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

^ I can't argue with that. As long as they're able to admit that, I'm mostly fine.

Regardless, even with limited resources, it is possible to create a building responsible to its surroundings.

I'm actually okay with the Richmond and York st. façades. Those are low profile streets and the loading and administration needs to go somewhere.

Its the Queen St. façade that shows contempt for its surroundings.

I don't think the problem is so much the budget as it is the architecture firm. That much can be confirmed by what they're proposing for the waterfront.
 
Metro Man:

I think most of us agree that there is significant room for improvement - the bright side is that nothing in the design of the building is particularly immutable, especially the structure surrounding the actual hall itself.

Personally I didn't find the Queen Street facade to be THAT bad - boring yes, but not overbearing, like the Richmond side.

re: budget

I don't know - 150M doesn't get you a lot of building - particularly on a site from scratch.

AoD
 
AlvinofDiaspar said:
Metro Man:

I think most of us agree that there is significant room for improvement - the bright side is that nothing in the design of the building is particularly immutable, especially the structure surrounding the actual hall itself.



AoD
Click to expand...

Do you think there's a possibility of a future donor coming up with money to improve the building's exterior?

I followed the construction pretty closely every day (Queen + University was my daily streetcar stop) and I'm not sure much can be done now. It all seemed very permanent.

Nonetheless, I think it would be fun to propose what realistic changes can be made to improve the building.

EDIT: Maybe we could get somebody with Google Earth abilities or some of our resident render magicians to come up with something interesting. Urban Toronto competition? :D
 
But remember what I indicated in my earlier post: according to a certain not-unenlightened POV, the 4SC as it stands might actually be *better* than New York's Met, architecturally speaking...
 
adma said:
But remember what I indicated in my earlier post: according to a certain not-unenlightened POV, the 4SC as it stands might actually be *better* than New York's Met, architecturally speaking...
Click to expand...

I agree. I prefer our city room to this front façade:
578682072_214d2d38b7.jpg


But for context and openness to its surroundings, the Met wins hands down:

lincoln_center_scope.jpg


I think one of the big problems of the 4SC is that due to the limited size of the lot, the entire front of the University façade is a person repellant. The interior welcomes people in, but those walking along the sidewalk are quickly moved along. There isn't any entrance along that entire stretch, no benches, nothing.... and I don't argue that there should be.

I'd like to see short shrubs line the sidewalk against the city room to ease the transition. Across the street, I would propose re-imagining that center space between University avenue lanes as a gathering area for opera goers and people watchers. It's currently very enclosed as it was there before the 4SC.

Both these measures would be city projects but I'm not holding my breath while Kyle Rae is still councillor there.
 
That picture of Marsalis was taken at the Time Warner Centre.

To me, the City Room is an overrated lobby, which is closed (locked) to the 'city' most of the time (and empty most of the time). The Queen Street side of the building remains exceptionally bland and uninspiring, a shame for an important arts building.
 
MetroMan said:
But for context and openness to its surroundings, the Met wins hands down:

lincoln_center_scope.jpg
Click to expand...

Except that photo doesn't show the Met's side elevations. And besides, it'd only be comparable if the 4SC wasn't a standalone building, but formed part of a Lincoln Centre-esque cultural acropolis...
 
MetroMan said:
Do you think there's a possibility of a future donor coming up with money to improve the building's exterior?

I followed the construction pretty closely every day (Queen + University was my daily streetcar stop) and I'm not sure much can be done now. It all seemed very permanent.

Nonetheless, I think it would be fun to propose what realistic changes can be made to improve the building.
Click to expand...

I am not at all surprised to see this post. Like you, MetroMan, I watched this building's design morph, and I actually watched it rise.

I confess that I am in a class by myself when it comes to "seeing" this building. I behold an abstraction that I like. I stand totally alone amongst my friends; they universally hate the exterior but mostly love the inside, including the much debated City Room.

Now, to opine -- this building's exterior can be remade. The squareness of the building is set forever, but the void that surrounds the flytower can be filled. For starters, how about a great glass enclosure to raise the overall height of the building to the height of the flytower. The enclosure would be huge, and would be in two pieces, one on the west (Queen) side of the flytower, and one on the east (York St.) side. Once that is done, some decorative elements could be introduced to the newly enclosed surfaces -- the visible outside curve of the auditorium, and the tower -- and then, lighting could be applied inside the new glass boxes, to give the building some life. And of course, uses abound for that new interior space atop the house. The first that comes to my mind is a restaurant, oh my god, a restaurant! One of the real problems with the new location of the opera is the lack of interesting restaurants in the immediate area, and none on the horizon .. unless you like hotel food, which I don't.

There is an alternative in my mind, similar to the above. The overall height rises to match (or nearly match) that of the flytower, but it's a solid (not glass) building featuring an elegant portico at the corner of Univ/Queen. This would be a study in asymmetry.

How's are those for starters? I have no talent for rendering, so you'll have to go with my verbals.

People call Alsop, Libeskind and Ghery the "bad boys" of architecture, but I like to include Diamond in that class for his abstraction of an opera house at Queen and University.

Oh, and I hate The Metropolitan Opera House in New York City. An exercise in triteness.
 
Nice ideas Tony.

If we're going for square, I imagine adding a black glass enclosure around the perimeter of the existing roof, on top of the existing building, matching the height of the fly tower.

This would result in a more or less perfect cube, a sort of 'monolith' with a bit of a Mies taste.

The new space in this glass box would center around the 'horse shoe' roof currently there. The sides of the horse shoe would be outfitted with wooden slats matching those in the city room wall. The large space on top of the horse shoe roof could become a ball room for events .

The ballroom wouldn't have walls, it would be open to the space below (the current roof facing Queen st on one end and Richmond on the other) where you'd have two restaurants, one on each side.
 
... and yes, I agree. It's surprising how there aren't any decent restaurants around there for blocks!

The restaurant proposed for Nathan Philips Square will fill that niche a little but the Four Season's Centre itself should grab that opportunity.
 
So I went back to my old images of the Four Season's Centre and noticed something I hadn't before: The wooden model displayed at City Hall while the Four Season's Centre was being built is different than what was built!

opera6se8.jpg


The horse shoe roof wasn't in this model, which is something that was actually improved. The previous roof was supposed to be square and flat.

However, this model treats Queen St. much better. There is a small square on the corner of Queen and York and the entire stretch of Queen St. is a 'City Room-esque' glass façade.

You can also see from this how the Four Season's Centre is modular. The main opera house area is poured concrete while both the city room and the Queen St. block are iron and glass.

A future generation can indeed make massive improvements to the 4SC by removing the "Queen St. module" and building something more street friendly.
 
Are you sure? The Queen St. side seems very similar to what was built: a long glassed-in room closer to University, and a mostly bricked-up facade east of that. (You can see the difference on the model.)
 
Yes, while there seems to be some wall behind the part closer to York, there is definitely a curtain wall extending from University to York.

Also, that little cut out on York, creating a square didn't make it to the built form.

Finally, in this other photo of this model, you can clearly see that the roof is different from what was built. In this case, what was built is better:

picture1sf9.png
 
MetroMan said:
Nice ideas Tony.

If we're going for square, I imagine adding a black glass enclosure around the perimeter of the existing roof, on top of the existing building, matching the height of the fly tower.

This would result in a more or less perfect cube, a sort of 'monolith' with a bit of a Mies taste.

The new space in this glass box would center around the 'horse shoe' roof currently there. The sides of the horse shoe would be outfitted with wooden slats matching those in the city room wall. The large space on top of the horse shoe roof could become a ball room for events .

The ballroom wouldn't have walls, it would be open to the space below (the current roof facing Queen st on one end and Richmond on the other) where you'd have two restaurants, one on each side.
Click to expand...


I had to force my mind to wrap itself around this idea of yours. You've got a winner, it is a killer-good idea.

One thing Diamond's work doesn't do well is "flirt", and the Queen / University intersection needed that. This building (while I do indeed like it) is aloof.
 
You must log in or register to post here.

Back
Top