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

AlvinofDiaspar said:
In its own way, Toronto's new opera house, the Four Seasons Centre for the Performing Arts sums up this city.

Despite having been designed for opera, it isn't operatic; it's more recitative than aria, competent rather than exciting.

...the hall itself, an exercise in beige blandness.

For the most part, however, the design of the Four Seasons seems to have been largely a question of how cheaply can you build an opera house?

You get what you pay for, of course, and as is so often the case in this city, we decided we were too poor to build something spectacular.

AoD
Click to expand...


Christopher Hume has it so right on - Toronto will settle for anything, just to keep it cheap!! The opera house is a prime disappointment / example of this as is the ridiculous ROM renovation – (Get a great architect to design something stunning, then change his design by covering the "crystal†with aluminum siding instead of glass.) Unbelievable! It could only happen in Toronto. I can't even take out of town guests near the ROM – it’s just too embarrassing.

As for the Four Seasons Centre, I guess Torontonians can now say “Oh yeah?, well we have an “opera house†too you know.â€
 
Sure, if you don't care about the opera, you might discount it, but the acoustics are excellent. I'm sure they could have cut corners in that area and built a stunning looking building. They clearly didn't have the budget, and opera is unfortunately not that popular (though it is gaining in popularity). The end result is a quality venue with a glass facade that adds energy to the street in the evenings seeing crowds of people chatting inside. I'd like it to be more distinctive. If it was, would it be a way for clueless people like to say "hey look everybody, now Toronto has architecture"?

As for the ROM, not everyone is going to like it. But you should let your guests decide for themselves, and maybe even visit the ROM.
 
It could only happen in Toronto. I can't even take out of town guests near the ROM – it’s just too embarrassing. Big Daddy, I'm often amused by the extent of delicacy exhibited by people on the forum. I agree with junctionist, you might take your visitors there, say nothing about the building until they comment, and give your own feelings later. Perhaps they will be underwhelmed and will collude with you, but perhaps they will love the addition and it might soften your feelings about it. At any rate, they might see something inside to lighten their day.

Personally, I have found that the remedy for this sense that everything here is cheap and badly done is travel, accomplished with a critical eye. Many things that look fabulous in architecture mags have enormous and huge drawbacks when you see them in person, all cities have misses and hits. Who can hate Seattle due to it's grotesquely failed Gehry project? Would I not go to Montreal because of its timid and poorly built Musée d'art contemporain?

It could only happen in Toronto? Hardly. I can't even take out of town guests near the ROM – it’s just too embarrassing. Get over it and let your guests enjoy the city for themselves.
 
It would be good to re-order the comments on this thread in order of the financial contributions to the Four Season's construction fund made by the various writers, i.e. money where mouths are. Yes, it is an opera house built on the cheap but, guess what folks, this is Toronto. It would be done on the cheap or not at all. Where else would you find a top end shopping district that is about 5 blocks long - I include Yorkville here.

Having said this, and having attended a number of operas here, as well as in some of the more iconic venues, I would rank the acoustics and sight lines as good as they get. Actually, for opera, this is what counts.

Additionally, I have never seen an opera house or theatre that has more immediate space for intermission wandering; one doesn't have to go down levels or through a maze of passages to get to some breathing room.

And finally, for those who need a quick hit of champagne or wine during intermission, I have yet to see the equal of the bar service at the Four Seasons.

So.... an opera house with outstanding acoustics, good sight lines, room to move, good intermission service.... What's the problem? If you have visitors, take them to the opera. They will love it!

Oh, and one more point, I have seen the motorized exterior sun screens in hotels in Switzerland and in a few other places in Europe. Although Switzerland is not Canada - far from it - the weather there can be less than tropical. The screens seem to work fine there. I have faith in the Canadian designers.


.
 
Actually, the one thing I've noticed about the city is how many of its' residents either 1. don't give a damn; 2. give a damn but wouldn't give a dollar or 3. give a damn, wouldn't give a dollar and have really, really crass tastes that equate overcooked pippydoodads (thank you US!) to "class".

As to the ROM being an embrassment and cheap - uh huh, do you know what the budget for the project is? It's anything but "cheap". Then again, some folks thinks Uptown and Aura is "good architecture" even before it's built. Bon chance!

On the matter of Hume, those who work in concrete bunkers shouldn't throw stones, unless they are ready to critique their workplaces and how "dreadful" it's been on the urbanscape, heck...its' 1 Yonge St., for the love of God, shouldn't we be demanding much more from it?

AoD
 
(Get a great architect to design something stunning, then change his design by covering the "crystal” with aluminum siding instead of glass.)
Click to expand...
This isn't true either from what I've read. A museum could never be bulit of glass as sunlight is too damaging to its contents.
 
Oh, and one more point, I have seen the motorized exterior sun screens in hotels in Switzerland and in a few other places in Europe. Although Switzerland is not Canada - far from it - the weather there can be less than tropical. The screens seem to work fine there. I have faith in the Canadian designers.

You can have faith in them, but i surely don't. Grime and humidity will soon affect the fabric and motors. Anything motorized on the outside requires horrific maintenance in our cold weather. Think for a moment: why didn't the architects have these shades installed inside the building? Wouldn't this make a lot more sense?
 
Funny about that, Christopher Hume turns on his rant yet again. The worst is yet to come as it is not yet mid-February and he's already had a heavy flow day. It must be the unforgiving early thaw that we've had -- all of the toxic snow-ice piles are reduced to strewn coffee cups and the weather, while warm, features a dreary greyness. This condition can impact one's outlook on life.

I am a serious operaphile and I can once again give two thumbs up to the outcome of this building -- for the most part. And some seriously excellent international conductors are doing the same. A rumour: none other than Valery Gergiev dropped in on the place while here last February and loved the acoustics.

Having said that, I am in a minority position. Several of my acquaintances hate the outside of the building. My response is always this: we've had a 1-billion dollar infusion into Toronto's cultural infrastructure. That may seem a lot of money, but it isn't when there are seven different projects involved. If I were the big boss I would have pushed the ROM into a 60-million dollar reno and funneled a bit more to the Opera. But that's just not how it happened. The simultaneous enhancement of so much infrastructure was risky because competition for money became a blood sport. But finally Toronto rose to the challenge and overall, I think we did very admirably in the end. I love most of the architectural results -- especially the Gardiner ceramics museum, and the Royal Conservatory's new and improved facilities. We've been lucky!.

I am tempted to write a chronology (or, more like a blow-by-blow) of events, commencing in the mid-70's, leading to the Four Seasons opera house. But there is a lot to document. Yes, I just may do that, and publish it here, some time soon.

You know something, I have to quit this post soon, but I feel that I must add a comment on another Star writer, Marty Knelman. He's just so antsy about controversies. And this city, finally, is stepping forward with confidence. There is nothing at all wrong with controversy. But that's not what Knelman thinks. I thank Jack Diamond and Daniel Libeskind for firing our imaginations. I thank them hugely!
 
The shades are rarely used, but exterior-mounted shades are more effective in reducing heat gain than interior-mounted. I am not aware that they have ever failed, no matter what time of year they have been employed. I've seen them descend sometimes at the free lunchtime concerts.

I can't imagine poor Big Duddy gets out much. We must humour him in his little conceits, and hope that when they eventually build the Edifice Complex down by the lake he'll have a reason to stand around and go, "Wow!".
 
TonyV said:
A rumour: none other than Valery Gergiev dropped in on the place while here last February and loved the acoustics.
Click to expand...

OK, let’s say it has good acoustics. I don’t think good acoustics and good architecture are mutually exclusive – in designing a monument to opera (which is what this is meant to be) they should probably be mutually inclusive. There are many examples of great architecture that also accommodate great acoustics. This is about the architecture as a whole and as a whole it is wanting to say the least.
 
Darkstar416 said:
This isn't true either from what I've read. A museum could never be bulit of glass as sunlight is too damaging to its contents.
Click to expand...

Actually, what I understand was that they determined the glass would not accommodate the snow loading here in Toronto. What troubles me about that is that the architect took a good deal of time and energy in proposing a tremendous project - but didn’t consider the climate in which the building would be built. I studied architecture and this is a key factor when designing a building. Second, our city design panel approved a project that could not be built, Who's not doing their homework?

Also, with low-e glass and methods of infusing dampening elements into the glass, I don’t think there would be any problem with damage to the displays. Especially when you consider the displays in this particular part of the museum change regularly.

As for replacing the glass with another material, could they not have chosen something that would be more in keeping with the drama of the design? Maybe stainless steel?
 
Actually, what I understand was that they determined the glass would not accommodate the snow loading here in Toronto. What troubles me about that is that the architect took a good deal of time and energy in proposing a tremendous project - but didn’t consider the climate in which the building would be built. I studied architecture and this is a key factor when designing a building. Second, our city design panel approved a project that could not be built, Who's not doing their homework?
Click to expand...

First, the problem isn't with snow loading on glass, but the accumulation and uncontrolled slippage of ice and snow from ANY cladding. That's why they used aluminum cladding with grooves in-between in the first place.

Second, the city doesn't have a "design panel".

Also, with low-e glass and methods of infusing dampening elements into the glass, I don’t think there would be any problem with damage to the displays. Especially when you consider the displays in this particular part of the museum change regularly.
Click to expand...

Low-emissivity glass deals with opaqueness to infrared radiation, not UV, which is what's most damaging to artifacts. Beyond that, the majority of the displays are NOT meant to be rotatable - there is a risk of damage every time something is moved.

As for replacing the glass with another material, could they not have chosen something that would be more in keeping with the drama of the design? Maybe stainless steel?
Click to expand...

Stainless steel cladding would not have such a different materiality when compared to aluminium that would result in a completely different take on the design. Beyond that, it still have to deal with the precipitation issue.

AoD
 
Big Daddy, please list your architectural studies. I am interested in your credentials, as they are obviously more impressive than Daniel Libeskind's. C'mon, spill. Don't be shy.

42
 
Big Duddy: The great acoustics of the Four Seasons Centre are a result of great design. They're mutually inclusive.
 
Urban Shocker said:
The shades are rarely used, but exterior-mounted shades are more effective in reducing heat gain than interior-mounted. I am not aware that they have ever failed, no matter what time of year they have been employed. I've seen them descend sometimes at the free lunchtime concerts.
Click to expand...
The installation is new. I wouldn't expect them to fail in such a short time either. Give it time and you'll see what a percentage of them will still function in five years.
The fact that exterior-mounted shades are more effective in reducing heat gains than interior-mounted shades (how much more efficient, really?) is no excuse to use them in our cold and windy climate and polluted atmosfere.. The idea is bad, period.
 
You must log in or register to post here.

Back
Top