New Vancouver Art Gallery | Proposed

[wrenegade]

Did Canada Place ever win any architectural awards? I think it is undoubtably the icon for Vancouver (we don't have much else). I'm sure it was original when it was built as it is still striking today. And for that matter, who was the architect/designer? Local?

Also, was the Cannon design team that did the Olympic Oval local? I retain a faint glimmer of hope that someone in this town can design something of merit. If James Cheng is chosen I might have an aneurysm (I'll need something stronger than tums for that).

All that aside, I agree with a lot of what has been posted about priorities. $300-odd million for a new art gallery while the province is struggling to meet it's bread and butter expenses (transportation, health, education) is beyond frivolous. What does the VAG have raised privately? I'd like to see them have 50%. Maybe then we can start talking. It's not like the Art Gallery is dying where it is now, it will survive as is for another couple years. I'm all for art & culture, but not at the expense of other things.

[mr.x]

Originally Posted by dleung

...if they decide to go big/massively-overbudget like with the badass convention centre we all love...

Worth every penny.

[racc]

So they are trying to gain public support through an event at the Board of Trade. Just what public are they trying to get the support of, the public from the British Properties. These people are so out of touch I'm actually kinda feeling sorry for them. Seems like they really need a new PR firm, one that remembers the P in PR stands for "Public" and for that matter, the R stands for "Relations".

So far, this is starting to look like a text book case of how not to advance a project.

[trofirhen]

Originally Posted by Spork

"Some critics argue the Robson Street gallery could simply be expanded underground. But Audain responded that the costs are too high and the gallery would have to close for two years."

Costs too high? If it costs less than $350 mill, I'd call it a bargain. Closed for two years! Oh no! What will we do with no central, non-profit art gallery! Arrogant twats.

Originally Posted by PROSTSHOCKER

Don't forget that it'll incorporate a glass box protrusion on the side.

Originally Posted by mr.x

Minimalistic, unimaginative...Vancouver. Disappointed once again.

Originally Posted by whatnext

So in other words the taxpayer is on the hook for $310 out of $350 million for Bartels' and Audian's ego project? At a time when we're closing schools and laying off teachers.

If those two want a vanity project with no office building component to "spoil" their dream, let them go and fundraise all the money privately, as they would have to do in the USA.

Originally Posted by awvan

Ya, maybe a would renowned architect could design it like a traditional native structure, like a haidi longhouse or something, but adapt it for today's world by using a modern material, like concrete or something. Oh wait, that already happened.

Turning this building into a native museum is the dumbest idea ever. There is already a great museum in a fantastic building out at UBC. I believe it's been said before, but I'll say it again, National Portrait Gallery.

Originally Posted by invisibleairwaves

THIS.

I'd love to see this happen, but I don't want to see this much taxpayer money going towards it. We have bigger fish to fry. I understand the importance of art in society, but there's also the importance of education, healthcare, and infrastructure. We really have to get our priorities straight here.

Originally Posted by EastVanMark

X3

just waiting for the pine beetle wood/ protruding box/"living" roof ode to boring that is sure to come.

sensible and reasonable architecture aka Boring architecture.

Maybe they can use the same architects who drew up the "stunning" new casino (if you can even call that a casino).

Originally Posted by awvan

Did Canada Place ever win any architectural awards? I think it is undoubtably the icon for Vancouver (we don't have much else). I'm sure it was original when it was built as it is still striking today. And for that matter, who was the architect/designer? Local?

Also, was the Cannon design team that did the Olympic Oval local? I retain a faint glimmer of hope that someone in this town can design something of merit. If James Cheng is chosen I might have an aneurysm (I'll need something stronger than tums for that).

All that aside, I agree with a lot of what has been posted about priorities. $300-odd million for a new art gallery while the province is struggling to meet it's bread and butter expenses (transportation, health, education) is beyond frivolous. What does the VAG have raised privately? I'd like to see them have 50%. Maybe then we can start talking. It's not like the Art Gallery is dying where it is now, it will survive as is for another couple years. I'm all for art & culture, but not at the expense of other things.

Originally Posted by LeftCoaster

Seems kinda inappropriate to house a Native Canadian art museum in a very european looking building.

I would personally like to see the Vanouver museum move in.

Originally Posted by officedweller

The wierd thing is I'll bet there was more concern over violating the integrity of Erickson's Robson Square plan than in blending the new with the old courthouse.

Originally Posted by PaperTiger

small update, not exactly earth shattering:

VANCOUVER (NEWS1130) - After six years of debate, the Vancouver Art Gallery has finally chosen a location for its new home--the old bus depot location on Dunsmuir, next to the Queen Elizabeth Theatre.

The new building is expected to cost around $300-million. It's scheduled to be completed by 2015, funded with a combination of public and private money. The Gallery has complained the current building on Robson--in the old courthouse building--is too small for its collection of 10,000 pieces, and not large enough to accomodate major exhibitions and ever-expanding educational and public programs.
We're expecting to learn more today about the future of the Vancouver Art Gallery. More will be revealed about the facility's new location later today.

Originally Posted by jsbertram

3b: It will be compared to the nearby Queen E Theatre, Post Office, CBC bunker, Beatty Armoury, GM Place, BC Place, and VPL coliseum with complaints about how it clashes with the rest of the neighbourhood.

Bad timing, bad location, insipid architecture guaranteed, lack of resourcefulness (not adapting the current VAG), and a whopping $300m price tag, when we're desperately trying ways to finance a much-need RRT system, and other vital infrastructure and community services.
For anyone who wants a textbook example of how to do things bass-ackwards and wrong, come to Vancouver. This is the city that has it down to a science.

[deasine]

Were those quotes really necessary? -__-"

[trofirhen]

Originally Posted by deasine

Were those quotes really necessary? -__-"

Excuse me, Deasine, in this case yes. I wanted to condense them down as backup to a statement I wanted to make. Other people take up space doing similar things at times. I feel I have the right to do this, this one time, if you'll permit me. I feel very strongly about it. Thank you.

[Hed Kandi]

Originally Posted by Hed Kandi

http://www.trailergasm.com/aboutus/



Like the great coin-operated profit Zoltar, I will predict the future. The following events will happen more or less in the following order:



1) The new art gallery design will be unveiled in the coming months.

2) There will be no international competition held. The City of Vancouver however will announce that a paltry local firm has 'won' the contract to design the new art gallery. The city will then boast that this building will be the 'Greenest Art Gallery in the World' and will be certified Lead Platinum. It will incorporate more 'pine beetle wood'.

3) The design will be insipid and safe. The architects who believe themselves to be progressive will throw in a last minute splash of red or yellow paneling to the building, believing it to be both 'bold and ingenious' and 'exactly what Vancouver needs to break up the monotonous green/blue glass'. Little do they remember that they were responsible for designing those buildings.

4)After seeing the design for the first time, I will stumble on here feeling very nauseous. I will then compose a diatribe on this utterly worthless piece of so-called architecture. I do anticipate that DLeung and other cynics will join along in the rant.

5)Jlo and Leftcoaster will then seek to reprimand me and enforce the notion that this architecture is sensible and reasonable for Vancouver. They will also make their monthly recommendation that I book a one way flight to Dubai - and perhaps I just may.

6)Our pinhead premier will give one of his usual speeches about the legacy that this building will create, though I'm not sure it will be one that we will want to remember. The media will approach the project with caution, criticism, and slight praise. And of course they will raise the ever controversial 'Vancouver Issue' about how funds would be far better spent on social programs, housing, and the all the children in Africa, etc

7) It will continue to piss rain for months and years on end.

8) The design will come of fruition and it will win zero international design awards. When tourists visit Vancouver they will continue to praise its remarkable beauty. The mountains, the sea, Stanley Park. But never will they mention its architecture.

9) Finally, I will gaze upon this monstrosity with my own eyes - and I will continue to await with anxious hope that one day great design may be bestowed upon this city.

EDIT:

10) The forecast will call for more rain.

11) Housing prices will continue to skyrocket into oblivion... Meanwhile, Vancouver will once again be ranked as the 'World's Most Liveable City'.

[LeftCoaster]

Haha hed, your post was actually pretty clever and kinda funny, I'll give you points for originality on this one.

In my defence however I usually just find your architectural taste to lean towards tacky buildings that will look dated in a manner of years. I have stated that I appreciate great architecure, and that i find most of what Vancouver builds to be quite banal and homogenous. Where we differ is here:

- I dont qualify great architecure as simply a strange shaped building with shiny glass.

- I feel as though great architecture is both daring and original but appreciates the space in which it is built.

- I feel there are a number of local skilled architecture firms (some of whom even have projects in Dubai) who are capable of designing a great porject.

- I feel the more important aspect of architecure is how a building meets the street and interacts with its neighbourhood, wich vancouver's pletohora of glass clad condos actually manage to do quite well. Better than most cities in the world in fact.

- I dont think it is a big deal that vancouver has endless boring condos. most residential buildings are boring, just look at 99% of the residential buildings in NYC or Hong Kong. I dont think we need an internatonal design competition applied to every building built in Vancouver (as you once proposed).

[PaperTiger]

Originally Posted by awvan

Ya, maybe a would renowned architect could design it like a traditional native structure, like a haidi longhouse or something, but adapt it for today's world by using a modern material, like concrete or something. Oh wait, that already happened.

Turning this building into a native museum is the dumbest idea ever. There is already a great museum in a fantastic building out at UBC. I believe it's been said before, but I'll say it again, National Portrait Gallery.

You mean the one that was going to be moved to Calgary but ended up staying in Ottawa? I think that issue has been settled.

Oh yes the museum of Anthropology. I forgot about that institute for historical artifacts 30 minutes from everything, that is exactly the same thing as an art gallery in the heart of a cosmopolitan city. What was I thinking. (We can all do withering sarcasm here)

I think a neo-classical building is a beautiful choice for a first nations gallery. It has some depth and history to the modern works. The space itself become a story about reclaiming and redefining symbology, the fact that it was a former courthouse makes it even better.

I understand people on here have a hate on for First Nations art, but I’m guessing a lot of you haven’t been paying that much attention to what is going on across the country, it is not all bears and ravens. There are some amazing, modern first nations artists over the place that bring their different artistic traditions to contemporary works. To see a national selection of this work in one place would be amazing.

[itinerant]

The debate continues and the VAG directorship makes another plea; this time to the business community at the Board of Trade. There is nothing new here.

There are other parts of the arts community that have their eyes set on the Larwill Park site for a 'spectacular new building' for the performing arts. The VAG already has a great building, and a great opportunity to expand where they are. The city should of course evaluate what the VAG is asking for, and consider their options. It is normal for a gallery to rotate its permanent collection, and desirable for our gallery to have a flexible and large temporary exhibit space. We can do that at Robson Square for much less $$ than is being proposed by the VAG committee, and the outcome would be equally spectacular!

Its great that the gallery wants to grow. They should just look under their feet, instead of where another great arts need (purpose built opera, symphony, and stage halls) is targeted.

[trofirhen]

Originally Posted by itinerant

The debate continues and the VAG directorship makes another plea; this time to the business community at the Board of Trade. There is nothing new here.

There are other parts of the arts community that have their eyes set on the Larwill Park site for a 'spectacular new building' for the performing arts. The VAG already has a great building, and a great opportunity to expand where they are. The city should of course evaluate what the VAG is asking for, and consider their options. It is normal for a gallery to rotate its permanent collection, and desirable for our gallery to have a flexible and large temporary exhibit space. We can do that at Robson Square for much less $$ than is being proposed by the VAG committee, and the outcome would be equally spectacular!

Its great that the gallery wants to grow. They should just look under their feet, instead of where another great arts need (purpose built opera, symphony, and stage halls) is targeted.

I agree with you, but the VAG says expanding the underground rooms is not possible because it's too damp and humid, which will cause damage to the artwork, and that there is not enough (natural) light, which will not render the paintings -and other artwork - in their intended colours, and it is too small for live performances, so forth.
Personally, I think right down where they are is THE BEST option, but it seems a vast majority don't, and they back it up with "facts and statistics"

[flight_from_kamakura]

hahaha, great post hed kandi!

i'm staunchly in favor of this badboy, and i wonder if we'll see toderian impose his mixed use plan for the site. pretty funny that they were worried about preserving the integrity of the robson square site - i'd have loved to have seen that piece of shit filled in as the gallery annexed those spaces.

[trofirhen]

Originally Posted by flight_from_kamakura

hahaha, great post hed kandi!

i'm staunchly in favor of this badboy, and i wonder if we'll see toderian impose his mixed use plan for the site. pretty funny that they were worried about preserving the integrity of the robson square site - i'd have loved to have seen that piece of shit filled in as the gallery annexed those spaces.

I thought that the decision to move to the site of the old bus terminal had already been made. How elegant! And such stunning architecture surrounding it ... the CBC atom bomb shelter, the Post Office Penitentiary.....
yep ..... right down in the centre of the Tourist District .......

[invisibleairwaves]

Originally Posted by trofirhen

I thought that the decision to move to the site of the old bus terminal had already been made. How elegant! And such stunning architecture surrounding it ... the CBC atom bomb shelter, the Post Office Penitentiary.....
yep ..... right down in the centre of the Tourist District .......

...the Sears building...

[Locked In]

Originally Posted by trofirhen

yep ..... right down in the centre of the Tourist District .......

I can't say that I understand the opposition to moving the VAG based on the proposed location. What tourist, or local, is going to say "I would have gone to the museum, but now that it's 5 blocks east, forget it!"? Plus, the proposed location is probably closer to a train station than the VAG is currently, so access won't be a problem. It will also fit in very nicely with the redeveopment of NEFC, providing a landmark institution that connects downtown proper and the high-density development around the stadiums and on the water. And who knows what other development a large project would spur on in the immediate area. I see a lot of benefits to the city by choosing this site - and that's not even taking into account the needs of the gallery itself.

I definitely agree that the current VAG site should be home to a public institution that draws the public. It would be very disappointing if the VAG moved and the building was used for a semi-private function (courthouse, for example). But lots of suitable uses have been suggested! To have a great new VAG plus a new museum or gallery at Robson Square would make the downtown core a lot better, not worse.

The $300M is very valid concern - that's a lot of money when times are tight. I'm not sure it makes the proposed new VAG a non-starter, but it's certainly a more compelling argument against than the proposed location.

[itinerant]

The decision to move to the 'old bus terminal' is only made in the minds of Ms. Bartels and the VAG committee. I admit they have a very effective marketing machine going, and their arguments are exhaustive if not compelling or entirely 'factual'. They are doing their best to sway the business community and the public, and of course everyone enthusiastic about spending lots of money on something new and fresh! But is that money most-wisely spent on a relocated VAG...?

Dampness and insufficient lighting at an expansion of the current location? Really?! Come on! Galleries crave controlled environments for lighting, so I don't get that. As for dampness, that's completely within control of a well-maintained building (and roof). Putting galleries underground with natural light filtered through skylights and other creative solutions from any skillful architect (lantern, light wells, etc.) are completely possible.

[officedweller]

I think the concern is that there would be less walk-in traffic from tourist shoppers on Robson St. - "oh, look it's the Art Gallery, tlet's go in there" - and more of a dependence on destination tourists looking for the Art Gallery (since tourists are less likely to be wandering the east end of Georgia St.)

[Zassk]

Does the VAG actually get spontaneous walk-up customers? You can't even enter it from the north side that everyone is visiting & taking pictures on!

Anyway, there's nothing wrong with the old location... except space. We should all want a larger art gallery that can properly host travelling exhibits and both display and store its collection. I fully support moving it east a few blocks into a new building that is almost perfectly served by rapid transit.

This could be the beginning of a revitalization of that end of Georgia. The last time I walked that far east on Georgia from Granville was 30 years ago when I was a little boy holding my mom's hand. Give me a reason to go down there. There are other cultural institutions around there already. The area just needs some key redevelopments (e.g. post office) to vastly improve its ambience.

[AlexYVR]

Originally Posted by trofirhen

Personally, I think right down where they are is THE BEST option, but it seems a vast majority don't, and they back it up with "facts and statistics"

You, sir, are either an amazing troll or just ragefully frustrating. And because you will ask:

"Troll: One who purposely and deliberately (that purpose usually being self-amusement) starts an argument in a manner which attacks others on a forum without in any way listening to the arguments proposed by his or her peers. He will spark of such an argument via the use of ad hominem attacks (i.e. 'you're nothing but a fanboy' is a popular phrase) with no substance or relevence to back them up as well as straw man arguments, which he uses to simply avoid addressing the essence of the issue."

Do you think that because you put "facts and statistics" in quotes it makes them less true? Especially when they're from people who, I don't know, run an art gallery here in Vancouver?

You're obviously a really intelligent guy but you should seriously consider changing your user name to ad hominem.

/rant

As to the art gallery, Hed Kandi hit it pretty much spot on, except that like LeftCoaster, I prefer to think of 'great architecture' as incorporating more than aesthetics; then again, a bland box which interfaces well with the street is just as bad (in its own way) as a Gehry. I'm excited to see them moving forward, at least. It's great to know that this city is working towards achieving some more cultural relevance.

[jsbertram]

Originally Posted by trofirhen

I thought that the decision to move to the site of the old bus terminal had already been made. How elegant! And such stunning architecture surrounding it ... the CBC atom bomb shelter, the Post Office Penitentiary.....
yep ..... right down in the centre of the Tourist District .......

I think the Art Gallery is trying to find a better site than gordo's dream of putting it on the water (replacing the last remnants of Expo 86 Plaza of Nations and BC Pavillion).

However, I'm told that the former Greyhound block at Beatty / Dunsmuir is owned by the City, so the art gallery will either have to purchase the land from the City, do a land swap of a some other land owned by the art gallery for this empty block, or get a 99 year lease from the City. If the City agrees, I would bet on a 99 year lease.

However, since the City owns the land, they may decree that other things must be built on the block along with the Art Gallery. Office towers? Condos? Social Housing?

The location isn't a problem, since it's directly outside the Stadium Station:

http://maps.google.com/maps?f=q&source=s...g7f5q6_CbkqT1s-iA&cbp=12,266.98,,0,-4.58


I just noticed that Google Streets has the original "Beatty Wall 2007" before VANOC/CoV painted over it just before the Olympics. Too controversial for the Live City site I guess.
Which makes me wonder why is the City having the wall painted again by a new group of grafArtists, only to have it knocked over in a few years when the site is redeveloped?