New Vancouver Art Gallery | Proposed

[delboy]

i just hope that the present gallery remains in the arts. A museum perhaps? It does make sense putting it on the georgia site, easy access to skytrain, close to the heart of the city and other venues for the arts.

[invisibleairwaves]

Originally Posted by delboy

i just hope that the present gallery remains in the arts. A museum perhaps? It does make sense putting it on the georgia site, easy access to skytrain, close to the heart of the city and other venues for the arts.

I've heard that the BC Supreme Court wants to take back the current Gallery building because they're out of room across the street.

[WarrenC12]

Originally Posted by invisibleairwaves

I've heard that the BC Supreme Court wants to take back the current Gallery building because they're out of room across the street.

Nooooooooo. I'd love to see an expanded and improved Vancouver Museum move into the current art gallery.

As for the new location, sounds fine I guess, although that's a fairly small footprint, they will need to build up in order to get all of the space the gallery wants.

[officedweller]

Well, I hope that the Larwill Park site does end up being shared between the Art Gallery (Georgia side) and an office tower (Dunsmuir side). They could put a driveway or plaza mid-block like Shaw Tower & Fairmont Pacific Rim if they want to be "standalone".
That end of town desperately needs some daytime pedestrian traffic - and an art gallery alone isn't going to do it.

[Prometheus]

Moving the Vancouver Art Gallery away from its present location is truly bizarre. The current site is the very epicentre--the very nucleus--of urban life and energy in Vancouver. To spend hundreds of millions of dollars for the privilege of moving away from the most coveted, the most dynamic, location for an urban cultural institution is incomprehensible.

As was pointed out in the article, the reason why the Vancouver Art Gallery was so successful during the Olympics was precisely because its current location at Robson Square was and is the most potent point of urban congregation and social expression in the entire city.

Spending hundreds of millions of dollars to move away from the city's heart to a relatively dead location will be judged by history to have been pure folly.

[Zassk]

Originally Posted by Prometheus

Moving the Vancouver Art Gallery away from its present location is truly bizarre.

The present location is tiny. Tiny. It doesn't matter how nice it looks. It's a toy art gallery, not nearly befitting this city.

The art gallery needs space. Lots of it. And unless you advocate putting a building on top of Robson Square, then the space will have to be elsewhere.

Being close to QE, VPL, and future cultural buildings is not necessarily a "dead" location. The art gallery will bring life to its new location. It's within walking distance of the old location, and it'll be equally close to rapid transit. I love the choice of location.

[mrjauk]

Originally Posted by Prometheus

Moving the Vancouver Art Gallery away from its present location is truly bizarre. The current site is the very epicentre--the very nucleus--of urban life and energy in Vancouver. To spend hundreds of millions of dollars for the privilege of moving away from the most coveted, the most dynamic, location for an urban cultural institution is incomprehensible.

As was pointed out in the article, the reason why the Vancouver Art Gallery was so successful during the Olympics was precisely because its current location at Robson Square was and is the most potent point of urban congregation and social expression in the entire city.

Spending hundreds of millions of dollars to move away from the city's heart to a relatively dead location will be judged by history to have been pure folly.

Have you been following this thread at all? The place is too small. They can only exhibit 3% of their permanent collection at any one time. They need to expand, which can not happen at the present site.

[Prometheus]

Originally Posted by mrjauk

Have you been following this thread at all? The place is too small. They can only exhibit 3% of their permanent collection at any one time. They need to expand, which can not happen at the present site.

One of us sure has not been following. Contrary to your belief, they can expand the current site in many ways. For instance, as the article pointed out, a massive new space could be created underground, like, you know, the Louvre.

Moreover, the new site will only be about double the space of the current, unexpanded site. Thus, after spending hundreds of millions of dollars to move out of the most prime, culturally relevant location in the entire city, they will able to exhibit about 6 percent of their permanent collection. Wow! Space problem sovled, right?

[mr.x]

Great to see some progress on the new VAG, but 300,000 sq. feet is still a small sized museum. Do it right, go for something along the lines of 500,000 sq. feet. I don't understand why we keep thinking small.

And perhaps following that, the Museum of Vancouver out at Kits can get a proper home at the old VAG building at Robson Square...some renovations, expansions, and perhaps also kick UBC out of there with the university finding a new and larger home elsewhere in the peninsuala.



If only the museum building out at Kits was built in Downtown in the first place. It's a pretty iconic building, but it's hardly ever noticed these days given its poor location and local NIMBY's.

[djmk]

its nice to see that there is some progress here

however, i kinda agree with prometheus. this area is a bit of a dead zone, but hopefully the art gallery will bring some life. (note: the louvre only dug down for their atrium).

i would not be surprised if the art gallery follows the same format as the library. build extra space to lease and then reclaim when finances are better. nonetheless, 300,000sqft is too small for this space. the library is almost 400,000 on same size lot.

[SpongeG]

it will be good in the new location - its not like you casually walk past and say oh lets go in - its a destination place

[djh]

I agree that keeping the Library on the same site would be a much more sensible decision. I also agree that the current building is waaaay too small. I also agree that a doubling in size will only allow 6% of the collection to be shown so it may be a pointless expansion (although it's questionable if the other 94% of the collection is worth showing or just trinkets that could go anywhere, e.g, around other civic buildings, but that's another conversation).

So my thought is: Why not make much much better use of the half city block that is sitting there empty, on the site?! Wow, it's a lawn with a fountain! Probably the most valuable lawn in Vancouver. Dig it up, build a huge, multi-level Art Gallery on that site, make it the main wing of the gallery, and link it to the "old" wing (the current gallery). The AGO was able to build a new building on the site of their old building and intermesh the two (the very controversial "Crystal"), but it makes way more sense than the cost of moving everything to an inferior site. And we would still have our meeting place - Robson Square and the front of the "old" gallery.

[Prometheus]

Originally Posted by djh

Why not make much much better use of the half city block that is sitting there empty, on the site?! Wow, it's a lawn with a fountain! Probably the most valuable lawn in Vancouver. Dig it up, build a huge, multi-level Art Gallery on that site, make it the main wing of the gallery, and link it to the "old" wing (the current gallery).

I think a better solution is to build a grand, multi-level gallery underneath a refurbished north square. At the centre of the new underground gallery would be a stunning atrium through which daylight can descend by means of a crystal-like structure (a la the Louvre) or a transparent-bottomed fountain or pool on the surface of the square.

This solution creates a massive amount of new gallery space while preserving a civic square with social and historic importance.

[trofirhen]

Originally Posted by Prometheus

I think a better solution is to build a grand, multi-level gallery underneath a refurbished north square. At the centre of the new underground gallery would be a stunning atrium through which daylight can descend by means of a crystal-like structure (a la the Louvre) or a transparent-bottomed fountain or pool on the surface of the square.

This solution creates a massive amount of new gallery space while preserving a civic square with social and historic importance.

Your ideas sound the best to me so far, Prometheus.

[hollywoodnorth]

Originally Posted by Prometheus

I think a better solution is to build a grand, multi-level gallery underneath a refurbished north square. At the centre of the new underground gallery would be a stunning atrium through which daylight can descend by means of a crystal-like structure (a la the Louvre) or a transparent-bottomed fountain or pool on the surface of the square.

This solution creates a massive amount of new gallery space while preserving a civic square with social and historic importance.

this is what I think also. Louvre style daylighting would be perfect!

[djh]

Originally Posted by Prometheus

I think a better solution is to build a grand, multi-level gallery underneath a refurbished north square. At the centre of the new underground gallery would be a stunning atrium through which daylight can descend by means of a crystal-like structure (a la the Louvre) or a transparent-bottomed fountain or pool on the surface of the square.

This solution creates a massive amount of new gallery space while preserving a civic square with social and historic importance.

Think of the huge cost of the technical and logistical challenges. Surely they'd be bigger than building at the Plaza of Nations location:
Building a new building UNDER an existing building...seismic upgrades? Digging out and forming new foundations below? (this it not like lifting a wood-frame Vancouver Special) Preserving the use of the VAG during construction? Preserving the archives during construction? Considering there's only $50m so far put aside for this, you'd not even get half way along with that budget.

Yes it would be a shame to loose the lawn, but it's possible to build with open public space above ground. Maybe a huge multi-floor atrium-type construction? Or like at the Louvre, the above-ground building forms a C-shape around the edge of the underground building, so you still have a huge ground-level open plaza.

[Prometheus]

Originally Posted by djh

Think of the huge cost of the technical and logistical challenges. Surely they'd be bigger than building at the Plaza of Nations location:
Building a new building UNDER an existing building...seismic upgrades? Digging out and forming new foundations below? (this it not like lifting a wood-frame Vancouver Special) Preserving the use of the VAG during construction? Preserving the archives during construction? Considering there's only $50m so far put aside for this, you'd not even get half way along with that budget.

I think you misunderstand the technical and logistical challenges involved.

Firstly, since the bulk of the new gallery I proposed would lie not under the Vancouver Art Gallery but rather under the north square, obviously most construction would not take place under an existing building at all. It would take place by means of excavating the north square. Therefore, the technical challenges would be similar to those involved in laying the foundation of a standard highrise, while disturbances to current Gallery operations would be minimal.

Secondly, why do you restrict the budget to 50 million dollars? Building a new gallery at Larwill Park has been estimated at 400 million dollars. This is far more than what is needed to construct the gallery I proposed and renovate the current site from top to bottom.

[SpongeG]

just go look back at the renderings they looked at for the cutrrent location - some of them were cool - all above ground

[djh]

Originally Posted by Prometheus

I think you misunderstand the technical and logistical challenges involved.

Firstly, since the bulk of the new gallery I proposed would lie not under the Vancouver Art Gallery but rather under the north square.

Oh. No, I misunderstood what you meant. I thought you meant building a new art gallery UNDER the gallery. I didn't know the north square is the lawn area. Yes, fine, build it under the lawn, which is what I suggested anyway (except I said to add an above-ground level component too, maybe more than just a "component")

Originally Posted by Prometheus

Secondly, why do you restrict the budget to 50 million dollars? Building a new gallery at Larwill Park has been estimated at 400 million dollars. This is far more than what is needed to construct the gallery I proposed and renovate the current site from top to bottom.

The $50m is not a restriction. It is just the confirmed money "in the bank" that the Provincial government has already committed. Anything and everything else promised will vary from $0 - $infinite, depending on who's in power. As for fundraising, that's not going to be a major proportion of the budget (unless some very wealthy decabillionaire decides to offload a substantial chunk)

[twoNeurons]

It was only successful during the Olympics for one reason: F-R-E-E