New Vancouver Art Gallery | Proposed

[mezzanine]

For me, I like the Herzog design. I think of this:



link


versus this:






link

[Migrant_Coconut]

Originally Posted by mezzanine

(snip)

Yeah, Hadid did some pretty good work. Like we've said, all they need to do is shave off the top box and swap out the wood for something else, or at least add more glass paneling - problem solved.

Without context these buildings could be placed anywhere in a larger city in the world and be interchangeable.

That's the point - they're all larger, global cities! Exactly what we're aspiring to be right now.
The current wood fetish - which everybody else stopped using sometime around the 18th century - seems like a step backwards: "We started off as a backwater logging town, but now... actually, we still are." There should be more to the Vancouver image than just trees.

Again, seems like the architects decided to go with Straight Outta Art School, and just threw in as many fads and Cascadia/First Nations tropes as possible to try and make a statement. And again, they might as well go all the way with that statement and use more modern materials as they go up - wood, then stone/concrete, then glass. Everybody wins.

Still, thanks for actually stating what you like about the design and trying to have an actual conversation with us, rather than a condescending "you're not refined enough to understand it" post that sparks another round of insults.

[dreambrother808]

We aren't all equally intelligent. That's just how it is.

But seriously, I had had some wine and was a bit over the top. I was motivated by the derisive comments directed at those supporting the building's design. Fighting fire with fire is naturally pointless.

Mea culpa.

My opinion still stands however, that the building is a misunderstood work of art. I don't see how adding more glass is the answer when we are already inundated by that material here. Where is this similar overuse of wood in other contexts? Were the design actually more in line with current fads, I think the response here would be generally positive.

[Migrant_Coconut]

Originally Posted by dreambrother808

Where is this similar overuse of wood in other contexts? Were the design actually more in line with current fads, I think the response here would be generally positive.

Here you go:













These ones aren't in Vancouver, but hey, guess where the architect is from.





Sometimes it works, sometimes it doesn't - point is, wood seems to be the new glass.

[Migrant_Coconut]

Would've been better to phrase it like this - it has the same effect.

Originally Posted by dreambrother808

I had had some wine and was a bit over the top. I was motivated by the derisive comments directed at those supporting the building's design. Fighting fire with fire is naturally pointless.

But seriously, we aren't all equally intelligent. That's just how it is.

Regardless, apology half-accepted. Sorry if I myself came across as hostile.

My opinion still stands however, that the building is a misunderstood work of art. I don't see how adding more glass is the answer when we are already inundated by that material here.

At the risk of sounding like a broken record:

A) Doesn't have to be all-glass. Stone/concrete (at least in vertical columns) or very large windows, simply to complement the oversaturation of wood, would work too.

B) If you want to think the design is a work of art, that's your choice - it's a free country, after all. But please give an actual case for why it's a work of art (or not), like most of us already have. Acting like there's a "timeless elegance" that only you can understand and mocking anybody who doesn't see it... it's a meaningless insult that doesn't add anything to your argument, and it makes you sound like a pretentious art school graduate.

[dreambrother808]

Originally Posted by Migrant_Coconut

Here you go:

Wow. I could waste my time posting literally hundreds upon hundreds of contradictory photos that clearly highlight how overused glass is. You even had to resort to using other cities. Perhaps at that point it's time to realize how wrong you really are.

[dreambrother808]

Originally Posted by Migrant_Coconut

Would've been better to phrase it like this - it has the same effect.



Regardless, apology half-accepted. Sorry if I myself came across as hostile.



At the risk of sounding like a broken record:

A) Doesn't have to be all-glass. Stone/concrete (at least in vertical columns) or very large windows, simply to complement the oversaturation of wood, would work too.

B) If you want to think the design is a work of art, that's your choice - it's a free country, after all. But please give an actual case for why it's a work of art (or not), like most of us already have. Acting like there's a "timeless elegance" that only you can understand and mocking anybody who doesn't see it... it's a meaningless insult that doesn't add anything to your argument, and it makes you sound like a pretentious art school graduate.

No. Some things cannot be fully explained, like music, like art. They do not require justification, but rather an eye, an appreciation, a discernment.

The gallery is primarily for those whose appreciate art. I have already asked, do you attend the gallery on a regular basis, do you genuinely appreciate art? The tone of these criticisms often, but not always, speak of someone who does not. Well guess what, the design and the gallery itself are not for you. Should we dumb down everything just because it is a public expression? No. Some things deserve to punch through the lowest common denominator.

The worst part is that the original commentary in support of this design referred to First Nations influences in Vancouver and then received some of that underlying racist scoffing that I love on this forum. Oh so you think you can phrase it in certain passive-aggressive way that shields you from repercussions or even a basic sense of self-awareness? Haha. Way to show your cards when it comes to who the real douchebags are.

[Infrequent Poster]

link[/QUOTE]

I am not really a fan of this building or the choice and amount of wood used. BC phil suggested removing the top box would help, and I agree with him. I would also suggest (as an idea) if they insist on cladding the building top to bottom in wood. Maybe they should think about breaking up the sections of the building by using different types of wood?

I feel like the sections above where the glass starts, all kind of blend together. They are all clad in vertical oriented wood planks, all the same width. Even the glass sections below incorporate the same vertical wooden planks. Its too much of the same thing (in my opinion) especially with all the blank walls in the upper portion of the building.

Using wood that was a different width for some sections. Or maybe having some sections with a horizontal orientation might help? Some sort of board and baton, or reverse board and baton sections. Anything to break it up a bit.

I mean even residential houses usually arent done from top to bottom in the same style, because they just look stupid that way. You put shingles in the gables, maybe some stone for the first couple of feet. A different exposure on the siding on the second floor etc. I realize this is no house, but it also isnt a condo or office tower, so I cant help but draw some parallels.

Regardless wood is not gonna hold up well over time. I dont see this building aging well. In my opinion.

[mezzanine]

Originally Posted by dreambrother808

The gallery is primarily for those whose appreciate art. I have already asked, do you attend the gallery on a regular basis, do you genuinely appreciate art? The tone of these criticisms often, but not always, speak of someone who does not. Well guess what, the design and the gallery itself are not for you. Should we dumb down everything just because it is a public expression? No. Some things deserve to punch through the lowest common denominator.

I disagree with this - i like art, but I also like to see it incorporated into peoples lives who normally wouldn't think of themselves as artistic. The VAG should aim high, but at the same time, not to the point of alienating (most?) people.

And remember, this is the internet...

I'd like to think of the gallery being available for everyone. IMO a VAG season pass goes a lot further than canucks seasons tickets.



A photomontage by Stan Douglas (link). Brought to you by Westbank, who IMO does exceptional work to bringing art to their projects

“It may be a bit controversial,” says a [Westbank] representative. “It’s certainly not a feel-good photo. It’s more of a turning point in history, which we’re happy with. I mean, we think it’s something to talk about, something to discuss, and that’s the idea behind art, right? ”

[dreambrother808]

Originally Posted by mezzanine

I disagree with this - i like art, but I also like to see it incorporated into peoples lives who normally wouldn't think of themselves as artistic. The VAG should aim high, but at the same time, not to the point of alienating (most?) people.

And remember, this is the internet...

I'd like to think of the gallery being available for everyone. IMO a VAG season pass goes a lot further than canucks seasons tickets.



A photomontage by Stan Douglas (link). Brought to you by Westbank, who IMO does exceptional work to bringing art to their projects

And yet I agree with all of this...

The Westbank example is great because it speaks of challenging people. Take the Main St. Poodle, everything people hate about it is exactly why it exists. It's a joke, it's funny. And yet reading posts on this silly forum, that is so lost with all of the foolish literalists. I'm sorry but to me that is a form of stupidity.

[Migrant_Coconut]

Originally Posted by dreambrother808

No. Some things cannot be fully explained, like music, like art. They do not require justification, but rather an eye, an appreciation, a discernment.

So your gut feeling is more valid than our opinions, because it comes from years of looking at art that you like. Okay, I can work with that; just keep in mind that unless you're an actual artist or architect, instead of just a patron, then that makes you an armchair building critic like the rest of us.

You even had to resort to using other cities. Perhaps at that point it's time to realize how wrong you really are.

Hence "guess where the architect is from." Because they're all Vancouverites. If you can point to another city that has a large number of architects with a collective timber fetish, by all means - I do enjoy learning new things.

Glass is a trend that's been going on for the past two decades. Wood is a recent fad.

The worst part is that the original commentary in support of this design referred to First Nations influences in Vancouver. This received some of that underlying racist scoffing that I love on this forum. Oh so you think you can phrase it in certain passive-aggressive way that shields you from repercussions or even a basic sense of self-awareness? Haha. Way to show your cards when it comes to who the real douchebags are.

Mind linking to this original commentary? I've been following this thread ever since they announced the new building, and I've yet to notice any bigotry. Unless "wooden inukshuk=/=Vancouverism" is equivalent to passive-aggressive racism, in which case yes, we are all flaming bigots.

A wooden and stone/concrete building with some Haida/Coast Salish/Inuit artistry on and around the ground level would be more than okay, but making the entire thing a giant wooden Inuit cairn and saying it represents Vancouver seems like designing a national museum to look like a beaver and saying it represents Canada.

Also, if you have a beef with Jebby calling you a douche, please throw it back in a reply to him, not me.

[trofirhen]

.... Opinions and their concommitant feelings often run high on SSP. However, (and I'm guilty too), could we try and refrain from the AD HOMINEM insults, and disagree with the opinions, without insulting posters personally with rude, crude, lowlife attacks? Insulting people publicly ultimately reflects back on the name-caller.
It would make the whole SSP experience - already great - just that much nicer and better. May I suggest that if you have a real grudge against someone; write them a private note,
istead of turning the forum into a verbal insult slugfest. Thank you.

[Migrant_Coconut]

Noted, toning it down.

In other news, the Vancouver Concert Hall & Theatre Society wants to convert the old courthouse into a pair of underground theatres after the Art Gallery moves. Pretty creative.

[trofirhen]

Maintaining the elegant Rattenbury-designed building (probably the most aristocratic edifice in the city) for purely cultural purposes would be a great step forward.
And if there are concert halls to be built under the plaza, what about the original building itself? A music school, or such other major cultural application would be very appropriate.
(... and for people who like to think of Vancouver as "world class," this is a good direction to be moving in, to boot) IMHO, of course.

[mezzanine]

Originally Posted by Infrequent Poster

I feel like the sections above where the glass starts, all kind of blend together. They are all clad in vertical oriented wood planks, all the same width. Even the glass sections below incorporate the same vertical wooden planks. Its too much of the same thing (in my opinion) especially with all the blank walls in the upper portion of the building.

Using wood that was a different width for some sections. Or maybe having some sections with a horizontal orientation might help? Some sort of board and baton, or reverse board and baton sections. Anything to break it up a bit.

IMO the uniformity and the vertical lines adds to add to the gravity of the place - it seems imposing because this is a civic institution. But it also adds some incongruity - you normally wouldn't use wood/wood veneer for a large structure like this.

I suspect that the Herzog design is reflective and complimentary of the modernism of the QE theatre next door.

Maybe the top part can be omitted if they stage the construction like they did for Bental 5 as a cost-saving measure, and build it after further consideration for further design assessment.

Regardless wood is not gonna hold up well over time. I dont see this building aging well. In my opinion.

Not to speak ill of the dead, but maybe you can compare it to zaha hadid's Heydar Aliyev Centre:



link

A beautiful modern building, arguably mirroring what's popular in modern architecture. I wouldn't mind seeing a smaller version of this at Larwill Park.

Where is this building? Wrong, it's in Baku, Azerbaijan. Nothing about this building says Baku Azerbaijan. This cultural centre could be built anywhere in the world where they want a place-maker.

Maybe they are going for a bilbao effect. Maybe it will be seen as the part of the excesses of a repressive petro-state and suffer from a lack of programming. Compared to the Herzog design, I wonder how this would hold up with time.

[s211]

I'm sorry but this just looks more and more like a stack of discarded cardboard boxes that litter the alleyways of every Hollywood movie.

[trofirhen]

Originally Posted by s211

I'm sorry but this just looks more and more like a stack of discarded cardboard boxes that litter the alleyways of every Hollywood movie.

You got that right !!! (I looked up the building in Baku on Google; now that is elegant!)

[Migrant_Coconut]

Haven't seen these before on the forum.




I think I finally see where Herzog was trying to go with the design; this actually looks good.

Too bad it doesn't translate to the render.

Originally Posted by mezzanine

IMO the uniformity and the vertical lines adds to add to the gravity of the place - it seems imposing because this is a civic institution. But it also adds some incongruity - you normally wouldn't use wood/wood veneer for a large structure like this.

It's like with Brutalism - just like too much uninterrupted concrete makes your building look like a prison, so too much uninterrupted timber makes it look like an oversized treehouse, or a pagoda. Whereas endless glass or stone (at worst) makes your building simply mediocre, not off-putting.

Like half the forum's already mentioned, the only real sticking point is the topmost layer; the rest is fine, since the wood and glass complement each other, but the top is just one big wall of wood.
Perhaps if they ran an additional overhang around the middle of it, like with the centre layer?

[mezzanine]

Originally Posted by trofirhen

(I looked up the building in Baku on Google; now that is elegant!)

Be careful of what you wish for...

There are many costs and time management issues that go into this project. The biggest issue by far is the fact that it took 2.5 years of experimentation, to figure out how to install the smooth roofing panels, and have them all fit perfectly one into the other, to ensure no cracks, halls or gaps are created in the process. This left a roofing graveyard next to the construction site, which includes all the material part that will not be used in the future construction work.
.....

Despite the many unplanned costs, time and resources spent on roofing materials which won’t be used, and secrecy surrounding the cost of the project, the architectural feat of the building is one of a kind and instills inspiration in the soul.

That last part deserves a ...

Curved buildings are more expensive. The more curves, the more expense.

At least with the Herzog design, I don't see a lot of unplanned costs depending on the what they ultimately decide for the wood/wood veneer components. A engineered wood skin should be low cost and durable. A re-skin (with a non-wood veneer if desired) should be relatively easy with the vertical components and could be incorporated for rotating temporary installations.

[trofirhen]

Originally Posted by mezzanine

Be careful of what you wish for...

That last part deserves a ...

Curved buildings are more expensive. The more curves, the more expense.

At least with the Herzog design, I don't see a lot of unplanned costs depending on the what they ultimately decide for the wood/wood veneer components. A engineered wood skin should be low cost and durable. A re-skin (with a non-wood veneer if desired) should be relatively easy with the vertical components and could be incorporated for rotating temporary installations.

Maybe the square wooden design is cheaper, but the Baku design is SO much more urbane, so much sleeker, so much more (I hate the words, but) ... "world class".