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

Talking of inner beauty, I'm surprised the AGO hasn't doled out a few more loaners, like the Henry Moore's Warrior with Shield that sits at the top of the grand staircase, while they're closed for renovations.
 
Does anyone know what's happening to the Sales Centre? noticed that it's being dismantled/moved yesterday.
 
Bogtrotter said:
Well um okay- but I swear i passed by there once and my head completely emptied!
Click to expand...

Great,…company for AlvinofDiaspar. (great handle by the way)

Urban Shocker said:
As if finally having a great hall with great acoustics - which is the reason for building the place - is a minor point.
Click to expand...

Having an Opera House with great acoustics is not a minor point. Great acoustics, if they exist here, are a PART of the requirements for a great Opera House. I believe the Four Seasons building is just that, another building, not a great building. No one in the world will look at this particularly underwhelming structure and be impressed like they are when they see the Metropolitan Opera House or the Sydney Opera House. We started from scratch and had a chance to build something great. Instead, like always, we settled for something practical and plain. If that’s enough to quench your architectural appetite, fine. But to me it’s a disappointment.
 
Big Daddy:

I await your esteemed answers on the issue of artifact rotation, glazing properties, UV damage and snow loading - none of which you've answered to anyone's satisfaction. Strangely missing, no?

Engage in ad hominem attacks at your peril.

re: "Great Opera House"

By your definition of great acoustics being a prerequisite to a great house, Sydney Opera House would have flunked the test, given the what is generally know as the sub-par acoustics there. Whereas other great houses such as La Scala wouldn't have made it either, given how boring (albeit old) it looks on the outside. Ultimately an opera house is there for opera, not architecture.

"We settled"? Who is this we? You talked as if somehow you took an active role in helping the COC fundraise for their new house and then gotten dreadfully disappointed by the fine house that you helped to get built. And before you give me any of that "it's partly funded by the taxpayers" line, ask yourself, how much was the taxpayers willing to pony up, as per the overall budget of the house?

AoD
 
Isn't it time we move this to Buildings & Architecture ? The only Four Seasons we should see here is the hotel and residence towers. :confused:
 
Big Daddy said:
No one in the world will look at this particularly underwhelming structure and be impressed like they are when they see the Metropolitan Opera House or the Sydney Opera House. We started from scratch and had a chance to build something great. Instead, like always, we settled for something practical and plain. If that’s enough to quench your architectural appetite, fine. But to me it’s a disappointment.
Click to expand...

Now, Sydney, I can understand, but New York's Met (presuming that's what you're referring to)?!?

Hate to tell you this, but the formative party line on the Met tended to be that *it* was a "particularly underwhelming" structure: middlebrow 60s "new formalist" schlock that embodies the so-called worst of Lincoln Center. Hardly "something great" except to hicks from the sticks who automatically assume it's "something great" simply because it's the Met in New York, Chagall and all...
 
Big Daddy said:
Having an Opera House with great acoustics is not a minor point. Great acoustics, if they exist here, are a PART of the requirements for a great Opera House. I believe the Four Seasons building is just that, another building, not a great building. No one in the world will look at this particularly underwhelming structure and be impressed like they are when they see the Metropolitan Opera House or the Sydney Opera House. We started from scratch and had a chance to build something great. Instead, like always, we settled for something practical and plain. If that’s enough to quench your architectural appetite, fine. But to me it’s a disappointment.
Click to expand...

For one, I am greatly relieved that the architects drew upon the really great opera houses of the world, and not The Met, and not Sydney, for their inspiration. Instead, they chose great auditoria in Munich, Vienna, and La Scala as examples. What we got inside the Four Seasons is an auditorium of equal or superior quality to these three examples. The opera-goers I know are happy with the opera experience in Toronto now.
 
^But how self centred can one be to not think about what the 4SC is to the rest of the city? It's not like it's built on some farm out in the country.

Yes, I greatly applaud the COC for building one of the greatest opera auditoriums in the world, but I condemn them for flipping the finger at the city around it.
 
MetroMan:

Matter of resources - it would be extremely irresponsible if the COC decided to went for the architectural bang and ended up with a Hummingbird acoustically speaking - that being one of the main reason for the house to start off with. If they had to cut out the wavy glass canopy (paltry 1/2M) and the rooftop cafe/event space for the sake of money, it just tells you how tight money was.

Beyond that, I am sure the costly acoustical refit and all the disappointment/embrassment from the original Roy Thompson Hall is fresh in everyone's mind.

It does bring in the question - should the government play a bigger role in ensuring grandeur in civic assets? I mean, paying for 1/3 of an already small budget (part of that is land in lieu of cash, even) doesn't sound particularly supportive of that goal, isnt it?

AoD
 
You must log in or register to post here.

Back
Top