[TKTKTK]

Well, from AT&T onward, some may argue that his aesthetics were prone to sinking to that level

But yeah: speaking of the devil, consider the source, and the rough date thereof, and the ethos he was reflecting/egging on with such a quote. Essentially, you're using the kind of Philip Johnson quote that'd be a natural lead-in to/co-opted-by "From Bauhaus To Our House", and the advent of the Bauhaus-bashing middlebrow amateur. Which, in the long run, led to the Chedingtonista phenomenon.

So the issue isn't that these are buildings which have a tendency to alienate on a human level, but that we're too unsophisticated to rise to their modernity?

I have no interest in sharing your slavish and dogmatic devotion to other people's ideas. I don't have to agree with Gropius, and it doesn't make me a Cheddingtonista - no matter how many times you try to insult me with that stupid, meaningless mantle.

"That Philip Johnson Gropius comment is precisely where I'm coming from"? Maybe it had au courant validity in 1983, but in 2008, saying that with a straight face'll earn you horselaughs outside virtually any realm outside of hardcore modern-bashing neo-traditionalism...

Except that I'm obviously not a modern-bashing neo-traditionalist. Your efforts to peg me have failed...again. Anyway, I still agree with Johnson's point. Your dilettante horselaughs don't really get on my nerves.

In the end, why not just actually converse with me rather than always trying to force my opinions into some larger movement I don't subscribe to?

 

[TKTKTK]

Is this where you're coming from? Considering what we're dealing with, it ain't necessarily good...

Sorry, I'm not sure I understand your comment. Are you saying that we should be considering buildings based on their individual merits, acknowledging that just because a building has a Gropius, or Gehry, or Libeskind label that it ain't necessarily good?

All I've done is asked the question: what is going to happen once the shock and newness wears off, and we're forced to deal with buildings that engage us on a theoretic level while simultaneously disengaging us on a human level.

I happen to really like Brutalism, even while I understand (and acknowledge) its inherent shortcomings.

The subtext of the article is valid though. Should we be protecting buildings solely because of their theoretic value? What if they don't work particularly well? Or are hated by the vast, vast majority of its users?

When I was younger, I'd have said that it didn't matter what the uneducated masses thought. Lately though, I'm starting to wonder if an academic approach to our built environment is serving, and benefiting, anyone but a cultural elite (of which we're members, making it even harder to dissect the argument with objectivity).

 

[adma]

When I was younger, I'd have said that it didn't matter what the uneducated masses thought. Lately though, I'm starting to wonder if an academic approach to our built environment is serving, and benefiting, anyone but a cultural elite (of which we're members, making it even harder to dissect the argument with objectivity).

Except that the ethos of said "academic approach" is trickling down, anyway--witness, for instance, the Spacing crew. Even in Boston, I suspect younger folk are more sanguine about Boston City Hall and more open to the notion of its being "heritage", or at least something other than a mere architectural cancer begging to be removed.

Maybe it's still a sort of "cultural elite" we're talking about, but it's closer to the grassroots than it might have been 20 archisnob years ago. And if there's still a elites-vs-masses divide even regarding 50s modern, it isn't like architecture is alone in this--witness the Voice Of Fire controversy.

Beyond all that, remember my fundamental question re extreme-makeovering the subway and other such so-called spirit-stirring boondoggles--why? Maybe by spiffing-up, celebrating and enlightening people on what's already there, we've got the most economical solution to our so-called problem. Spend that makeover money on improving transit service, instead...

 

[TKTKTK]

Except that the ethos of said "academic approach" is trickling down, anyway--witness, for instance, the Spacing crew. Even in Boston, I suspect younger folk are more sanguine about Boston City Hall and more open to the notion of its being "heritage", or at least something other than a mere architectural cancer begging to be removed.

Maybe it's still a sort of "cultural elite" we're talking about, but it's closer to the grassroots than it might have been 20 archisnob years ago. And if there's still a elites-vs-masses divide even regarding 50s modern, it isn't like architecture is alone in this--witness the Voice Of Fire controversy.

I don't think that divide will ever be erased - though you're right that it's not as wide as it has been in the past. Its possible that Art and Architecture will always have to play, in part, to the cultural elites in order to earn legitimacy, otherwise it may be in danger of being brushed aside as populism or disneyfication (not that it seems to have injured Gehry's rep).

Beyond all that, remember my fundamental question re extreme-makeovering the subway and other such so-called spirit-stirring boondoggles--why? Maybe by spiffing-up, celebrating and enlightening people on what's already there, we've got the most economical solution to our so-called problem. Spend that makeover money on improving transit service, instead...

Why? is a fine question, but so is why not?. I think we can enlighten people on what's already there without having to slavishly devote ourselves to turning back the clocks, and keeping them stopped. Our stations NEED renovation - regardless of what design language they're currently speaking - they're in bad shape. Whether that money is spent renovating them back to their original state, or it's spent mutating them into something new, we have to spend some money.

The most economical solution is to pretend that nothing's wrong at all, but it's the one solution we can't afford.

I do agree the priority should be on expanding transit and making the service better - rather than just better looking - but I also don't want us to ignore the importance of creating places, rather than just utilitarian pass-throughs.

 

[Urban Shocker]

TKTKTK makes the generalized claim that starchitect buildings are "not really designed based on a function, they're designed based on a form - and have a function later applied to them" when it has been pointed out to him many times, in relation to the ROM for instance, exactly what those functions are and how they have been improved as a result of the new building. Same goes for the AGO.

He dismisses the practical improvements that the Crystal has made with unsubstantiated claims that they are, "tremendously minor elements in an extension rife with other issues" - but doesn't say why they are minor or give any examples of what issues he's talking about. In other words, more hot air and empty rhetoric. He sees himself as an advocate for the common folk against "cultural elites" and starchitects, but the renovated galleries are bringing many more people to the institution to enjoy the objects that the ROM holds for all of Ontario.

He tries to divorce the ROM from its mandate with the breathtakingly wrongheaded claim, "The ROM isn't about contemporary art." and "The ROM doesn't really deal with artists - it's a Museum." Obviously he's never been to the place. If he did, he'd see that the mandate that has served the Museum for almost a century is carved in stone on the outside of the building: "The arts of Man through all the years. The record of Life through countless ages".

 

[TKTKTK]

TKTKTK makes the generalized claim that starchitect buildings are "not really designed based on a function, they're designed based on a form - and have a function later applied to them" when it has been pointed out to him many times, in relation to the ROM for instance, exactly what those functions are and how they have been improved as a result of the new building. Same goes for the AGO.

And you disagree with the idea that Starchitecture is often designed from the outside in? It certainly fits for Libeskind's design for the Crystal. It started as an exterior elevation and was modified to accommodate galleries and internal spaces - but only after the exterior shape was discovered. You point to the hallway linking the two wings, and the entrance on Bloor, as defining aspects of how this building was conceived from a planning POV first. We all know it wasn't. Those details came later. You want to ignore all of the buildings shortcomings as a museum exhibition space in favour of vaunting very minor aspects of itself as over-arching triumphs. Your boosterism borders on the perverse.

He dismisses the practical improvements that the Crystal has made with unsubstantiated claims that they are, "tremendously minor elements in an extension rife with other issues" - but doesn't say why they are minor or give any examples of what issues he's talking about. In other words, more hot air and empty rhetoric. He sees himself as an advocate for the common folk against "cultural elites" and starchitects, but the renovated galleries are bringing many more people to the institution to enjoy the objects that the ROM holds for all of Ontario.

It's odd that you can't actually address me directly. No one else is replying to your posts but me, so it's probably safe to assume you're not playing to an audience (whether critical or supportive).

I've described a few profound ways in which the Crystal is a difficult choice to house a gallery. The lack of flat wallspace seems to be a major concern for them, and a rather basic and essential attribute of museumness - an aspect that you seem to feel is optional.

I have explained why I think your arguments point to minor details. The ability to link the two separate wings of the museum (whether attempted by the other submissions or not) is nothing some specific to Libeskind's design. There was nothing in the form of his building that allowed it to happen. It was something that could have been requested from all the design submissions, or injected into at a later date (much as the ROM had to endure running changes).

It's this weird fixation that there was only one way of achieving the final result (ie. no other plan could have possibly led to the buildings being linked, or the introduction of an entrance along Bloor) that I don't understand.

He tries to divorce the ROM from its mandate with the breathtakingly wrongheaded claim, "The ROM isn't about contemporary art." and "The ROM doesn't really deal with artists - it's a Museum." Obviously he's never been to the place. If he did, he'd see that the mandate that has served the Museum for almost a century is carved in stone on the outside of the building: "The arts of Man through all the years. The record of Life through countless ages".

What's meant by Contemporary Art is not "The arts of Man through all the years. The record of Life through countless ages". Is that really what they teach at OCAD? What a disservice.

I have to say, it's exhausting how much time you spend in your posts trying to belittle and attack me personally. Are you here to discuss urban planning and architecture, or are you here just to vent your personal frustrations?

 

[Urban Shocker]

As TKTKTK's factual errors pile up like cordwood his credibility sinks ever lower.

As has already been pointed out to him, Darling and Pearson's plan of 1914 called for an entrance on Bloor Street and a linking wing at the north end of the building. Yet he persists in his delusion that the ROM's long term expansion plans had nothing to do with their eventual realization. If he reads The Museum Makers - The story of the Royal Ontario Museum by Lovat Dickson ( 1986 ) he will discover that the Bloor Street entrance and a cross wing at that end were always the goal - there's even a reproduction of that plan in it. Kinoshita's Terrace Galleries thwarted the original plan and were removed.

The ROM's mandate is The arts of Man through all the years, not The arts of Man through all the years except the present - as he tries to pervert it to mean. Contemporary art is part of that core mandate.

He ignores the fact that the two other shortlisted finalists actually removed the centre block, to claim that "all the design submissions" could have been as successful as Libeskinds in achieving the long-term expansion goal.

Though a simple check of his earlier generalized statement that starchitect buildings are "not really designed based on a function - they're designed based on a form - and have a function later applied to them" is clearly not specifically about the Crystal, he now pretends that it was. In fact, he was replying to my comment that there is no reason to assume that a "wildstyle" building that works now will be impractical to use in the future, regardless of how fashionable or unfashionable it becomes, unless it is converted to a new use that doesn't fit with the space it contains.

 

[TKTKTK]

As TKTKTK's factual errors pile up like cordwood his credibility sinks ever lower.

You're the only person here launching an attack on me. Do you just need some hugs?

As has already been pointed out to him, Darling and Pearson's plan of 1914 called for an entrance on Bloor Street and a linking wing at the north end of the building. Yet he persists in his delusion that the ROM's long term expansion plans had nothing to do with their eventual realization. If he reads The Museum Makers - The story of the Royal Ontario Museum by Lovat Dickson ( 1986 ) he will discover that the Bloor Street entrance and a cross wing at that end were always the goal - there's even a reproduction of that plan in it. Kinoshita's Terrace Galleries thwarted the original plan and were removed.

I never said it wasn't, and never said it didn't. I guess I just think it's funny that you feel Libeskind's Crystal was the only way of accomplishing Darling and Pearson's original plan. My point is that their plan could have been accommodated by any other design, if the effort was made (and it was deemed necessary), so it's hardly something we should be praising the Crystal for.

The ROM's mandate is The arts of Man through all the years, not The arts of Man through all the years except the present - as he tries to pervert it to mean. Contemporary art is part of that core mandate.

He ignores the fact that the two other shortlisted finalists actually removed the centre block, to claim that "all the design submissions" could have been as successful as Libeskinds in achieving the long-term expansion goal.

Contemporary art is a very small part of its core mandate. I still stand by the assertion that the ROM doesn't really deal with Artists. The bulk of their displays are artifacts and art objects that have been previously constructed. They're will be few instances where works exhibited in the Crystal will have been conceived with such a specific space in mind - so why design a museum space that at times almost requires that kind of consideration?

Otherwise it doesn't surprise me that the same process that would choose the Crystal would short-list two other contentious proposals. That doesn't mean there couldn't have been a better answer than this. Obviously the committee was looking to radically alter the ROM.

Though a simple check of his earlier generalized statement that starchitect buildings are "not really designed based on a function - they're designed based on a form - and have a function later applied to them" is clearly not specifically about the Crystal, he now pretends that it was. In fact, he was replying to my comment that there is no reason to assume that a "wildstyle" building that works now will be impractical to use in the future, regardless of how fashionable or unfashionable it becomes, unless it is converted to a new use that doesn't fit with the space it contains.

I corrected myself. It's what I do when I'm wrong. I suggested something that, when I made sure I was correct, turned out not to be, so I edited it. It didn't really change the message though, just responded correctly to the charge. Originally I started the comment off saying that my comment about starchitecture being designed from the outside in wasn't a general comment, but one specifically directed at the Crystal. Either way, I agree with myself

It just so happens that you've actually been egregiously wrong in a thread I've participated in before and I corrected you without trying to belittle you or demean you. You never replied to the post though, you just disappeared from the thread.

It seems you really, really want to shame me here. I hope I'm not the only one who thinks it's petty.

Anyway, I think you keep arguing about the ROM because you're pissed off that your "Kinoshita = disneyfication" while "Libeskind = rational response" was pointed out as such B.S. earlier in the thread.

 

[Urban Shocker]

Actually, I'm just trying to correct your factual errors.

 

[TKTKTK]

Actually, I'm just trying to correct your factual errors.

And perhaps if I'd made factual errors, you'd be doing less trying and more succeeding.

 

[adma]

Are we losing track of Museum Station here?

For the record, I'm not *too* harsh about its form of retro, leaving aside issues of execution, typographic clarity, effacement of the old, etc. At worst, I'm kinda resigned to its having happened--but in raw aesthetics, it's only a disavowable catastrophe if you think all 80s-style Pomo hijinks are a disavowable catastrophe. (Maybe that's the catch; if this were 1988 rather than 2008...)

Why? is a fine question, but so is why not?. I think we can enlighten people on what's already there without having to slavishly devote ourselves to turning back the clocks, and keeping them stopped. Our stations NEED renovation - regardless of what design language they're currently speaking - they're in bad shape. Whether that money is spent renovating them back to their original state, or it's spent mutating them into something new, we have to spend some money.

The most economical solution is to pretend that nothing's wrong at all, but it's the one solution we can't afford.

I do agree the priority should be on expanding transit and making the service better - rather than just better looking - but I also don't want us to ignore the importance of creating places, rather than just utilitarian pass-throughs.

Actually, all things considered, the original fabric of the 60s B-D stations is in pretty good shape indeed--those glazed concrete blocks have proved extraordinarily enduring, and inherently easier to repair and maintain than the 1954-line Vitrolite. As Joe Clark (who's probably the last person who'd "pretend that nothing's wrong at all") will tell you, the "bad shape" is all too often the result of subsequent ill-advised, left-hand-not-knowing-what-the-right-hand-is-doing muddlings.

Your problem is, you're persistently overstating the "utilitarian pass-throughness" as part of the problem, rather than regarding it more creatively as part of the place-creation. I mean, sure, you can look to the glories of Paris and wherever else, but I reckon that were the two of us to visit Paris right now, I'd probably be ahead of you as a creative-minded urban flâneur, for the same reason I'm able to accept the existing Toronto subway aesthetic as a distinctive part of our genius loci...

 

[TKTKTK]

Are we losing track of Museum Station here?

For the record, I'm not *too* harsh about its form of retro, leaving aside issues of execution, typographic clarity, effacement of the old, etc. At worst, I'm kinda resigned to its having happened--but in raw aesthetics, it's only a disavowable catastrophe if you think all 80s-style Pomo hijinks are a disavowable catastrophe. (Maybe that's the catch; if this were 1988 rather than 2008...)

I dunno, I don't really like it so far - but I'm trying to reserve judgement until it's finished.

Actually, all things considered, the original fabric of the 60s B-D stations is in pretty good shape indeed--those glazed concrete blocks have proved extraordinarily enduring, and inherently easier to repair and maintain than the 1954-line Vitrolite. As Joe Clark (who's probably the last person who'd "pretend that nothing's wrong at all") will tell you, the "bad shape" is all too often the result of subsequent ill-advised, left-hand-not-knowing-what-the-right-hand-is-doing muddlings.

Yeah, but that now applies to all the stations. I'm not suggesting the stations are looking a little rough just because of their original design - in a lot of cases they're looking rough despite their original design - but few important stations have escaped being spottily added to.

Your problem is, you're persistently overstating the "utilitarian pass-throughness" as part of the problem, rather than regarding it more creatively as part of the place-creation.

I haven't said it's a problem - only that it isn't the end-all-be-all destination you think it is. They aren't where we should be resting on our laurels. I really think we should be applying creativity to the design and construction of our stations, rather than trying to find creative ways to frame them later.

I mean, sure, you can look to the glories of Paris and wherever else, but I reckon that were the two of us to visit Paris right now, I'd probably be ahead of you as a creative-minded urban flâneur, for the same reason I'm able to accept the existing Toronto subway aesthetic as a distinctive part of our genius loci...

What a self-righteous and immodest thing to say! You really want to commit that kind of vanity to text? How bizarre. I was starting to wonder if I was imagining your condescending tone. Guess not.

 

[adma]

What a self-righteous and immodest thing to say! You really want to commit that kind of vanity to text? How bizarre. I was starting to wonder if I was imagining your condescending tone. Guess not.

Well, likewise; if the two of us were visiting London, and I revelled over a Tube station that maintained its original 20s/30s integrity, and you just saw it as the grubby, dated epitome of London at its bad-old worst, well...

 

[TKTKTK]

Well, likewise; if the two of us were visiting London, and I revelled over a Tube station that maintained its original 20s/30s integrity, and you just saw it as the grubby, dated epitome of London at its bad-old worst, well...

Which is funny, because I actually live in an old barely converted warehouse, which I love because of how grimy, grubby and bad-old original it is

I'm not sure we can afford to let our entire system take on that look, but it would certainly suit a few stations. Of course none of this precludes modernizing major downtown stations and adding a few new interesting ones in the mix. Something the London system has in spades as well.

 

[Jonny5]

Speaking of Museum station.... all hording on the platform is gone as of this morning. It looks like all the columns are done, but are still wrapped up.