New Vancouver Art Gallery | Proposed

[christmas]

Wait, are the two glass buildings behind the new art gallery part of the development?
The two seem pretty connected in the render below.

[Vin]

Originally Posted by Jebby

I'm sure you stacked it 100 stories higher. And even built a lego mall underneath it.

You missed something else: it's got LED lighting....

[NewWester]

I can articulate exactly what I like about this proposal:

1. I like the juxtaposition of the natural materials in the context of urban Vancouver. I think that collision between the wilderness and manufactured world is central to my conception of the city.

2. I like the brutalist form with the natural materials for much the same reason. I think it again emphasizes a collision between the manufactured and natural world and gives the building a sense of artistic drama. (Which I recognize is probably polarizing, but with most art-type things if you aren't generating mixed reactions you aren't really doing anything especially interesting.)

3. I like the brutalist/asian/first nations influences. I think that captures a bit of the Vancouver cultural gestalt (even if it is a bit cliche). I also think it riffs on Erickson architecture like Robson Square or MOA, which for me represent the architectural essence of Vancouver.

I might not be completely sold on the final form, but I really like the concept and think it will be a nice art gallery and create an interesting urban space. I would be pleased to see some version of this building actually be made.

(I also think it's a bit daft to complain about a design because of the Sandman Hotel next door. That is going to be there regardless of what is constructed on this site.)

[Migrant_Coconut]

Originally Posted by NewWester

I can articulate exactly what I like about this proposal:

1. I like the juxtaposition of the natural materials in the context of urban Vancouver. I think that collision between the wilderness and manufactured world is central to my conception of the city.

2. I like the brutalist form with the natural materials for much the same reason. I think it again emphasizes a collision between the manufactured and natural world and gives the building a sense of artistic drama. (Which I recognize is probably polarizing, but with most art-type things if you aren't generating mixed reactions you aren't really doing anything especially interesting.)

3. I like the brutalist/asian/first nations influences. I think that captures a bit of the Vancouver cultural gestalt (even if it is a bit cliche). I also think it riffs on Erickson architecture like Robson Square or MOA, which for me represent the architectural essence of Vancouver.

I might not be completely sold on the final form, but I really like the concept and think it will be a nice art gallery and create an interesting urban space. I would be pleased to see some version of this building actually be made.

(I also think it's a bit daft to complain about a design because of the Sandman Hotel next door. That is going to be there regardless of what is constructed on this site.)

Sure, but the problem with brutalism is that excessive concrete is UGLY. Many architects forget that they're designing a building and not a sculpture, at the resident/worker's expense.

Ditto with excessive wood. Aside from the love it/hate it argument, the main point of contention on this forum is that top stack of timber. It's a solid wall of wood, which is bad in itself, but it also clashes with the wood/glass combination of the stacks below.
Break up the top layer (glass windows, overhang, two smaller layers, etc) or get rid of it altogether, and the design more or less works.

[twoNeurons]

Just a note about wood not wearing well.

If the right material is chosen, it can age very, very well.

There are Buddhist temples in Nara, Japan that are in impeccable shape and date to ~700 CE. Horyu-ji, for example. I know that at LEAST the main pillars are made of Cypress which, like cedar, is rot-resistant. It's survived fires, countless earthquakes, lightning strikes, wars, etc.

Of course, the main advantage that these buildings had is that they had access to 1000 year old Cypress trees... ( amazing to think they these trees are still around, yet people born later like Alexander the Great, Plato, Aristotle and maybe even Socrates are long since fertilizer ).

I often wonder if these new engineered wood products will hold up as well as some of the really old wood still existing in buildings around the world.

I guess I should plan to be around to find out.

And I don't think wood is a fad. It's just that we're re-discovering how amazing a material it is after our 50-year love-fest with *new* and *shiny* materials like concrete. Exposed concrete, in my opinion, is not modern, it's an excuse for not finishing a product properly.

[Migrant_Coconut]

Originally Posted by twoNeurons

And I don't think wood is a fad. It's just that we're re-discovering how amazing a material it is after our 50-year love-fest with *new* and *shiny* materials like concrete. Exposed concrete, in my opinion, is not modern, it's an excuse for not finishing a product properly.

If concrete could burn, rot, get termites, or warp in the rain, I'd be a lot more likely to agree with you.

[scryer]

Originally Posted by Migrant_Coconut

If concrete could burn, rot, get termites, or warp in the rain, I'd be a lot more likely to agree with you.

I ain't no wood-working connoisseur but those issues can be addressed with the right finishing. Like a thin layer of something (?) over the surface. There's a reason we aren't hearing about termites moving in, or major warping in all of the new wood structures being constructed all over the world in the last decade, and that has to do with the quality of the material and the handling of it too. Fire on the otherhand...

[whatnext]

Originally Posted by twoNeurons

Just a note about wood not wearing well.

If the right material is chosen, it can age very, very well.

There are Buddhist temples in Nara, Japan that are in impeccable shape and date to ~700 CE. Horyu-ji, for example. I know that at LEAST the main pillars are made of Cypress which, like cedar, is rot-resistant. It's survived fires, countless earthquakes, ...

And it can also age poorly, think of all the clapped out Seventies West Coast modern condo complexes. Then read my post up thread about the Edmonton Art Gallery that blew it's wad on an expensive design then had no money to operate it. Surface flash aside Vancouver is not a wealthy town. Relying on private money to build and maintain a new VAG is unrealistic.

For some reason Dreambrother feels he is the only art gallery patron qualified to judge this excresence. He shuns the classicism of the Broad Museum in favour of the fad of the month stacked box gimmick. Mcminsen's pics give a great idea of how this thing would dominate the area like a sullen alien spaceship brought to earth. It is not a welcoming place to bring art to the people. It is an overbearing monument to the ego of the architects who created it and those who commissioned it.

[Vin]

Originally Posted by scryer

I ain't no wood-working connoisseur but those issues can be addressed with the right finishing. Like a thin layer of something (?) over the surface. There's a reason we aren't hearing about termites moving in, or major warping in all of the new wood structures being constructed all over the world in the last decade, and that has to do with the quality of the material and the handling of it too. Fire on the otherhand...

There's a reason why ancient structures made from stones and cement survive till today, but anything made of wood simply rot away. Treatment on wood won't make a huge difference.

[Jebby]

Originally Posted by whatnext

Relying on private money to build and maintain a new VAG is unrealistic.

In that case it probably shouldn't be built at all, then. The VAG should be self-sufficient.

[mezzanine]

Originally Posted by Jebby

In that case it probably shouldn't be built at all, then. The VAG should be self-sufficient.

Well, in the old days, the VAG held a car wash to fundraise for restoring the Emily Carrs - that could always be plan B. (PS. this is true.)

But what what value would you put on cultural patrimony? A lot of people here rail against the rapid pace of change - i'd like to think of the gallery at least as a tether.


Jeff Wall

Make no mistake, the new gallery proposal is on very tenuous ground. It will take a lot of effort on Bartel's part and a lot of stars to align if this is ever going to get off the drawing board. I would guess that the VAG board has about a year to talk with private donors and governments in Victoria and Ottawa before everything hits the wall.


Douglas Coupland

If these plans fall apart, then I don't mind the VAG staying at the court house for the next chunk of time. I hope they will fix the leaks in their current underground storage vault and improve HVAC systems. We may miss a few large touring exhibitions as well, but we are able to get many high profile ones all the same. FUSE nights are are always adventures. If the Herzog plan gets abandoned, I hope Bartels stays on.



FUSE

[Spork]

The current plan is never happening.

Too much money is required from too few people, and the board's fundraising efforts are extremely lacking. For example, on the night that they announced the new design they had a theatre full of people and invited them next door (on the site) for free drinks without so much as asking for a donation.

Unless the Federal or Provincial government comes through with a miracle, which is highly unlikely given the Provincial government's lack of interest in doing anything except building bridges and given the Federal government's massive deficit and focus on shovel-ready projects, we won't see anything built before 2025.

[Vin]

Make every developer contribute 2% of their project expenditure to the Art Gallery, not frilly things under bridges or in parks. That ought to do the trick. But with the current design, I rather that not happen.

[jlousa]

Somewhat on topic, here are the presentation boards for the north plaza of the current gallery, don't believe these have been posted here.

http://development.vancouver.ca/800wgeor...773ApplicationTeamPresentationBoards.pdf

Warning it's ~50mb.

[trofirhen]

Originally Posted by jlousa

Somewhat on topic, here are the presentation boards for the north plaza of the current gallery, don't believe these have been posted here.

http://development.vancouver.ca/800wgeor...773ApplicationTeamPresentationBoards.pdf

Warning it's ~50mb.

Excuse me, but I thought a finalized, rather simple design for the North Plaza had already been decided on. (?)

[Migrant_Coconut]

Originally Posted by jlousa

Somewhat on topic, here are the presentation boards for the north plaza of the current gallery, don't believe these have been posted here.

http://development.vancouver.ca/800wgeor...773ApplicationTeamPresentationBoards.pdf

Warning it's ~50mb.

Generic, but pleasant - and very versatile as a public space. Not bad.

Still, you think it's possible to squeeze in a small water feature north of the bus stop?

[trofirhen]

I was very pleased that the major public response was NOT to have a gimmicky plaza with a lot of "bric-à-brac," if you will, but rather, something simple, elegant, and "European" in style.
Not another park, no fountain (I think the current monstrsity put them off that idea), but a simple, elegant plaza, to walk across, sit in, relax in, and enjoy the urban feel.
"Declutter the space," and "don't overdesign" were things that sprang out at me. Thus I trust that there will be no kiddie pools, no plalo rings (I hope), or other cute stuff.
Public taste wins, this time, anyway. It is evident that people want an elegant urban square, such as in Europe or South America, and not a "theme park." May it be thus.

[connect2source]

Originally Posted by trofirhen

I was very pleased that the major public response was NOT to have a gimmicky plaza with a lot of "bric-à-brac," if you will, but rather, something simple, elegant, and "European" in style.
Not another park, no fountain (I think the current monstrsity put them off that idea), but a simple, elegant plaza, to walk across, sit in, relax in, and enjoy the urban feel.
"Declutter the space," and "don't overdesign" were things that sprang out at me. Thus I trust that there will be no kiddie pools, no plalo rings (I hope), or other cute stuff.
Public taste wins, this time, anyway. It is evident that people want an elegant urban square, such as in Europe or South America, and not a "theme park." May it be thus.

Full agreement!! It's simple, timeless, modernist, elegant, very European in feel and suited to so many types of gatherings. Great solution!!

[WarrenC12]

Originally Posted by jlousa

Somewhat on topic, here are the presentation boards for the north plaza of the current gallery, don't believe these have been posted here.

http://development.vancouver.ca/800wgeor...773ApplicationTeamPresentationBoards.pdf

Warning it's ~50mb.

Thanks for posting. Looks great to me.

[officedweller]

Originally Posted by jlousa

Somewhat on topic, here are the presentation boards for the north plaza of the current gallery, don't believe these have been posted here.

http://development.vancouver.ca/800wgeor...773ApplicationTeamPresentationBoards.pdf

Warning it's ~50mb.

There's a separate thread for the North Plaza:

http://forum.skyscraperpage.com/showthread.php?t=143871&page=63