Author
|
Topic: Architecture you love/hate
|
Tommy Shanks
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 3076
|
posted 07 February 2003 04:33 PM
I was encouraged to see the discussion about the World Trade centre proposals on another thread. As an architect I'm always interested in what non-practitioners have to think about specific buildings, cities, and, architects. And since the architecture industry tends to speak to itself in sometimes impenetrable (to put it mildly) jargon, I relish a good "thats crap and here's why" probably more then most.Anyway, to get the ball rolling: Favourite architect: Carlo Scarpa, a master of craftsmanship, materials and quiet dignity in building. Favourite Canadian Building (old): RC Harris Filtration Plant, Toronto favourite Canadian Building (new): Massey College, Toronto Most over-rated architect: Frank Gehry, overwrought structures designed using aircraft software. Just because you can, why? Too specific to him, and the late 1990's, in general. Will date really badly. Most hated building: Place Bonaventure, Montreal really just an ugly, poorly designed, poorly built structure.
From: Toronto | Registered: Sep 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
skadie
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 2072
|
posted 07 February 2003 05:26 PM
I'm in Vancouver.I love the marine building - 355 Burrard. It was once the tallest building in the Commonwealth at 19 floors. It has some amazing mosaic work in the lobby. I really like 666 Burrard too, mainly because it is a 34 story mirror that reflects the Hotel Vancouver and the old church nearby. I HATE Ericson's original Simon Fraser U. It is definitely interesting, but when you spend time up there it's just a little too modern. He did a lot to make it more "experiential" but while it probably looked good as a model, full scale is somehow jarring.Marine Building. [ 07 February 2003: Message edited by: skadie ]
From: near the ocean | Registered: Jan 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
|
skdadl
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 478
|
posted 07 February 2003 06:02 PM
Tommy, I had to drop in fast to second your praise for Massey College.In my dreams, someone gives me Massey College for me and all my friends to live in. I swear, walking up those wonderful, broad, shallow steps to the Common Room improves my posture and my mind instantly -- I feel like leaning back and striding grandly ... And then to walk into that beautiful room -- it feels so sweeping! It makes me want to sweep about! Gosh, but I love that place. (The rooms are ok. Did you know that, for years, anyway, there weren't enough laundry facilities because Vincent Massey didn't believe that gentlemen should do their own laundry??? Ron Thom, though -- there was a scholar and a gentleman and a sweetheart. Massey is one of his deserved epitaphs -- beautiful.) Sorry, though, Tommy -- I like Gehry. I would give anything to go to Bilbao.
From: gone | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
'lance
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 1064
|
posted 07 February 2003 06:07 PM
quote: In my dreams, someone gives me Massey College for me and all my friends to live in.
Every time someone mentions that place I feel a pang. See, when I was first at U of T, Robertson Davies was still with us and was Master of Massey College. Each Hallowe'en, he'd give a reading of a ghost story, and at Christmas a Christmas story. And, being an idiot, I never went. Worse: I never so much as walked into Massey College. Still, one of my favourite Canadian buildings (old) would probably be University College, where I was enrolled. A glorious hodgepodge of styles.
From: that enchanted place on the top of the Forest | Registered: Jul 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
|
|
|
|
skdadl
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 478
|
posted 07 February 2003 06:34 PM
quote: we could meet up with our younger selves, and give them advice!
Och, aye! (Except I know her too well -- she'd never listen!) A beautiful old Toronto church: St Simon's (near Bloor and Sherbourne, just south of Bloor) -- amazing worked and painted wood if you look up, look waaaay up ... Favourite ancient piles: Stirling Castle (now being restored at vast expense -- and restoration includes tapestries now, no less!), the Pantheon in Paris (extremely spooky), and the first of three houses we lived in in Medicine Hat, Alta. (The second was even more interesting, but it has been torn down now.)
From: gone | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
|
TommyPaineatWork
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 2956
|
posted 07 February 2003 07:06 PM
I've always been partial to Douglas Cardinal's Museum of Man in Ottawa. I have never seen it in person, but the photo's and film I've seen of it stirs the numenous in me. I don't have a 'favorite' style of architecture. I tend to like buildings that stay true to their stylistic selves-- if that makes any sense. Hence, I can like the Chrysler building, and the Elizabethan street scape of Chester, the old homes of Londonont, or the faux Imperial Rome monuments of Washington D.C., or the museum of man without there being a contradiction in my own personal taste.
There's only one 'style' I don't like, and that's the one I mentioned before, the 60's through 80's style of anti-human buildings. I also detest the technique of cramming two different styles into one building, such as the Delta Armories example in Londonont, and the new ROM design. ---------- Another couple of encouraging signs of recovery from 60's-80's architecture is the fact that the city went to UWO students to design a foot bridge over the Thames at Gibbon's Park. The bridge is a gracefull arc (replacing and old Bailey Bridge) that looks good, but doesn't blight the view up stream or down. Utilitarian and gracefull: the soul of elegance. The other encouraging sign was the design change of the new VIA rail station. VIA was set to foist upon London one of their abysmal kiosk designs, but Londoners protested so much they were forced to hire an architect who came up with the current design, which pays tribute to the art deco station that existed before the 60's black monolith replaced it. I think when the citizenry starts paying attention to such things, and serves notice that aesthetics are part of the public domain, good things can happen. [ 07 February 2003: Message edited by: TommyPaineatWork ]
From: London | Registered: Aug 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
|
|
|
|
Smith
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 3192
|
posted 07 February 2003 08:49 PM
I hate the Killam Library. Hate it.It looks like...well, like this, and it smells. It has hardly any windows. It's dark inside. Did I mention it smells? The Life Sciences Building also smells and is dark inside (with lots of disgusting, windowless, concrete-walled "classrooms"), but it's not quite so ugly from outside. I love the Church of the Holy Trinity in Toronto (think that's it - the one behind the Eaton Centre) and all the old buildings of U of T, and most of the old buildings on Barrington Street here in Halifax. And the King's quad is lovely, as are a couple of the older buildings at Dal. (The newest buildings at Dal are much nicer and friendlier than the '70s ones, but not that special.) Oh, and this synagogue, which I grew up next to, and the RC Harris plant, which I live very near now, and pretty much everything in old or oldish Montreal. There are buildings with "FOR RENT" signs on them in that city that, were they in Toronto, would never be for rent, ever.
From: Muddy York | Registered: Oct 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
TommyPaineatWork
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 2956
|
posted 07 February 2003 08:56 PM
quote: I was barely ever in it, but I can believe it. Like the brain (or should I say the mind), I found it a bewildering maze.
As you can probably guess, that's important to me too. A building has to 'work' in a practicle sense. The point of a building in the first place is to allow people to do something, whether it's to view art, shop, work or see a concert. Aesthetics should take second place to that, but that doesn't mean a building that functions well has to be ugly. -----
That Library looks ugly enough to be in London, Smith. I wonder how we missed it. [ 07 February 2003: Message edited by: TommyPaineatWork ]
From: London | Registered: Aug 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
|
|
TommyPaineatWork
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 2956
|
posted 07 February 2003 09:05 PM
quote: I don't know why they thought unfinished concrete would look anything but horrendous in a few years
I can't believe it's accidental. I noticed that when the Wellington Square Mall was redone here and transformed into the "Gallaria" Mall, they built it over King Street, creating a dark, noisey unwelcoming tunnel. I was on my way from Clarence street to Wellington one day, and had no desire to go shopping, so I walked through the tunnel. No windows, traffic noise and smell doubled, and not a person in sight for a block. It occurred to me then that this design was intended to discourage people from using the street, and encourage them to stroll through the mall instead. It's a real dumb idea, because when building after building is designed this way, the end result is not to encourage people to walk inside, but to avoid the downtown alltogether. quote: This is a bit Toronto-centric, but are there any opinions out there about the plans for the new Royal Ontario Museum??
A few of us are already on record here as thinking it a crime against humanity. [ 07 February 2003: Message edited by: TommyPaineatWork ]
From: London | Registered: Aug 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
Smith
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 3192
|
posted 07 February 2003 11:51 PM
I just don't understand why they're doing it. What's wrong with the ROM the way it is? It's a beautiful building. I don't see the point. And the Killam Library...there are lots of rumours about it. Like that the architect bought the right to design it. Like that after he had it built, he was so horrified that he killed himself. We also have a Killam Hospital, otherwise known as IWK (Isaac W. Killam) Grace, because no one wants to go to the Killam Hospital (say it out loud). Oh, and while we're talking '60s, York University? Ugly. Ugly ugly ugly. Robarts Library, too. Feh. It's not as awful as it looks at first glance, but it's pretty bad, and it doesn't get any better in the stacks. I once spent 40 minutes trying to find the elevator in there. Trent University, on the other hand, the out-of-town campus, looks like Robarts would have looked if someone with taste had done it. [ 07 February 2003: Message edited by: Smith ]
From: Muddy York | Registered: Oct 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
Tommy Shanks
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 3076
|
posted 07 February 2003 11:55 PM
quote: Damn, Smith, that Killam Lib is truly hideous. Sixties Brutalism, though likely built in the Seventies. I don't know why they thought unfinished concrete would look anything but horrendous in a few years. It could double as a water filtration plant, or maximum-security prison.
Brutalism can be traced back to Le Corbusier and his disciples Peter and Alison Smithson in Britain, noted for some of the most forboding campus buildings in all the UK. I even had a textbook (shudder) in first year called the "New Brutalism". Yikes Shpouldn't slander filtration plants though. RC Harris in Toronto and the Chicago Water Tower are gorgeous. I'm against the new ROM addition for a couple of reasons. First, purely technical, the glazed original won't work in Toronto because of the environment. The revision, which I don't know if many of you know about, will be clad in stainless steel, with a few, punched, openings. Oppressive, gray architecture, just what we need in February. Secondly, by tying our horse to the purly transitional architecture of D. Liebskind the museum will be dated beyond belief in 20 years. The problem is: what can be done that relates to the museum, a notable, and monumental building in its own right. One only has to look at the ill-fitting addition of the early 70's to realize the difficulty. You have three options. Conciliatory gestures, oppositional, or a mixture. By choosing the purely oppositional, you run the risk of being a cliche, sort of like pomo. Even cladding the building in copper, a material used throughout the immediate area would be more conciliatory then stainless. PS. Smith, what do you think of the new computer science building on campus at Dal? The Marine Building in Vancouver is gorgeous. Christ Church Cathedral in Fredricton is a gem. Even though I hate A. Erickson, the Museum of Anthropology is a beautifl piece
From: Toronto | Registered: Sep 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
Tommy Shanks
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 3076
|
posted 08 February 2003 12:10 AM
All this talk about the built environment. Will wonders ever cease.Massey College and Trent University were designed (surprise, surprise) by the same guy (firm? I loathe the fact that, in the architecture community, the greatest example of collaborative efforts, one person (the owner of the firm)typically gets credit, like Mr. Gehry). Ron Thom, one of Canada's greatest architects, literally drank himself to an early death. Great guy, fantastic architect.
quote: Oh, and while we're talking '60s, York University? Ugly. Ugly ugly ugly.
I could not agree more. Although they have in the recent past been awarded some really impressive awards for sustainable and green design, notably the Computer Science Building. The probalem is how do you get there..... Sorry for the double post.
From: Toronto | Registered: Sep 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
DrConway
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 490
|
posted 08 February 2003 01:22 AM
quote: I HATE Ericson's original Simon Fraser U.
A-HEM. I happen to like it. Nay. I love it. Every time I go up the hill I give thanks that I was steered in the direction of SFU by a happy coincidence of entrance GPAs back in high school, and that I was thus steered away from UBC. I like a lot of 1960s architecture when it isn't totally plotzed-out; there's some good understated examples of it if you know where to look in Vancouver, Burnaby and even Richmond. I've seen great examples of it in older BART stations in Berkeley, California, as well. This isn't exactly architecture, but there's a great mural in the Metropolis Mall in Burnaby, which is an adjunct of Metrotown - I love walking by it because it's a total "1950s vision of the future" deal, which I think is kind of cool.
From: You shall not side with the great against the powerless. | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
|
|
|
Flowers By Irene
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 3012
|
posted 08 February 2003 09:43 AM
quote: Oh, and while we're talking '60s, York University? Ugly. Ugly ugly ugly.
Hey, be nice. But seriously, quote: I've also heard that the architectural plans for York were bought from a defunct university to have been built in the southern US with no adjustments being made for our northerly climes and the the fact that the expansive and pleasant greenspace between buildings would turn into a frigid horror during the long dark winter months during which the buildings would actually be used.
Yeah, thats about it. York it a series of wind tunnels, and ugly ones at that. But when summertime comes, until the first snow, there is all this greenspace covered entirely in CanadaGoose shit. It is truly something that can only be seen to be believed. ... The new Market in London is quite agreeable to my taste, as is One London Place - as long as nothing bigger is built downtown before the space is actually needed. Ed. to add about York: The campus is situated between (petro)industry, insanely high-density housing, and Vaughn. How much worse could it get? Oh yeah, the goose poop... [ 08 February 2003: Message edited by: Flowers By Irene ]
From: "To ignore the facts, does not change the facts." -- Andy Rooney | Registered: Aug 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
|
|
|
Mycroft_
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 2230
|
posted 08 February 2003 05:30 PM
quote: Oh my GOD, Mycroft. I've never seen that thing and I lived in Toronto for 3 years and travelled all over the city all the time. Where on earth is that thing? The street looks like University Avenue - is that where it is?Gumby Goes To Heaven. Hahahaha!
Yes, Gumby lives on University Ave. quote: I've always liked the mural on the Toronto Stock Exchange...the section with the business tycoon's hand in the worker's pocket. Well, that's how I choose to interpret it anyway
I showed that to lefty friends from New York a few weeks ago, they got a kick out of it. I think it is a deliberate piece of subversion, not unlike putting the devil in the Queen's hair in the original 1953 Canadian dollar bill. If you look at the hand of the business man the fingers are definitely cut at an angle to make them appear to be inside the worker's pocket. Hands elsewhere on the mural are not drawn like that at all. Given that the mural was designed in the midsts of the Great Depression I think the artist was pulling a bit of a Diego Rivera (a la Rivera's original Rockefeller Plaza mural - see the film "the Hand that Rocks the Cradle". Unfortunately, the orginal TSE building has been encasd by the newest black TD centre monolith. The TD Centre was a beautiful piece of modern architecture until they wrecked the symmetry, and the old TSE building, by building a new TD tower.
From: Toronto | Registered: Feb 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
|
|
|
|
Willowdale Wizard
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 3674
|
posted 08 February 2003 06:22 PM
i'm rather partial to daniel libeskind's architecture, from what i've seen of it (the imperial war museum north, in manchester; the jewish history museum in berlin; a temporary outdoor cafe thing that looked like a seashell in london's hyde park).what does the comment that his architecture is "transitional" mean? it's interesting that you have the renovation of the AGO, the ROM, and the Ontario College of Art at the same time. i'm glad that raymond moriyama was mentioned ... i always liked the ontario science centre and the metro toronto reference library.
From: england (hometown of toronto) | Registered: Jan 2003
| IP: Logged
|
|
|
|
|
|
Mycroft_
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 2230
|
posted 08 February 2003 08:19 PM
No, it went up in the mid 80s. It's between Queen and Dundas (somewhat south of Mt. Sinai) so perhaps you just didn't go far enough down University Ave?Either that or the mere sight of it causes momentary hysterical blindness BTW, the photo actually makes the structure look better than it appears in person, particularly in clear and bright sunlight. [ 08 February 2003: Message edited by: Mycroft ]
From: Toronto | Registered: Feb 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
|
TommyPaineatWork
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 2956
|
posted 10 February 2003 03:31 AM
quote: First, purely technical, the glazed original won't work in Toronto because of the environment. The revision, which I don't know if many of you know about, will be clad in stainless steel, with a few, punched, openings. Oppressive, gray architecture, just what we need in February.
I wasn't aware of the revision.
Besides not working from an aesthetic perspective in winter, I have some trepidation that it will work in a practicle sense, either. Looking at the models at the ROM and elsewhere, I can't help but think pedestrians will be at the mercy of ice and snow slides when the warmer sun of February hits that roof. And, while I think of it Tommy, how much of an engineer must an architect be? Do architects just design something, and tell an engineer to "make it so"? We see the finished project, and the achitectural credit, but it seems to me that any major building project must be a collaborative endeavor between both architects and engineers? [ 10 February 2003: Message edited by: TommyPaineatWork ]
From: London | Registered: Aug 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
clockwork
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 690
|
posted 10 February 2003 10:02 AM
There's going to be a new tower in TO, but it doesn't look very special.Canadian Embassy in Washington 'nudder picture closer up I was trying to think of noteworthy architecture in my area and there really isn't any except for this:
It's the Brampton (well, Toronto) Mormon Temple. It's pretty snazzy seeing it at night. The white exterior is flooded with light and that golden statue thing at the peak has got a few floodlights that make the thing shine. That picture really doesn't do it justice, though. I can't think of anything else noteworthy I've seen. I like weird stuff, and I did spend a year wandering the Davis Centre at the University of Waterloo. But I never really liked it. And I'd be curious to see this when it's done. Apparently it will be a new library in NY.
From: Pokaroo! | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Tommy Shanks
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 3076
|
posted 10 February 2003 10:27 AM
You're right about the possibility of snow-falls and ice. Thats why, on buildings roofed or clad in metal you end up with, in many cases, ugly snowguard systems. Concerning the second point, architects must (IMHO) have at least an appreciation of engineering and how it plays a part in a specific building's design. Many projects are generated from the structure out, so an understanding of how a buildings skeleton works in tandem with what materials can best fulfill the subsequent requirements is a necessity. However I can give you lots of examples where an architect is totally clueless about materials, engineering, and the building process. I once got involved with a project that involved a train display. The architect, one most people would recognize, proposed a wooden platform, sort of like a trestle. Thats fine, until I looked close and relized the wooden members were 2x4's. So your right, the best work often results from the close collaboration between architects and engineers. Thats why I said above, for someone like F.Gehry, an engineering firm is probably more important in the over-all building of his projects then for many others. Yet who are they? Do we ever hear of them, or the other 50 people in his firm who do the actual work. No we just hear of Frank. (one quick note: his inital proposal for a winery in the Niagara region called for glass columns. Possible? Sure, anythings possible. Realistic, not by any stretch) Lastly: quote: what does the comment that his architecture is "transitional" mean?
When looking at architectural history you can classify movements pretty accuratly. Greek, Romanesque, Gothic, the International Style, Modern, Postmodern (uuurgh), Deconstruction (double uuurgh). There are many others, and many sub-sections, but you get the idea. This raises two points. First the time periods these styles were dominant has shrunk considerably. Gothic was popular for centuries (which was partly a function of the time required to build a gothic structure, but anyway), while pomo was popular, thankfully, for perhaps 10 years. Its bastard stepson, New Urbanism still has its believers though... Secondly, each period was identified with a number of formal architectural gestures, which allowed other architects to interpret and adapt the style, thus adding to it. Now were in a period where there is no discernable style, outside of a trend toward throwing in some deconstructive gestures (ala Leibskind, Gehry, Alsop). The thinking goes that these architect's visions are too personally idiosyncratic to be replicated or interpreted, therefore there is no comparison and ultimatly no formal dialogue with others who may add to the style. Hence the term transitional, simply between identifible architectural periods.
From: Toronto | Registered: Sep 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
|
|
|