Of big Architectural publications in North America, there are two: Architectural Record, and Architecture (formerly Progressive Architecture, IIRC, or at least continues the P/A awards). I manage to aquire both (see my previous post about magazines) through work and am thus filled with a plethora of architectural reading. Quite often both magazines will cover the same project within an issue or two of each other -- how each one treats the projects can be revealing and interesting.
Especially when the building receives very different responses. One such project is the new addition to the Ontario College of Art and Design in Toronto (click to see image of the project). Toronto, finally, is starting to have some cool projects done once again. For those who have been to downtown Toronto, one can recognize that nestled within the generic.skyscrapers there are actually some pretty cool and avant-guarde buildings... that had all been completed many years ago. The symphony turned down a Ghery design due to cost and ended up with a bland building that cost just as much (fools!) but lately he's been hired along with several other prominant architects for some well-seen projects. Which brings me to the OCAD addition, or, more specifically, the difference in coverage of this project.
To be fair, Arch Record's article was much shorter in length than the one in Archit, but I don't think that can excuse the 100% lack of critical-ness. To say an article must include faults is not what I aim for, but this is a project where the faults are somewhat obvious, failures of design, and thus curiously absent from Arch Record's article.
Quoting Architecture (penned by Beth Kapusta):
The novelty of OCAD's overarching sculptural idea fades quickly as the building strugles--and ultimatly fails--to resolve itself on the interior. Inside the addition, there is virtually no sense of being in a floating volume high above the city; it feels like being in any old office tower, albeit with some colourfully framed, randomly placed windows. Any sense of procession is denied, because acces ... is through a spiritless bank of elevators (The red tube connecting old to new is solely for emergency egress).
I'd say my thoughts probably mimic to an extent the overview of the Archit article: essentially, acceptable concept, poor execution. As someone who designs from the inside-out, I find it just that much harder to take. The number of missed opportunities here is astounding -- natch, I understand budgetary concerns, I understand code issues, and I don't know all that went on during the whole process. But to look at the interior spaces just makes me go ?? and wonder how it ended up as it did.
Whether one likes the project as a whole, in its context (Centre Pompidou anyone?) is one thing; having the addition end up being banal within is a shame.
Every person in Toronto I've talked to about the building hates the exterior. I finally got a chance to see it myself two months ago. From directly underneath, the "sticks" holding it up look pretty good, but viewing it from a distance still creates a bad feeling in me. I went in with a friend of mine (who was a student at the time), but I didn't get more than a brief look so I can't comment on the interior much. I didn't have any problems with elevator access. What I didn't realize until I went up was that there were windows. From a distance, I thought all the windows were simply featureless black squares like on the rest of the box. The view's very good.
What's with the Centre Georges Pompidou? I remember it vaguely from seeing it in 1980 when I was seven years old. I distantly recall staring in front of a dark abstract painting entitled "Descent of Orpheus" for a very long time.
Posted by: Dronon at September 2, 2004 02:36 AMInteresting... from the images, I find it works better from a distance, as you can't see the aluminum ribs on the sheathing. So, it appears more like an 'object' 'pure'. I wouldn't have a problem with elevator access if it allowed one to experience going up into something different, rather than your generic.office experience (which appears to be the same feeling when you're in it).
What is it from the distance viewing that creates the malaise? Is it the form, its simplicity, its bright plastic nature (a strange folly rather than a building), its contrast from the surrounding context, the fact it looks like it'll fall over? I'm curious -- I haven't seen it in person so I can't really know.
http://www.cnac-gp.fr/Pompidou/Accueil.nsf/tunnel?OpenForm
http://www.atkielski.com/PhotoGallery/Paris/General/images/CentrePompidouLarge.jpg
As for the Centre Pompidou nothing is up with it per se, just that when it was being built there was quite the, shock shall we say, along with the most often heard comment from visitors: "So, when will it be finished?" It's quite different from the surroundings, quite different from the usual buildling type. Compared to the Eaton Centre, maybe nothing to shocking to us, but at the time and at the place, it caused a bit of a stir... }:)
Posted by: Kannik at September 4, 2004 09:58 PM