New Vancouver Art Gallery | Proposed

[jsbertram]

Originally Posted by officedweller

Yeah I wouldn't use the word's "wrong reason" either.
I just question mainetance costs and aging.



This raises an interesting question - can they link under the office towers and under Dunsmuir to Stadium Station?

There is an unused tunnel from the station to AMEC Foster Wheeler on the north side of the street. The tunnel ends at stairs up to the N.W. corner of the intersection - now planked over.

here:
https://www.google.com/maps/@49.2799565,...iSwZN4YNwmNAg!2e0!7i13312!8i6656!6m1!1e1



Part of the tunnel leads to the Lost N Found at Stadium Stn.

[mezzanine]

WRT the use of wood and the lack of clarity of its use, I suspect that part of the question the design team is debating is how much would be used for structure and how much for decorative element. I think there would be a lot of interest from Victoria and industry to showcase wood's use in the building. That being said, I like the gallery proposal but I would feel uneasy if wood was used extensively for structure as opposed to decorative....

The more prominent—but far least concrete—proposed future Vancouver Art Gallery would be an even taller 220-foot set of interconnected wooden boxes. While architects Herzog and de Meuron did not specify the construction material (which would typically be concrete for a building of this size and scale), lead architect Christine Binswinger said in her design statement that "it would be a powerful statement to construct this large building out of wood," throwing a nod to the provincial government's support of tall wood buildings.

Those projects will all use a material called cross-laminated timber. Pioneered in Switerland in the early '90s, dense wood panels have been touted as an alternative to concrete and have been embraced by B.C. lumber producers and the provincial government. "The market [for CLT] has been good,” said Bill Downing, president of Penticton-based Structurlam Products, a heavy timber maker, in an interview with BCBusiness earlier this year. “It’s a specialty product, but the demand is building." The challenge, however, lies in the building code, which limits wood-frame structures to six-stories. UBC is placing heavy emphasis on its safety features, likely intended to reassure the public as well as building inspectors, going so far as to build a full-scale mock-up support structure in Abbotsford for testing.

http://www.bcbusiness.ca/natural-resourc...-wood-towers-a-sign-of-buildings-to-come

I think another reason why the design team lacked answers about wood is that they are still trying to figure out if/how to allow the wood to age and patina.

Research is still needed to determine the feasibility of the design as well as the best way to treat the wood, however Binswanger said Vancouver is in a unique position to explore the concept. “I’m really confident because it is a knowledge that exists in this part of the world, and it just makes so much sense from a historical standpoint, economically, and also architecturally. But at the same time we don’t do this conceptually,” she asserted. “It’s really about the physicality of the wood; this is a building that will change over time. Almost like the building itself is nature.” - See more at: http://www.westender.com/news-issues/new...pt-design-1.2072384#sthash.YoucK9Kt.dpuf

IMO they should used engineered wood panels (that minimizes developing a patina to whatever the industry standard is) over a concrete/steel frame. Perhaps this might reduce the cost and eliminate a lot of guesswork....

[BCPhil]

Originally Posted by askewed

from the Vancouver Sun website, posted just now.

The funny thing about this render, that I can't stop thinking about, is how god damn good the Post Office looks.

Just put the art gallery in there, dress it up at street level, install a fountain in the front parking lot (made of wood?), put a haunted art walk in the mail tunnels, and open her for business.

[EastVanMark]

Looks like an elementary school popsicle stick project.

[Sprawl]

Originally Posted by BCPhil

The funny thing about this render, that I can't stop thinking about, is how god damn good the Post Office looks.

Just put the art gallery in there, dress it up at street level, install a fountain in the front parking lot (made of wood?), put a haunted art walk in the mail tunnels, and open her for business.

But the entire point of this process is to develop a new, customised building suited to Kathleen Bartels' – pardon me – the Gallery's needs.

Architecture aside, the fact that they seem to have secured public and political support for this and are not expanding at the current site still strikes me as mildly insane.

[Rico]

My first thoughts were not kind to this proposal but it has been growing on me.

[Sheba]

Originally Posted by BCPhil

The funny thing about this render, that I can't stop thinking about, is how god damn good the Post Office looks.

Just put the art gallery in there, dress it up at street level, install a fountain in the front parking lot (made of wood?), put a haunted art walk in the mail tunnels, and open her for business.

The city doesn't own the Post Office building and I'm pretty sure the tunnel was filled in. Even without those pesky details, would the Post Office be big enough as is or would it need major work to fit the art gallery in?

[whatnext]

Originally Posted by Sprawl

But the entire point of this process is to develop a new, customised building suited to Kathleen Bartels' – pardon me – the Gallery's needs.

Architecture aside, the fact that they seem to have secured public and political support for this and are not expanding at the current site still strikes me as mildly insane.

Bartels' needs or her ego? In a city which couldn't support a Broadway style theatre and is losing its opera season I can't see enough money being shaken loose from anyone for this cultural project.

[BCPhil]

Originally Posted by Sheba

The city doesn't own the Post Office building and I'm pretty sure the tunnel was filled in. Even without those pesky details, would the Post Office be big enough as is or would it need major work to fit the art gallery in?

Well, everything is for sale for a price. I'm sure the pension fund that bought it didn't buy it for the intrinsic value of the building.

The block the VAG wants to use is about the same size as the post office block. Depending on height allowances, buying that property and selling the proposed site (basically swap land for land+money) might make the city money and give the pension developers more freedom to work with.

The post office building, as is, has an interior floor space of 686,000sq ft. (16 acres). More than double the VAG proposal. And I think it's type of construction allows it to be internally reconfigured.

It really is a great looking building, and a fairly unique one in all of Canada. It was even called the "Taj Mahal with escalators” when built. If you take off the coat of arms and put art in the blank spaces, any FoB tourist will easily assume that the building is a museum. And it is right across from the Library, and you wouldn't have to alter the QE theater plaza to make it fit in (as it already does).

Saving a heritage building worked great for the current VAG, maybe it should save another heritage building from the chopping block. As a federal building, it escapes the City's heritage designation, and as a crown corporation, it escapes even federal heritage status.

[Sprawl]

Originally Posted by BCPhil

Well, everything is for sale for a price. I'm sure the pension fund that bought it didn't buy it for the intrinsic value of the building.

The block the VAG wants to use is about the same size as the post office block. Depending on height allowances, buying that property and selling the proposed site (basically swap land for land+money) might make the city money and give the pension developers more freedom to work with.

The post office building, as is, has an interior floor space of 686,000sq ft. (16 acres). More than double the VAG proposal. And I think it's type of construction allows it to be internally reconfigured.

It really is a great looking building, and a fairly unique one in all of Canada. It was even called the "Taj Mahal with escalators” when built. If you take off the coat of arms and put art in the blank spaces, any FoB tourist will easily assume that the building is a museum. And it is right across from the Library, and you wouldn't have to alter the QE theater plaza to make it fit in (as it already does).

Saving a heritage building worked great for the current VAG, maybe it should save another heritage building from the chopping block. As a federal building, it escapes the City's heritage designation, and as a crown corporation, it escapes even federal heritage status.

They're not interested. The entire point of the last few years has been to create something entirely bespoke for the sake of prestige/service prevision/ego/public presence/take your pick. If they were at all interested in the advantages you state, the most sensible approach would be to stay at the existing site and expand into UBC.

[trofirhen]

Originally Posted by Sprawl

They're not interested. The entire point of the last few years has been to create something entirely bespoke for the sake of prestige/service prevision/ego/public presence/take your pick. If they were at all interested in the advantages you state, the most sensible approach would be to stay at the existing site and expand into UBC.

It is tragic when egos and pompous pride triumph over aesthetics and practicality.

[LeftCoaster]

Originally Posted by trofirhen

It is tragic when egos and pompous pride triumph over aesthetics and practicality.

There is no practicality to trying to build an art gallery on a piece of land you don't own...

[trofirhen]

Originally Posted by LeftCoaster

There is no practicality to trying to build an art gallery on a piece of land you don't own...

Anyway it could be purchased, with an accompanying 'density swap,' or whatever. (I'm not into property deals: excuse my ignorance)
If not, I'd rather see the Rattenbury building enlarged underground and adapted. It is SUCH a classy building. With increased size, perfect for an art gallery: a real one.

[VancouverOfTheFuture]

Originally Posted by trofirhen

Anyway it could be purchased, with an accompanying 'density swap,' or whatever. (I'm not into property deals: excuse my ignorance)
If not, I'd rather see the Rattenbury building enlarged underground and adapted. It is SUCH a classy building. With increased size, perfect for an art gallery: a real one.

i heard awhile back that the Province wants to move back into the current VAG due to a lack of courtrooms. the annex part still has its courtrooms in it as well. that could have something to do with them not looking at staying in their current building.

[BCPhil]

Originally Posted by Sprawl

They're not interested. The entire point of the last few years has been to create something entirely bespoke for the sake of prestige/service prevision/ego/public presence/take your pick. If they were at all interested in the advantages you state, the most sensible approach would be to stay at the existing site and expand into UBC.

Even expanding the current gallery would be expensive and probably not yield the same amount of usable space. There is 165,000 sq ft in the current building. What would need to be done to get it up to the 310,000 sq ft that is targeted in the new building, or the 686,000 sq ft in the existing post office?

How much would it cost to achieve the same results as taking over a currently standing building?

It's going to cost $300 million to build the building. How much would it cost to retrofit the post office?

Originally Posted by LeftCoaster

There is no practicality to trying to build an art gallery on a piece of land you don't own...

The art gallery doesn't own the land they want to build on either.

Larwill park would be a gift from the city.

The post office was bought by a pension fund that wants to redevelop it. So the building at best in need of major upgrades for office/retail space, at worst a nuisance (dealing with the cost of demolition or heritage facade retention would be very expensive for that building). Larwill park is empty, a blank slate for a developer, and closer to transit making it perfect for mixed use.

If they tried, I'm sure an agreement could be worked out between the city and the pension fund, where they trade the post office for Larwill park and some cash/concessions. Then the city donates the building (or even lease it out for $1 and be landlord) and the VAG comes up with a fraction of $300 million planned for the new site to upgrade the building to a gallery. They could even follow through on the original plans and add the tower to the building and use the proceeds to completely pay for the gallery.

Everyone wins. The only loser in that scenario is Kathleen Bartels' ego.

[BCPhil]

Originally Posted by VancouverOfTheFuture

i heard awhile back that the Province wants to move back into the current VAG due to a lack of courtrooms. the annex part still has its courtrooms in it as well. that could have something to do with them not looking at staying in their current building.

I think at this point they are just spitballing ideas for the building to see what sticks. If the government is in desperate enough need for court room space that they would take over the space that has significant cultural uses, it would be foolish at this point to wait for the gallery to move out.

[officedweller]

Scathing review by former city planner/architect Ralph Segal:

http://www.francesbula.com/uncategorized/vancouver-art-gallery-design-have-your-say/

and Michael Geller also says it needs a redesign:

http://www.vancourier.com/opinion/opinion-vancouver-art-gallery-building-needs-redesign-1.2073747

[trofirhen]

Originally Posted by officedweller

Scathing review by former city planner/architect Ralph Segal:

http://www.francesbula.com/uncategorized/vancouver-art-gallery-design-have-your-say/

and Michael Geller also says it needs a redesign:

http://www.vancourier.com/opinion/opinion-vancouver-art-gallery-building-needs-redesign-1.2073747

I think both Segal and Geller make very pertinent observations on the inappropriateness of the design. Geller says it is not beautiful, and does honour its urban context. Quite correct, IMO.

[NewfBC]

http://future.vanartgallery.bc.ca/

Ron.

[jlousa]

The design is slowly growing on me, and I think with some tweaking it can be made to work. Saw this on another site and while tongue in cheek, I think it improves it. Move both of the birds from SEFC onto the roof and call it a day.



Source: Frances Bula blog