Uncool: Vancouver's Olympic Architecture

[SpongeG]

Uncool: Vancouver's Olympic Architecture

It's ever more clear we should have set designers free.
By Adele Weder
Published: December 17, 2008

print email share
digg del.ico.us facebook stumbleupon reddit



TheTyee.ca

Why is Vancouver, with design talent that more than matches Beijing, shaping up to offer such an unremarkable Olympic architectural legacy?

Sure, Winter Games are smaller-scale, lower-profile and a lot colder than Bejing 2008. But aside from that, it's a bit of a head-shaker. The firms responsible for the 2010 venues include a few of Vancouver's top architects. Neither their names nor their imagination, though, will carry much weight in 2010. China used architectural bravura to argue its new importance in the world. VANOC, by contrast, seems determined to keep its architecture as unremarkable and anonymous as possible. The VANOC website brags about the impending world-class facilities, yet there isn't a trace of information about the architects, apparently because that would dilute the value of the corporate sponsors' names.

And as the main venues rise out of the ground, we're reminded that corporate culture, more than any other kind, is the bane and bedrock of this Olympiad.

'Richmond Oval... a lasting symbol': Campbell

When the Richmond Speedskating Oval officially opened last Friday, we got our first flush of Olympic architecture. Premier Gordon Campbell declared that "Like the Bird's Nest Stadium, or the Water Cube in Beijing, the Richmond Oval will be a lasting symbol, known around the world."

To this, I'd say that the premier has farcically misspoken. The network of design teams behind the oval is made up of generally solid talents. But if the world shows us any mercy, the Richmond Oval will not be judged against the visually stunning Bird's Nest by Swiss architects Herzog & de Meuron, or Water Cube by Australia's PTW Architects. It would just be cruel.

On the inside, the oval is grand. The multinational firm Cannon Design is the oval's architect of record, with Victoria-based sports architect Bob Johnston designing a splendid interior of pine-beetle infested wood. Fast + Epp deserve heaps of praise for their engineering prowess. Rounding out the project is Hotson Bakker Boniface Haden and Phillips Farevaag Smallenberg, who have done fine work in the open space and overall urban design. But from the outside, in terms of architectural beauty, alas, the Richmond Oval is a dog.

Or -- more apropos -- a very odd sort of bird. It's supposed to be inspired by the heron, the municipal symbol of Richmond. What it evokes is a giant fowl splayed flat on the ground, with a line of winglets sticking out on one side. Beijing had its Bird's Nest Stadium, so perhaps it was inevitable that Vancouver would attempt its own ornithological gesture.

Oh, and by the way -- don't be that impressed by VANOC and civic boasting of the oval being "on budget": the cost overruns were quietly contained by gutting the landscape architecture and other design elements.

The managed message

I suspect a preponderance of corporate culture may have hindered the creative process. Oval architects Marion LaRue and Bob Johnston of Cannon Deign have been restrained from responding directly to media inquiries. All calls to Cannon were deferred to Richmond City Hall or to Cannon's U.S. public-relations office; the architects clearly didn't boast much public authority. My plea for a simple one-on-one interview or studio visit was torpedoed in favour of an officious PR-monitored meeting at Cannon's Vancouver office boardroom.

The two architects sat quietly at the boardroom table, while two marketing and public-relations professionals led the conversation and the disembodied voice of Cannon's Virginia-based president of professional services, Ken Wiseman, emanated from a StarPhone at the centre of the table. The meeting concluded with a soft-focus DVD presentation of various designers and City of Richmond officials riffing on scudding clouds and soaring gulls.

Then Wiseman's voice piped up from the StarPhone: "I hate to disappoint you, but it was really a collaboration."

No doubt about that. It is the architectural repository for everything the stakeholders seem to covet after Beijing: splashiness, birdliness and bravado.

The oval's design process and results suggest collaboration of not just architects but also civil servants and paper-pushers. A classic case of design by committee -- but that's no way to build a masterpiece.

Symbolism rocks: the curling facility

A better architectural flagship for the Games is the subdued and banally named "Vancouver Olympic Centre" -- the curling venue designed by Hughes Condon Marler Architects, located on the eastern shoulder of Queen Elizabeth Park. It's no Bird's Nest, but it's basically a good, sophisticated, clean design. Earlier this year, its lead designer, Darryl Condon, was happy to give me a thorough, in-office explanation of its design features and rationale, without a squad of PR professionals vetting our conversation as with the Richmond Oval.

The programme and circulation patterns make sense, and it's slated for a well-thought-out conversion to a community ice rink/swimming pool/library after 2010. Its roofline swell is a reiteration of a form we've seen before, in Hughes Condon Marler's own very fine West Vancouver Aquatic Centre. So: nothing earthshakingly new. Yet this version is somehow more Olympian: its canted facades make it look as though the whole building is lunging forward, like a curler heaving the stone down the ice. There you have it: the Vancouver Olympic Centre, leaning towards Nat Bailey Stadium in a half-predatory, half-amatory stance. Pretty much like the Vancouver citizenry itself, as we lurch towards the Olympic maw.

Athlete's Village: condo overreach

The other major new structure in the Olympic-venue family, the Athletes' Village, is now under construction on False Creek South. But if the oval defines our Olympian overreach, and the Olympic Centre our muted ambitions, the Athlete's Village may turn out to generate a legacy even more trenchant and memorable than the Richmond Oval. That's because it defines what the Vancouver Olympics have largely been about to now: high-flying real estate speculation. And a whole bunch of spectators watching in anticipation of a crash at the gate.

The village is a complex three-phase project by GBL Architects, Merrick Architecture and Nick Milkovich Architects -- esteemed creators all.

Each phase has its charms, and its requisite sophistication and LEED-certified sustainability features.

But at the end of the day, it seems destined to be just another swish condo project. Of the many, many designers involved, several have privately expressed deep frustration at the constraints imposed upon them during the multi-stage design process. "They're looking to us all for some kind of wonderful solution," fumed one architect I interviewed, "yet everything we bring forward gets whacked for some reason."

Destined to become a residential community post-2010, the Athletes' Village might end up being the greatest missed opportunity of the Games, Richmond notwithstanding. The potential for true legacy-making diminished when Vancouver's last city council upended the generous mix of equal parts non-market, mid-market and upper-end housing that the previous Vision government had helped craft.

Sam Sullivan's government cut the one-third-of-each-sector formula back to 20 per cent non-market. That scale-back transformed the Athletes Village from an audacious social experiment -- which, sure, probably would have had big cost overruns -- to a garden-variety mega-development, which -- surprise! -- also has big cost overruns.

Poetic intonations

Yup, the project boasts the requisite eco-wood cabinetry and water-saving faucets, but how environmentally responsible is a hive of half-empty condos? If we're going to take huge financial risks with public money, the stakes had better be worth it. A socially inclusive and architecturally daring housing project might have been.

Let's pull the last words directly from the developers' sales bumph -- specifically, the lavish Millennium Water marketing brochure that unfurls like a centerfold to show False Creek bathed in the lavender and ochre hues of a Vancouver sunset. The brochure concludes by quoting a Kashmiri proverb: "We have not inherited the world from our forefathers -- we have borrowed it from our children."

Safe to say that the brochure copywriters had no idea just how prophetic and financially apropos those words might turn out to be.

http://www.thetyee.ca/Views/2008/12/17/OlympicArch/

[giallo]

While I don't agree with the most of the writer's opinion on Vancouver's Olympic architectural stock, I do agree that it doesn't come close to what Beijing built. But then, what city's Olympic architecture has?

[deasine]

I think the Atheles village is the most amazing thing ever... this article seems like it's just there to bash VANOC... boring... typical tyee

[EdinVan]

Thank you for sharing this article. You always find interesting pieces.

Personally, I agree with all her points (even though, I suspect, her architectural criticisms are merely a thinly veiled disdain for anything corporate).

As far as the Athlete's Village goes, many people pass by it all the time (eg, via SkyTrain) and have no clue what it is; it's that nondescript. I pray it will look better if and when it's done.

[mr.x]

Build great architecture, use up more taxpayers money. People complain.

Use less taxpayers money, build modest architecture. People complain.



What do people expect? When VANOC announced that they saw $190-million in overruns on the original designs, they cut back $80-million on the venues and went to the public asking for $110-million. And the media and everyone had a field day on that cost increase when really, that was nothing. A 25% cost increase on a $470-million budget (to $580-million) is nothing in Olympic terms. The public fails to realize that Vancouver 2010 will be the most modest spending Olympics in recent memory.

Beijing spent BILLIONS on their venues, and if you put Beijing's costs in North American dollars (labour, materials prices adjusted) the Bird Nest would have probably cost something like $3-billion in Vancouver. The actual cost of the Bird Nest in Beijing: US$500-million.....that's much less than the CAN$880-million convention centre and ONE-HALF of the cost for the BC Place renovations.

As for Torino, they spent $2-billion on their sports venues. Our architecture for 2010 is quite on par with the Salt Lake City Games.



The only venues that really lack in terms of architectural quality might be the new arena at UBC, which had its designs cut down substantially due to the permafrost they found from the old rink slab, and maybe the Coliseum....it could really use a lot more interior and exterior cosmetic renovations.

[Distill3d]

Originally Posted by mr.x2

Build great architecture, use up more taxpayers money. People complain.

Use less taxpayers money, build modest architecture. People complain.



What do people expect?

miracles...

[mr.x]

If I remember correctly, Vancouver 2010 is the first Olympics since Salt Lake 2002 to not have any international design competition for any of its venues. The focus, as we all know, was to build it on time, and on budget (with reasonable inflation, as we have witnessed).

It's ever more clear we should have set designers free.

And then the costs would be much higher. I'm sure the Tyee had a blast three years ago when VANOC announced they needed $110-million more.

One of the reasons why Athens and Torino saw major construction cost increases and behind scheduled construction was because of international competitions for the venues. To build all those grandiose venues at such a relatively short matter of time, especially for Athens.....Beijing on the other hand, we all know what happened.

[Distill3d]

the architecture for our Olympic venues fits our communities. IMO I'd rather see architecture thats going to be built to fit the community and not stand out like Canada Place or Science World. lets keep in mind, these are in fact sports venues, and will be used as sports venues. we can't expect something from Frank Ghery, Norman Foster, Dimitris Potiropoulos, or Moshe Safdie for something like this. though, i do think we should have at least attempted to go after Arthur Erickson and/or Douglas Cardinal for some of the venues.

[johnjimbc]

I'm with Distill3d on this one on the venues. Vancouver builds communities while too many (not all but many) other cities make "statements." I'll take communities.

My only real disappointment is the one thing they failed to mention. Why the hell they didn't just bite the bullet and update BC Place will never make any sense to me. Every time I see the "future" design, I just shake my head. That should have been the 2010 statement, if there was any attempt to make one. Though it may not be the bird's nest (what is?), it would have had the benefit of even showing a city that re-created a stadium rather than tearing it down and building another monstrosity a few blocks away. That's a pretty decent statement in itself. As it is, the day late plan only says, "We were a bit behind the ball."

[djmk]

i previously wrote that when i visited the oval last weekend, i thought it was overrated.

i did not like the plywood on the ceiling and the tiny work out area on level 3

[officedweller]

Originally Posted by mr.x2

Build great architecture, use up more taxpayers money. People complain.

Use less taxpayers money, build modest architecture. People complain.

I totally agree. You can't please all of the people all of the time.

[mr.x]

Originally Posted by officedweller

I totally agree. You can't please all of the people all of the time.

Someone offers to build a privately funded system requiring no taxpayer dollars, people complain.

[Distill3d]

Originally Posted by djmk

i previously wrote that when i visited the oval last weekend, i thought it was overrated.

i did not like the plywood on the ceiling and the tiny work out area on level 3

i've been fortunate enough to skate on both of Canada's Olympic Ovals. i found the Richmond Oval impressive. on the ice I can see it taking over Calgary's claim of being the "fastest ice in the world", however, the facility as a speed skating oval is only temporary if i remember correctly.

[rather_draconian]

I'm with Distill3d and johnjimbc. I would criticize what was built in Beijing as basically starchitects' wet dreams made into reality. Not that they aren't amazing, but they had to literally destroy communities to build some of those venues, and what their design has to do with Beijing as a city, I can't tell.

[SpongeG]

Originally Posted by Distill3d

i've been fortunate enough to skate on both of Canada's Olympic Ovals. i found the Richmond Oval impressive. on the ice I can see it taking over Calgary's claim of being the "fastest ice in the world", however, the facility as a speed skating oval is only temporary if i remember correctly.

i thought it was going to be slow ice because of the fact that it at sea level and doesn't get as frozen and hard asit does in calgary?

and yes once the games are done the rink will be lost for speed skaters and speedskaters will still need to train in calgary

[mr.x]

Originally Posted by SpongeG

i thought it was going to be slow ice because of the fact that it at sea level and doesn't get as frozen and hard asit does in calgary?

and yes once the games are done the rink will be lost for speed skaters and speedskaters will still need to train in calgary

That's correct, at higher altitudes and in areas with less moisture (continental rather than maritime) ice surfaces are much denser, does providing more support for those blades to propel great distances. Even at that, the max. difference between our oval might only be a few hundredths of a second.

It's a good decision to turn it into a community centre after 2010 rather than keep it as a speed skating facility. Western Canada doesn't need two facilities.

[SpongeG]

yeah but we are losing out on a lot of money - many clubs and countries send their skaters to calgary to train - they could be spending that money here!!!

[mr.x]

Originally Posted by SpongeG

yeah but we are losing out on a lot of money - many clubs and countries send their skaters to calgary to train - they could be spending that money here!!!

Most would still choose Calgary over Richmond given its superior ice.


If you want legacy, then just hope that the ski jumps at Whistler Olympic Park will be kept after 2010. And I'm sure the luge run will be a big hit among tourists and training athletes.

[Distill3d]

Originally Posted by SpongeG

yeah but we are losing out on a lot of money - many clubs and countries send their skaters to calgary to train - they could be spending that money here!!!

oddly, thats why i opposed the Olympics at first..

[SpongeG]

you don't want people to come here to train and live? adding to our economy?