people disagree with the design it doesn't mean they "don't get it."

You don't need to have a condescending attitude toward everyone who disagrees with you.
 
"Now we are fortunate enough have a vessel equal to its contents."

Then I'm not really looking forward to seeing an opera there.
 
I guess all churches should be huts made of mud and stone. they would surely still serve their proper 'function'.
 
The chip trucks should have catered the grand opening bash since they're apparently such important institutions for the lawyers and such that inhabit the area and attend performances. Maybe if I left my ivory basement and went out and spent a few hundred bucks on Wagner (whose music is a bitch to play...I'll pity the orchestra during the Ring Cycle) I'd be more qualified to speculate on these matters.

If the opera itself was all that mattered, why doesn't the COC rent out abattoirs for shows? They could hose down the walls real clean so babel's gowns don't get stained and dish out beef tartar canapes between acts.
 
I guess all churches should be huts made of mud and stone. they would surely still serve their proper 'function'.
Click to expand...

I agree. The notion that the Opera House is only intented for opera fans and has no responsibility towards the rest of the urban fabric and city at large is a ridiculous one...especially when you factor in the public land and considerable amount of public money that was donated to the COC for construction of the building.

Why not just have a city full of thin concrete boxes? As long as the interiors work, who cares about anything else?
 
^ Indeed.

And while we're at it, let me point out that the Ryerson Business School's purpose is to train Ryerson Business students, and I daresay that it provides the very best facilities for Ryerson Business students in all Toronto. (You can hear a calculator button click from the back row of the largest classroom!) If you're not a Ryerson Business student, just don't look at the building, stop complaining, and go buy something at H&M.

This discussion is ridiculous. I think we're all pretty much agreed that it's a good thing that when push came to shove, Bradshaw et al opted to put the money into acoustics. I think we're also pretty much agreed that an opera house at a location like that is iconic and important for the whole city.

And I think we would all have been happier, in an ideal world, if there had been the money to build it closer to the original renderings, that gave it more majesty and presence, instead of looking a little shink-wrapped, as if its chief architectural gesture is a shrug that says, "yeah, but the acoustics are GREAT!"

It's an opera house for you, ap, but it's a building for all of us. And frankly, I really like it. But there's nothing wrong with wishing it could have been a bit more.
 
That's where you're wrong. It wasn't built for everyone.

If it were built for everyone, or, at least everyone here, it would have been built to the over decorated, K-Mart customer taste for overdecoration that seems to be the requirement for approval on this board.
 
Constant complaining on one hand and pompous self-importance on the other. This thread is too much.
 
You must log in or register to post here.

Back
Top