yyzer
Senior Member
from today's Star.....he is so right, this one will be the most controversial building /ever/ for the City of Toronto......
Build it, and they will shun
TheStar.com - News - Build it, and they will shun
The ROM crystal, like every new monument, will have fierce critics
May 27, 2007
Christopher Hume
Toronto Star
Next Saturday, when Daniel Libeskind's addition to the Royal Ontario Museum, the Michael Lee-Chin Crystal, finally opens, a wave of anger and contempt will wash over Toronto. It has already started.
Shock and outrage will spew from the pages of newspapers, radio talkshows and blogs.
Never will people have beheld a building so ugly, architecture so appalling, design so bad – or such cheap-looking aluminium cladding this side of a post-war Scarborough semi.
You can see it now, the shaking of heads, rolling of eyeballs, wringing of hands, the frothing, spluttering and snorting.
It won't be pretty.
But if they know as much about history as they should, Libeskind and his clients at the ROM will be thrilled. This has been the reaction to new architecture since time immemorial.
Way back when Pericles was the "first citizen" of Athens during its Golden Age, 2,500 years ago, the construction of the Parthenon was greeted with less than universal approval.
We may view it as the most important, and certainly the most admired and influential, building in the Western canon, but to many Athenians at the time, it was a symbol of the city's profligacy and a monument to civic hubris.
Sound familiar?
Not surprisingly, Pericles' most vociferous opponents were the conservative factions of Athens. Like their contemporary counterparts, they opposed such lavish expenditure of public funds on something as frilly as beauty and culture.
More recently, when Gustave Eiffel built his tower for the 1889 Paris Universal Exposition, response was mixed. Though it attracted Parisians and tourists in the thousands, the cultural elite was not amused.
The tower was accused of being "an offence against French good taste." A newspaper diatribe signed by Alexandre Dumas, Guy de Maupassant and others dismissed it as "the baroque, mercantile imaginings of a machine builder."
More than a century later, it is the most recognized, and beloved, icon of a city considered the most beautiful in the world.
As Baudelaire observed of Paris, "How much more swiftly the physical aspect of the city evolves compared to the heart of the common mortal."
Around the same time the Eiffel Tower was being built, the Milanese were busy erecting their own great monument to the city, the Galleria Vittorio Emanuele.
Since its completion in 1881, it has inspired countless covered shopping malls around the world.
Here in Toronto, for example, there are two – the gallerias at the Eaton Centre and BCE Place, both of which rank among the finest interior spaces in the city.
But when the original opened, it was not instantly appreciated. According to one commentator, it was "the most nefarious scheme ever conceived by the mind of man."
Wandering through its ornately carved "streets," thronged with locals and tourists, many words pop into one's head, but nefarious isn't among them. True, the Galleria is somewhat overwrought by modern standards, but that only makes it all the more enjoyable.
The Rockefeller Center, that quintessential Manhattan landmark, also received a pretty rough ride when it appeared between 1930 and '39.
The Art Deco complex, which comprises 14 buildings and several small parks, was excoriated by critic Lewis Mumford as "bad with an almost juvenile badness."
Local newspapers were inundated with letters complaining that it was "the ugliest conglomeration of buildings in New York," and "a disgraceful symbol of a generation."
How quickly the disgraceful becomes graceful, and ugliness beauty.
Toronto is no exception. Over the years, it has proved itself just as susceptible to the shock of the new as any community. When New City Hall was finished in 1965, no less an authority than Frank Lloyd Wright called it "sterile." Walter Gropius said it was "very poor." Now it is widely considered one of the finest structures in Toronto, and certainly one of the most beloved.
And who could forget the sad early history of Henry Moore's Archer, which stands in Nathan Phillips Square. When then mayor Phil Givens proposed that the city spend public money on the bronze sculpture, his suggestion met with scathing criticism. Indeed, the fact he lost his final election had a lot to do with his support for the piece.
Four decades later, The Archer has established itself as a genuinely popular artwork, the backdrop to countless family photographs.
Then there was the Sharp Centre at the Ontario College of Art and Design on McCaul St. When pictures of the "flying tabletop" were released in 2001, they unleashed a torrent of emails to the Star, many of them from architects. One wrote it off as a "bad first-year project."
Just three or four years later, the Sharp Centre is one of few buildings in this city that can make a Torontonian smile.
None of this means the Crystal will ever win the hearts and minds of people who live here. On the other hand, it does indicate that whatever terrible things are said in the next few weeks about the ROM addition shouldn't be taken too seriously.
And while we're at it, let's not forget that there was a time when experts came from around the world to admire and learn lessons from Regent Park, St. James Town and the like.
We know better now.
TORONTO PARIS MILAN ATHENS NEW YORK
Build it, and they will shun
TheStar.com - News - Build it, and they will shun
The ROM crystal, like every new monument, will have fierce critics
May 27, 2007
Christopher Hume
Toronto Star
Next Saturday, when Daniel Libeskind's addition to the Royal Ontario Museum, the Michael Lee-Chin Crystal, finally opens, a wave of anger and contempt will wash over Toronto. It has already started.
Shock and outrage will spew from the pages of newspapers, radio talkshows and blogs.
Never will people have beheld a building so ugly, architecture so appalling, design so bad – or such cheap-looking aluminium cladding this side of a post-war Scarborough semi.
You can see it now, the shaking of heads, rolling of eyeballs, wringing of hands, the frothing, spluttering and snorting.
It won't be pretty.
But if they know as much about history as they should, Libeskind and his clients at the ROM will be thrilled. This has been the reaction to new architecture since time immemorial.
Way back when Pericles was the "first citizen" of Athens during its Golden Age, 2,500 years ago, the construction of the Parthenon was greeted with less than universal approval.
We may view it as the most important, and certainly the most admired and influential, building in the Western canon, but to many Athenians at the time, it was a symbol of the city's profligacy and a monument to civic hubris.
Sound familiar?
Not surprisingly, Pericles' most vociferous opponents were the conservative factions of Athens. Like their contemporary counterparts, they opposed such lavish expenditure of public funds on something as frilly as beauty and culture.
More recently, when Gustave Eiffel built his tower for the 1889 Paris Universal Exposition, response was mixed. Though it attracted Parisians and tourists in the thousands, the cultural elite was not amused.
The tower was accused of being "an offence against French good taste." A newspaper diatribe signed by Alexandre Dumas, Guy de Maupassant and others dismissed it as "the baroque, mercantile imaginings of a machine builder."
More than a century later, it is the most recognized, and beloved, icon of a city considered the most beautiful in the world.
As Baudelaire observed of Paris, "How much more swiftly the physical aspect of the city evolves compared to the heart of the common mortal."
Around the same time the Eiffel Tower was being built, the Milanese were busy erecting their own great monument to the city, the Galleria Vittorio Emanuele.
Since its completion in 1881, it has inspired countless covered shopping malls around the world.
Here in Toronto, for example, there are two – the gallerias at the Eaton Centre and BCE Place, both of which rank among the finest interior spaces in the city.
But when the original opened, it was not instantly appreciated. According to one commentator, it was "the most nefarious scheme ever conceived by the mind of man."
Wandering through its ornately carved "streets," thronged with locals and tourists, many words pop into one's head, but nefarious isn't among them. True, the Galleria is somewhat overwrought by modern standards, but that only makes it all the more enjoyable.
The Rockefeller Center, that quintessential Manhattan landmark, also received a pretty rough ride when it appeared between 1930 and '39.
The Art Deco complex, which comprises 14 buildings and several small parks, was excoriated by critic Lewis Mumford as "bad with an almost juvenile badness."
Local newspapers were inundated with letters complaining that it was "the ugliest conglomeration of buildings in New York," and "a disgraceful symbol of a generation."
How quickly the disgraceful becomes graceful, and ugliness beauty.
Toronto is no exception. Over the years, it has proved itself just as susceptible to the shock of the new as any community. When New City Hall was finished in 1965, no less an authority than Frank Lloyd Wright called it "sterile." Walter Gropius said it was "very poor." Now it is widely considered one of the finest structures in Toronto, and certainly one of the most beloved.
And who could forget the sad early history of Henry Moore's Archer, which stands in Nathan Phillips Square. When then mayor Phil Givens proposed that the city spend public money on the bronze sculpture, his suggestion met with scathing criticism. Indeed, the fact he lost his final election had a lot to do with his support for the piece.
Four decades later, The Archer has established itself as a genuinely popular artwork, the backdrop to countless family photographs.
Then there was the Sharp Centre at the Ontario College of Art and Design on McCaul St. When pictures of the "flying tabletop" were released in 2001, they unleashed a torrent of emails to the Star, many of them from architects. One wrote it off as a "bad first-year project."
Just three or four years later, the Sharp Centre is one of few buildings in this city that can make a Torontonian smile.
None of this means the Crystal will ever win the hearts and minds of people who live here. On the other hand, it does indicate that whatever terrible things are said in the next few weeks about the ROM addition shouldn't be taken too seriously.
And while we're at it, let's not forget that there was a time when experts came from around the world to admire and learn lessons from Regent Park, St. James Town and the like.
We know better now.
TORONTO PARIS MILAN ATHENS NEW YORK
