New Vancouver Art Gallery | Proposed

[Sprawl]

Vancouver more than any other city seems to have a constant stream of ex-bureaucrats stamping their feet over current decision-making. Segal's piece is just an overly verbose and unnecessarily snotty "I don't like it", which is a position he is entitled to hold but not one he can present as an evident truth as he has attempted to do here. Suggesting that the numerous people who have praised this design, the full theatre audience who seemed won over by the concept, are lying for the sake of supporting the VAG is just bizarre.

Frankly, this design is underwhelming. It needs to be a dynamic, sculptural piece unto its own, provoking debate about architecture and art.

Ironic. By this metric this proposal is one of the best the city has ever seen.

[trofirhen]

Originally Posted by NewfBC

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

Ron.

I feel as if I'm supposed to like this, but I just can't. I know the "wooden" aspect goes with BC forest culture,
but the building in no way reflects a feeling of urbanity (unless, like many here, you're hooked on Japanese culture, and the concommitant wooden buildings).
It projects the image not of a sleek, sophisticated "world class" (cough) city, but of the usual kooky blend of small-town and big city pretensions that is Vancouver.
Sorry folks, this one might be just great somewhere else in the city, but I'd fight for a totally gutted and refurbished Post Office building anyday.

[whatnext]

The building in the concept is trying to hard. Weird for the sake of being weird. Like someone said "give us something odd like Bilbao".

[trofirhen]

Originally Posted by whatnext

The building in the concept is trying to hard. Weird for the sake of being weird. Like someone said "give us something odd like Bilbao".

Exactly. Only, as you say, they're trying too hard, and it's coming off as weird, not just spectacular and original (which IMO it isn't). Surely there are more inspiring designs to be had.

[Vancity]

Honestly, if the purpose of the design of the new VAG is supposed to strike up conversations about arts and what not, then doesn't this building achieve that? ever since the design of the new VAG came up, it has struck a chord with people about the design, what artistic, if the building is considered beauty (what IS beauty?) etc, etc.

Isn't that what Art Galleries are supposed to do? Get people talking?

Correct me if I'm wrong, but people ARE talking about this building....mission accomplished?

I think sometimes we are so used to the mundane of all of our buildings (monotonous archeticture...), that when something different comes around, we don't like it.

This building IS unique. It gets people talking. No other building comes close to it's design.

I'd love to see an upgrade on the initial designs...hopefully more details come out about the new VAG.

[Sprawl]

Originally Posted by whatnext

The building in the concept is trying to hard. Weird for the sake of being weird. Like someone said "give us something odd like Bilbao".

For all the criticisms that could be applied here, this isn't one. Any mutual weirdness is just coincidence, there's a very obvious design process at work here that greatly differentiates HdM from Gehry. The concept design is the product of a very rational, functionalist arrangement of programming, it is basically the polar opposite of the Bilbao. I couldn't think of a more divergent comparison if I tried, and in fact a lot of criticism has been along the lines of it needing to be moved towards that direction in terms of more ornamentation for the sake of ornamentation, a more visually distinctive or pleasing composition regardless of functional use.

[Vin]

My take is, if most people find it an eyesore, then it's a failure. Doesn't matter if it creates conversation or not.

Anyone here wants to rush in to donate for this structure to be built?

[officedweller]

Originally Posted by NewfBC

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

Ron.

The at grade renderings look better than the ones issued upon announcement - but they also omit the heavy bulky upper storeys.

A bit ironic that the one storey at grade pavilion looks like construction hoarding in one of the renderings.

[wrenegade]

Originally Posted by Vin

My take is, if most people find it an eyesore, then it's a failure. Doesn't matter if it creates conversation or not.

Anyone here wants to rush in to donate for this structure to be built?

Agreed 100%. And, no, I would be in no rush to donate to see this built. But to have the current building renovated and improve the front plaza area and re-open the grand Georgia Street entrance? Now we're talking.

[whatnext]

Originally Posted by Vancity

Honestly, if the purpose of the design of the new VAG is supposed to strike up conversations about arts and what not, then doesn't this building achieve that? ever since the design of the new VAG came up, it has struck a chord with people about the design, what artistic, if the building is considered beauty (what IS beauty?) etc, etc.

Isn't that what Art Galleries are supposed to do? Get people talking?

Correct me if I'm wrong, but people ARE talking about this building....mission accomplished?

I think sometimes we are so used to the mundane of all of our buildings (monotonous archeticture...), that when something different comes around, we don't like it.

This building IS unique. It gets people talking. No other building comes close to it's design.

I'd love to see an upgrade on the initial designs...hopefully more details come out about the new VAG.

If you walked through downtown in a spandex mankini with a flowerpot on your head and trumpets up your nose you would probably generate a lot of coversation too. Doesn't mean it would be a pretty sight.

[BCPhil]

Originally Posted by trofirhen

I feel as if I'm supposed to like this, but I just can't. I know the "wooden" aspect goes with BC forest culture,
but the building in no way reflects a feeling of urbanity (unless, like many here, you're hooked on Japanese culture, and the concommitant wooden buildings).
It projects the image not of a sleek, sophisticated "world class" (cough) city, but of the usual kooky blend of small-town and big city pretensions that is Vancouver.
Sorry folks, this one might be just great somewhere else in the city, but I'd fight for a totally gutted and refurbished Post Office building anyday.

I agree. The wooden concept, to me, doesn't scream Vancouver. Significant buildings in Vancouver haven't been wood since they all burned to the ground in 1886.

Since then, we have built some of the greatest stone and steel buildings in the world. Not just advanced for our city, but advanced for the world. We built the tallest building in the British Empire 3 times. And most other cities have never built a brutalist building as stunning as what we have built.

The wood cladding feels like a regression for architecture in Vancouver. It feels like what other people, uneducated in our history, would think hour history was and our present is. It represents the stereotypical view of Vancouver by outsiders, not the one that is us that we should be projecting.

Paying homage to the BC forest industry? Sure it has it's place. Maybe at ground level. But, like how Vancouver is built on its logging origins and not defined by it, the Vancouver Art Gallery should build on a wooden grounding not fixated on it.

Make each floor a different material. Use wood, and stone, and steel, then concert and top if off with glass.

That's Vancouver's heritage: a small logging port that grew up to be a leader and innovator on the world stage.

[osirisboy]

Yes very well said bc phil

And trofirhen I don't know why you feel like you are supposed to like it lol.

[red-paladin]

Interesting take on it BCPhil

[Sprawl]

Not really. 'Those foreign architects just don't get us' is a meaningless bit of parochialism that substitutes criticism of design with criticism of the designers.

[osirisboy]

No I think it's valid

[Vin]

Originally Posted by BCPhil

We built the tallest building in the British Empire 3 times.

If this trend were to continue, the Burj Kalifa would be ours today.

Sadly. that urge to go taller ceased after the 60s and 70s when many here turned hippies, smoked pot and hugged trees (and became decision makers later).

Wood for the new art gallery screams Hicksville.

[NewWester]

I feel like the point about wood alone is pretty adroit. However, I still think the Vancouver-ness of the art gallery proposal is about contrast: Vancouver is a glass and concrete built city that abuts the natural world of ocean and mountains (and grey whales apparently). The wooden elements I think play with that: old fashioned wood cladding on a brutalist/modern form, a wooden building surrounded by the glass towers of Vancouver. I think you're right that "wood is Vancouver" is simplistic, but the broader context of the building makes the wood work.

(Also, the Burj Khalifa is 30% unoccupied space built by quasi-slave labour... so I'm pretty okay with it not being in Vancouver.)

[Vin]

Originally Posted by Sprawl

Not really. 'Those foreign architects just don't get us' is a meaningless bit of parochialism that substitutes criticism of design with criticism of the designers.

I don't think we need really sophisticated architects for designs like this. All we need is a summer intern from James Cheng & Co.. Would save up a whole bunch on cosultation fees. If we pay so much to hire foreign architects, then make sure the structure wows everyone.

[officedweller]

Seems like the "buzz" about the new Art Gallery has waned - the VAG trustees or directors wrote a boosterism letter to the editor that was published in the Vancouver Sun today.

*********

WRT wood siding - here's a pics by Taller Better from SSC of a retail store on Bloor in Toronto:

Originally Posted by Taller, Better

Just from the outside. I hate the wooden finish they used; looks like a barn to me. :ohno:

[osirisboy]

I don't like that at all