[Urban Shocker]

Including one of our great Toronto cultural institutions such as the AGO, ROM, Royal Conservatory of Music, Gardiner Museum, Toronto Symphony, or Canadian Opera Company in your estate planning will eventually leave a legacy for future generations to enjoy. Anyone can do it.

 

[Junglab]

Actually P5, I was referring to the idea that its easy for us archi-voyeurs to sit back and bemoan that Thompson (or the like) didn't devote another 10 millin or so to a building's design (never mind that he made the redesign - and thus this entire thread - possible in the first place), and exculpate ourselves in the process. If you want better art and architecture, DO something about it - something other than bantering on an online architecture blog. Perhaps take out a membership, or give to the building fund, or join a real (as opposed to virtual) orgnization to lobby for better design.
Waiting for some aging multi-billionaire to see the light is a bit rich - especially when many aging multi-billionaires got to be so because of frugality to begin with. In this light, perhaps you might even consider cold-calling (or supporting those who do) aging multi-billionaires in order to impress upon them the importance of cultural philanthropy?

 

[syn]

Actually P5, I was referring to the idea that its easy for us archi-voyeurs to sit back and bemoan that Thompson (or the like) didn't devote another 10 millin or so to a building's design (never mind that he made the redesign - and thus this entire thread - possible in the first place), and exculpate ourselves in the process. If you want better art and architecture, DO something about it - something other than bantering on an online architecture blog. Perhaps take out a membership, or give to the building fund, or join a real (as opposed to virtual) orgnization to lobby for better design.
Waiting for some aging multi-billionaire to see the light is a bit rich - especially when many aging multi-billionaires got to be so because of frugality to begin with. In this light, perhaps you might even consider cold-calling (or supporting those who do) aging multi-billionaires in order to impress upon them the importance of cultural philanthropy?

What if you already have a membership and have donated? What if you're part of an organization lobbying for better design? It won't matter unless there's money.

 

[Junglab]

More power to you, then. The fact of the matter remains, however, that if the lead donor is perfectly happy with the fruits of his/her money, that is his/her perogative. If you are less satisfied than he/she, it is up to you to advocate and/or perspire, to bridge the gap (yawning chasm?) between his/her ideas and your own.
Ken Thompson donated a fairly large chunk of change to this project, and in fact has been a (the?) major motivating force in its progression from online blog-wank to built form. This project was a bloggers wet dream before Ken donated his cash and art, and now certain of those same bloggers are bemoaning his supposed lack of generosity. What a load of crap. If you're not happy with the result - call the guy (or get someone else to), and explain to him the error of his ways. Either that, or find some more cash elsewhere, whether from under your mattress, the pockets of some other aging multi-billionaire, or the pockets of your fellow-citizens.
Crap, or get off the pot.

 

[syn]

More power to you, then. The fact of the matter remains, however, that if the lead donor is perfectly happy with the fruits of his/her money, that is his/her perogative. If you are less satisfied than he/she, it is up to you to advocate and/or perspire, to bridge the gap (yawning chasm?) between his/her ideas and your own.
Ken Thompson donated a fairly large chunk of change to this project, and in fact has been a (the?) major motivating force in its progression from online blog-wank to built form. This project was a bloggers wet dream before Ken donated his cash and art, and now certain of those same bloggers are bemoaning his supposed lack of generosity. What a load of crap. If you're not happy with the result - call the guy (or get someone else to), and explain to him the error of his ways. Either that, or find some more cash elsewhere, whether from under your mattress, the pockets of some other aging multi-billionaire, or the pockets of your fellow-citizens.
Crap, or get off the pot.

I don't think anyone is bemoaning his lack of generosity. What Jdot said is that he was actually pretty cheap - and he was. That isn't necessarily a bad thing either.

I really don't think there's anything wrong with hoping a billionaire gives as much as possible for a project such as this. Very few individuals will ever have the ability to give that much.

 

[Urban Shocker]

I don't think Ken is taking any calls right now.

 

[spaced]

my internal ranting

Ya, Kenny T. is having tea with grandpa Rubins.
Why does are so many people wanting another Bilbao? That building got a lot of attention but do really think it would work again? Not to mention that the architecture overpowers the art (in most cases), which you would think is the opposite purpose of an art gallery and good architecture. The AGO design is so much more sophisticated than some superficial curved walls. Not to mention that the architectural community would roll they're eyes if he kept pupping out that style.
I'm really excited about the new AGO. I won't look like another gallery--it will look like the AGO. It's changing from one of the worst galleries I've ever been in to something sophisticated and very promising.
Mr. Thomson hired a top architect, donated a know art collection, kick-started the project and donated money for an endowment fund. Not to mention that it may have influenced other art to be donated (Frum, the new photography collection, the Bernini masterpiece). I've seen the Rubins (it was hanging the the National Gallery as of 5 months ago) and it IS a masterpiece. Although it is just another masterpiece in the NG, it will be talked about for years when it's hung in the AGO. What more do you want? Maybe we should be talking about how the space works metaphorically (which not to many building achieve in Toronto), or the use of symbolism in the design, or even how the space should be used to display art. If you want Bilbao, think of a way to get there--it's a waste of time wishing it was here.

 

[syn]

Ya, Kenny T. is having tea with grandpa Rubins.
Why does are so many people wanting another Bilbao? That building got a lot of attention but do really think it would work again? Not to mention that the architecture overpowers the art (in most cases), which you would think is the opposite purpose of an art gallery and good architecture. The AGO design is so much more sophisticated than some superficial curved walls. Not to mention that the architectural community would roll they're eyes if he kept pupping out that style.
I'm really excited about the new AGO. I won't look like another gallery--it will look like the AGO. It's changing from one of the worst galleries I've ever been in to something sophisticated and very promising.
Mr. Thomson hired a top architect, donated a know art collection, kick-started the project and donated money for an endowment fund. Not to mention that it may have influenced other art to be donated (Frum, the new photography collection, the Bernini masterpiece). I've seen the Rubins (it was hanging the the National Gallery as of 5 months ago) and it IS a masterpiece. Although it is just another masterpiece in the NG, it will be talked about for years when it's hung in the AGO. What more do you want? Maybe we should be talking about how the space works metaphorically (which not to many building achieve in Toronto), or the use of symbolism in the design, or even how the space should be used to display art. If you want Bilbao, think of a way to get there--it's a waste of time wishing it was here.

Who said people want another Bilbao?

 

[TrickyRicky]

I think however Jaymckay makes a good point regarding having appropriate buildings to match the institutions they house. Things move so fast these days that it is conceivable that both the current ROM and the AGO additions will be torn down within the lifetime of many forumers here. We need top notch cultural organizations, the buildings and architecture will follow and evolve in quality and quantity with the relative strength of these organizations.

 

[interchange42]

It's funny he mentioned the AGO as perhaps his only building in Canada...what happened to the Le Clos Jordan Winery?

Syn, I am under the impression that, sadly, Gehry's design for the Le Clos Jordanne was cancelled after Vincor was bought out by Constellation Brands (of the US). The winery has released its first vintages meanwhile, and they have been very favourably reviewed.

42

 

[syn]

Syn, I am under the impression that, sadly, Gehry's design for the Le Clos Jordanne was cancelled after Vincor was bought out by Constellation Brands (of the US). The winery has released its first vintages meanwhile, and they have been very favourably reviewed.

42

That's really unfortunate. The design was terrific.

Could make for a nice LCBO outlet on the waterfront though .

 

[syn]

I think however Jaymckay makes a good point regarding having appropriate buildings to match the institutions they house. Things move so fast these days that it is conceivable that both the current ROM and the AGO additions will be torn down within the lifetime of many forumers here. We need top notch cultural organizations, the buildings and architecture will follow and evolve in quality and quantity with the relative strength of these organizations.

I agree, but I can't see them tearing down the Liebskind addition in our lifetime. I can see the exterior of the Gehry addition being modified though.

 

[adma]

If it's conceivable that Libeskind and Gehry will be torn down within out lifetimes on behalf of "progress", you might as well say it's concievable that Walker Court or the earlier sections of the ROM will be torn down--after all, they're even more "outmoded" and "obsolete"...

 

[MetroMan]

The AGO is coming together beautifully. I think it's going to turn out surprisingly better than the ROM because of the finer details.

Even now, with so much work left to go, the wooden beams and the glazing is revealing better craftsmanship and quality materials than the ROM.

This is not to say that the ROM won't eventually come together. After all, the fabricated "conclusion of construction" was purely a PR stunt. Most of us know that the building is at least 6 months behind completion.

- The glulam beams are about 75% complete.
- Glazing is being widely applied to the AGO frontage (not the curved sculpture gallery façade).
- Glazing is beginning to be applied to the modern art gallery facing the Grange.
- The twirling staircases are on site waiting to be attached to the façade.
- 2 of the town houses across from the AGO on Dundas are being renovated. I always knew that Transformation AGO would be a catalyst to raise property taxes and land values for the sorrounding houses so the current owners can't afford to allow them to be left in degrading conditions.

 

[MetroMan]

It's strange how easily this Transformation AGO thread falls off the first page. There doesn't seem to be much interest in this project which is strange considering it will change that derelict part of Dundas St. West and give us our first building by Frank Gehry.

While I think the ROM launch was big, with all the press, PR and dignitaries, I think the AGO has the potential for a similar street party at its launch next year.

I'd imagine that they'd close down Dundas St. West for opening celebrations but wouldn't it be nice to have a dual party, `a la MMVA's?

One stage on Dundas and one in Grange Park with alternating performances and speeches on each side. Big tv's could display the opposite side so nobody misses the action.

Come to think of it, I'm beginning to imagine how the lighting will look. Imagine the "box" all lit up! I'm getting excited!!!!