Did you read the second half of his post where he states that he doesn't?
 
Not so much that, but there's an overinformed-opera-and-design-afficionado narcissism at play here. It makes 4S's "demerits" look more real than they are; y'know, a haughty sod-you to cultural heathens who prefer easy visual oomph.

Somehow, someway, there's got to be a way of communicating the values of 4S (and they're real; even *I* like the sensuous black-brick restraint) to Joe + Jane Whomever who may have little or no inherent personal commitment to its function. There oughta be a middle ground btw/the uninformed and the overinformed, IOW.

But unfortunately, I know; "easy visual oomph" usually carries the day. Same reason why travellers by land or by air snore through the Prairies and ooh! aah! through the Rockies. The 4S is more "Prairies" than "Rockies", unfortunately. (BTW I like Saskatchewan. Really.)
 
Well, of course the people who actually use the building and understand how and why it was built will appreciate it's benefits more than those who demand ornament and spectacle at every turn, who haven't a clue what they are talking about.

Ignorance only serves to persuade the ignorant.
 
Sure, that's a truism. But it's pure hubris to claim exclusivity on behalf of those who "actually use the building"--a lot of whom may be just as split on its aesthetic merits. Or that those who *aren't* members/frequenters are philistines across the board--much more often than you're willing to bet, they can (or can be made to) empathize with the architectural statement, even if they don't "use".

Ignorance only serves to persuade the ignorant.
Click to expand...

But empathy can bridge the gap a lot more effectively than elitism. And this discussion *is*, ultimately, more about architecture and urbanism than it is about opera...
 
I, for one, would be the first to complain loudly if the COC had commissioned a vacuous piece of starchitecture with lousy acoustics that ignored the requirements of those who use the building.

But the COC hasn't done that.
Click to expand...

It always seems in threads such as this one that there is no middle ground. I don't see why it has to be one or the other; it could be both. I think it's very much possible to have something with a creative design and good accoustics.

I don't care much for the exterior (as an Opera House), though generally speaking I appreciate the design. Actually, a few tweaks to the exterior would probably enhance the design (IMO) quite a bit.
 
But I think the point here is that *any* "tweaks to the exterior" are being framed as a pandering to those who "demand ornament and spectacle at every turn, who haven't a clue what they are talking about".

And...I sort of agree. Kind of how I like Saskatchewan, in spite of the nitwit tourist party line that it's "boring"...
 
But I think the point here is that *any* "tweaks to the exterior" are being framed as a pandering to those who "demand ornament and spectacle at every turn, who haven't a clue what they are talking about".

And...I sort of agree. Kind of how I like Saskatchewan, in spite of the nitwit tourist party line that it's "boring"...
Click to expand...

Actually, the tweaks Im referring to would be minor...the most notable would be doing something about the silver horseshoe on the top which detracts from the design, IMO. Obviously it's a necessity, but I think something surrounding it with right angles and clean lines would really improve it.
 
C'mon, we're not that naive are we? The reason why the Opera House looks as modest as it does is due to budget constraints, not because the "Saskatchewan prairie look" is "in". I don't dislike the Opera House and I think they did a good job with the small budget they had, but let's not pretend that this was some sort of modernist artistic statement.
 
But why *wouldn't* it be a "modernist architectural statement", in its making-the-most-with-the-least way? It's no more "non-quality" than any of those spare performance spaces Lett/Smith's been dropping about town over the past generation.

Indeed, I'll betcha that out-of-town style-sophisticates would be more appreciative of 4S's architecture than the locals who're all hung up about it being insufficiently "world class"...
 
"Wait a decade or so, and a new generation will--justifiably, perhaps?--"rediscover" it..."

My generation, probably...80s Corporate/PoMo/whatever-it's-called is like the comfort food of architecture for me, anyway.
 
And actually, what's so necessarily bad about the "silver horseshoe"? Doesn't the O'Keefe/Hummingbird--and lots of likeminded facilities of that period--have a similar element? "Functional expression", y'know--maybe not always horseshoe, but so what. You don't need to be stultified by so-called "clean lines", y'know.

Sure, maybe 4S is a little too sober for comfort; but it still feels like too many of you are making a negative mountain out of the sobriety molehill.

Look, a.p. might have a point; too many of those who wish for a Gehryesque "stunner" of a building are the sort who'd walk out after the intro to Beethoven's 5th, and within a few months time, well...good time to fasttrack progress on Bridgepoint, because them remaining Don Jail prisoners are moving to Queen and University pronto...
simpsons6.jpg
 
Too bad the prisoners couldn't be moving to the Riverdale half-round instead so that we could keep it. Let Bridgepoint build their box on University.
 
Here's how 4S looked tonight.

142565475_a5975e2f30_b.jpg


I don't remember seeing the exterior lighting up top before.

42
 
And actually, what's so necessarily bad about the "silver horseshoe"? Doesn't the O'Keefe/Hummingbird--and lots of likeminded facilities of that period--have a similar element? "Functional expression", y'know--maybe not always horseshoe, but so what. You don't need to be stultified by so-called "clean lines", y'know.

Sure, maybe 4S is a little too sober for comfort; but it still feels like too many of you are making a negative mountain out of the sobriety molehill.
Click to expand...

Well, it's not necessarily bad, but it could be better.

Look, a.p. might have a point; too many of those who wish for a Gehryesque "stunner" of a building are the sort who'd walk out after the intro to Beethoven's 5th, and within a few months time, well...good time to fasttrack progress on Bridgepoint, because them remaining Don Jail prisoners are moving to Queen and University pronto...
Click to expand...

I'm sure some of the people out there who would've wanted to see Gehry design the Opera House probably don't have much appreciation for design, but that doesn't apply to everyone...not by a long shot. It's all too easy to make generalizations.


Is this building completely beyond criticism?

Could it be the first perfect building in Toronto, or possibly, the world?
 
It's important to note, as Richard Bradshaw did in recent days, that those who were tub thumping for him to fire Jack Diamond and hire Frank Gehry were completely unwilling to cover the increased costs their scheme entailed.

Which, to my mind, illustrates their depth of enthusiasm for Mr. Gehry's work.
 
You must log in or register to post here.

Back
Top