Toronto Four Seasons Centre for the Performing Arts | ?m | 5s | COC | Diamond Schmitt

I don't think anyone is after the K-Mart treatment. I, for one, am much happier with this design than the Moshe Safdie Pleasuredome.

But I get the sense we're not really arguing about the Four Seasons here - which, as I said, seems to be generally well-liked.

Rather, it's the assertion that a building like that has no duty to the public. Do you really believe that?
 
Sometimes I wonder if ap argues himself into a corner out of stubborness. To make the assertion that any building in the middle of a large city has no obligation to its non-users is extreme and unwarranted. As adma pointed out, to take that literally and to its extremes would mean accepting a cinder block wall around, say, the Vu development because they had decided that security was their main function.

Every building in an urban context owes something to those who live in its shadow.
 
ap, are you really consistent with this position? If so I expect you to only comment on the condominiums that you are personally going to live in, the roads that you will drive on (sorry -- if you walk you can only talk about the sidewalk), etc.

If you take the extreme libertarian position that the owner of land can do whatever the hell they want with it, to serve their own purposes exclusively, then I see where you're coming from... but I haven't picked that up from your other writings here.
 
Play nice, AP. There is no need to grind someone down in order to make your point.

AoD
 
Obviously this building is designed for those who go to the opera and ballet.

And Jack Diamond is all about fitting his buildings into their context. Which the FSCPA does beautifully. So where's the problem?

If a problem exists, it is clearly with those advocates on this forum who are ashamed of honestly expressed functions in architecture. What happens on York Street - large trucks delivering stage sets, costumes, scenery - isn't some dirty little secret that we should be ashamed of or disguise as something else.

This design celebrates all aspects of this functioning building equally. As it should be.

From the nameless, faceless people working in the back-of-house on Richmond, to the partying crowds in the City Room on University, to the trailer loads of stuff being delivered on York, to the events in the sponsors lounge on Queen - each function of the building is celebrated honestly and equally. That notion, obviously radical to some, clearly upsets the deeply heirarchical values of many here.

York was always a dowdy, spinsterish street, always the bridesmaid and never the bride. Diamond was under no obligation to deliver an architectural mercy ****.
 
Every building in an urban context owes something to those who live in its shadow.
Click to expand...

Well, no. Those who live in its shadows can demand some input, but only those with an actual stake in the building (owners, lenders, users) get any actual input. Everyone's allowed to have opinions on anything, but unless you're a stakeholder in a building, your opinion isn't worth a tinker's dam.
 
Wow. Discussing this building is like discussing whether the Bible is the literal word of God with a bunch of Christian fundamentalists. What is it about this building in particular that's getting everyone's panties in a knot? No one really hates it, some just wish it was a bit more interesting. Do those who unconditionally support it really think it was some sort of divine inspiration for Diamond, perfect in every way, that he wouldn't have done things differently if he had more cash?
 
ap, I guess we'll just have to disagree. I live in a world with building codes, municipal administrations, provincial and federal regulations, local community council approval processes, city council approval processes, required public input meetings, appeals processes, the Ontario Municipal Board, and commentary in newspapers, etc. You obviously live somewhere else.

I've actually seen places, like the suburbs of Johannesburg, where truly there are few inputs of this nature, and where one function - security - trumps all others. I'm not sure you'd like it very much, unless barbed wire is your cup of tea.
 
Sorry, I left relevant governments of my list of potential stakeholders. They are, of course, insofar as they have any legislative authority to be.
 
Well, no. Those who live in its shadows can demand some input, but only those with an actual stake in the building (owners, lenders, users) get any actual input. Everyone's allowed to have opinions on anything, but unless you're a stakeholder in a building, your opinion isn't worth a tinker's dam.
Click to expand...

The public land for the Opera House was donated by the government. A significant amount of public money was used for it's construction. I'd say we all have a stake in it.
 
Ganjavih:

I suspect that the lack of cash made Diamond's design even better than it would have been, in the classic more-is-less sense - since he had to pare it down to the essentials. In doing so, he created an iconic design that says "opera house" and celebrates all functions of the building equally.
 
For me, the issue in this thread has moved past the building, which I consider to be a gem, and into the discussion of public interest in the built environment (and perhaps, ap's stubborness - when really I don't think the disagreement is that strong). I think government funding of the site is a red herring, whether or not the Opera House paid for the whole shebang themselves or whether they received funding is irrelevant - we all live in a shared environment and we all have a stake - recognized in dozens of pieces of legislation and well established processes - in what is built.

Of course, the Opera House's main function is to provide a beautiful experience when seeing the opera or the ballet, and from Babel's eloquent posts I understand it succeeds well. However, its fantastic success in that area doesn't mean that the exterior is above criticism. I am one with Babel and I think much too much is being made about the exterior's faults, but they are fair game for discussion, by anyone on this forum or others, simply by right of those people being citizens of Toronto.
 
And I don't disagree with that either. I just don't think the opinions of non users of the building are informed opinions, and at they end of the day they don't matter.
 
wow. so now we've gone from inheriting a building that was masterfully designed to create the illusion of stellar architecture that only a few 'intelligent' people are able to admire, to a building so architecturally sound that more money would have actually ruined it. Watch out Sistine chapel, here comes the opera house.
 
Heck, why not strip away the black glazed brick so you can see the true function of the cinder blocks as they hold up the masterpiece. ;)
 
You must log in or register to post here.

Back
Top