Oct. 13, 2004. 01:00 AM...
Community council okays AGO plan
Gallery design uses more glass

Accord includes funds for park

CATHERINE PORTER
CITY HALL REPORTER

After a long, tumultuous struggle, the Art Gallery of Ontario received its first standing ovation for controversial expansion plans yesterday.

The Toronto and East York community council unanimously approved the gallery's $195 million renovation, as designed and revised by architect Frank Gehry. The plan will reshape the front of the Dundas St. building and almost double the height of its back end, despite previous objections from neighbours who fear changes will destroy the adjacent park.

"Great architecture often comes from resolving neighbourhood struggles," said Councillor Olivia Chow (Ward 20, Trinity-Spadina), who organized seven meetings among gallery staff, Gehry's firm and the community to discuss ways the design could be changed to better suit the neighbourhood.

"From it we have a better, more open, more responsive design from a great architect," she said.

Changes to the original design that was presented in January include a clear glass back wall, without the originally proposed titanium wave-motifs, and an additional spiral staircase. Gehry has also substituted glass for the titanium originally proposed for the overhang that will stretch over the Dundas sidewalk, said the gallery's director and CEO, Matthew Teitelbaum.

"It will be a building that's very sensitive to the changing light conditions, and it will blend beautifully with the sky and with the surrounding neighbourhood," a beaming Teitelbaum said after the meeting.

The grandiose plans were drafted to make room for a new collection contributed by former newspaper baron Kenneth Thomson. If the proposal is approved by city council this month, construction will start next September. The target for completion is 2008, but gallery planners promised the outer shell will be done within a year to avoid a long disturbance to the park south of the building.

It was the park, and not the art gallery, that received the most public attention yesterday. Many of the expansion's opponents said it would destroy the park's tranquil atmosphere.

"Grange Park is the only real open, quiet space in the heart of downtown," said Charles-Antoine Rouyer, a journalist and urban health lecturer.

In exchange for the encroachment over the Dundas sidewalk, the gallery has contributed $80,000 for the park, $30,000 of which has been earmarked for a strategic plan. Many councillors called for more money from local developers and the city.

"Otherwise, we'll have a beautiful building and a deteriorated park," said Councillor Pam McConnell (Ward 28, Toronto Centre-Rosedale).

To ensure the gallery does not expand beyond its southern edge and the historic Grange House, the first home of the AGO in 1912, councillors reserved the adjacent land as "park."

Teitelbaum said he didn't think that was necessary.

"Do I imagine in the future we're going to be actually expanding the AGO in that area? I highly doubt it," he said.

"Are we ever going to move the oldest brick house in Toronto? That's not in our future."

Additional articles by Catherine Porter

› Be Thankful! Subscribe now and Save 50%!
FAQs| Site Map| Privacy Policy| Webmaster| Subscribe| My Subscription
Home| GTA| Business| Waymoresports| A&E| Life
Legal Notice: Copyright Toronto Star Newspapers Limited. All rights reserved. Distribution, transmission or republication of any material from www.thestar.com is strictly prohibited without the prior written permission of Toronto Star Newspapers Limited. For information please contact us using our webmaster form. www.thestar.com online since 1996.

"Great architecture often comes from resolving neighbourhood struggles,"

more like, compromise makes the worst design.

"Changes to the original design that was presented in January include a clear glass back wall, without the originally proposed titanium wave-motifs, and an additional spiral staircase. Gehry has also substituted glass for the titanium originally proposed for the overhang that will stretch over the Dundas sidewalk, said the gallery's director and CEO, Matthew Teitelbaum."

yep, that's a cop-out for sure. Oooooh, glass.

I saw some of the earliest ideas for the canopy.... far more interesting than what they'll put up.

""It will be a building that's very sensitive to the changing light conditions, and it will blend beautifully with the sky and with the surrounding neighbourhood," a beaming Teitelbaum said after the meeting."

we're a city possessed with CONTEXT. Why blend in with the neighbourhood? With the exception of Baldwin and a few streets further north, this is one of the most run-down old victorian neighbourhoods in the city. Especially Dundas along this strip.... let's have some vision, people!

I hate to say it, but give Gerhy the biggest budget you can and total free reign and he'd still pump out a crap design. Just look at the Seattle Music Experience.

Barrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrf.

Fire the fucker and hire a local boy.

Did you see the world Hockey Championship trophy he designed, yuck, it looked like crap.

It hurts my eyes to look at that cup...its so awkward!

I have a feeling this will be the project that breaths some new life into Gerhy...instead of that predictable, over-priced stuff he's been turning out year after year. Hopefull, the par for the course will make him work harder...and end up with something new for him.

Or it will be crap. LOL








KGB

THey forgot to mention that he is a braindead liberal!

And that cup wasn't a cup. It was like those pot things, that you make on that wheel-dealie, and if you stop they flop into themselves. Like that. All deformed, and stupid.

at first I hated the cup... but when I saw it held up in the ACC... the way it reflected light... it was quite beautiful. It is an odd shape though.

I use periods too much.... it's my way to avoid grammar early in the morning.

If you don't like titanium, don't hire Ghery!
If they wanted the best bang for the buck, why didn't the AGO hire Jack Diamond?
Oh! It was the community council that forced the changes!

Good thing they didn't get rid of the stilts on the OCA&D!

"If they wanted the best bang for the buck, why didn't the AGO hire Jack Diamond? "


Well, didn't they have that opportunity back in phase 3? Wasn't Diamond pissed when his former partner (Barton Myers) won the limited competition instead?

In a strange twist of fate, Ghery was pissed when Diamond got to do the Opera House...this was the big project Ghery really wanted to do.

Are Be...you do a big diservice to arhitecture by associating dollars to quality. Jack Diamond is the complete opposite of Ghery....I'm quite sure Diamond thinks Ghery's work is garbage and gives architecture a bad name. I would put Diamond in the same boat as Erickson....total purists that would personally kill other architects like Ghery if it weren't illegal.

As one of those ultra-conservatives, I doubt you understand anything about what makes art...art in the first place Are Be.






KGB

I think Diamond is a diamond! A shining star! Bang- for - the - buck genius! Look at the Opera House that we're getting for a song! Sure, it's not at all inspiring-- and about as compelling as the North York Center for the Performing Arts. But, the acoustics, like for the North York Center, will be spectacular! It will look much better than the North York building.

I agree-- you don't have to spend huge bucks to get a good building--and it is my sincere preference that when governments build buildings, they do so as cheaply as possible! I'm glad that the opera house will not be a billion dollar bust!

Diamond is like McGiver from the old Canadian TV series: Out of pocket and dryer lint, some shards of glass, and $10.00, he can build a functional building that with esthetic qualities!


But, if you hate surrealism, don't buy Salvidor Dali paintings. If you hate modern art, don't go the the Tate Modern or the MOMA. If you hate titanium, don't hire Gherey!

Some criticized the Ghery AGO as a "Diamond Masterpiece" - suggesting it had a 'bang for buck' look. Now that the titanium is gone- it's big time bang for buck. All we need to do now is get rid of any swirls, and nobody would know it's a Gherey at all!

Amazing how, on the one had, we complain about architecture, and on the other, we go ape if an architect proposes something other than a brick box with windows. (See the OCA&D and all the freaking out over that.)
Looks like the community counsels are successful in mandating banality - which, presumably, given his comments, suits KGB just fine.

Now you just sound like you make up your own scenarios and dialogue for the sake of complaining?

Diamond is not a "cheap-out" architect at all....most would call him a better architect than Ghery could ever hope to be...he doesn't design the same way Ghery does...Ghery would be considered an "incomplete" architect that just tries to wow people...he's all smoke and mirrors....flash over substance. Not that there is something wrong with his little toys...it's just that Diamond's work is much more complex and meaningful.

Of course, underneath, you know nothing about architecture, and aren't really concerned about it either....you just like to put a political spin on everything....and a predictable one at that....you just say the same thing over and over...and to make it worse, you think that spaz misanthropy of yours is actually humerous?????

Why not just stick to right-wing destructive politics, and leave architecture to those that actually care?








KGB

A Ghery is a Ghery -- and if you remove what makes a Ghery a Ghery, then it is no longer a Ghery. Take the wheels of a bicycle, and it is no longer a bicycle.

Of course, I'd rather see the titanium get cut than have the taxpayer pick up the tab! But if Thompson wants to pay for Titanium, I don't think the community council should stop him. It appears as if they have.

Im not really a fan of the new AGO addition either, the exterior anyways. I would agree that the earlier proposals were much better.

I would say Gehry is a very good architect...his style happens to be very flamboyant so some people tend to dismiss him. However not all his work is like that and he has done some more restrained work as well. If the AGO interiors are as good as people have been saying then I think you can toss the flash over substance argument out the window.

"his style happens to be very flamboyant so some people tend to dismiss him. "


I disagree...I think his "flamboyance" is what most people are attracted to...his detractors would have more basic reasons for disliking his work.







"I would say Gehry is a very good architect"

If he is, than the AGO will be great...which it might very well be...the difficulties there that he doesn't have normally, may bring the challenges necessary to produce "great" architecture.







"If the AGO interiors are as good as people have been saying then I think you can toss the flash over substance argument out the window."

I don't think so...it's not as if flow and light in an art gallery is all that difficult to achieve...they are just blank rooms to place art in...the rooms themselves are not the focus.





"A Ghery is a Ghery -- and if you remove what makes a Ghery a Ghery, then it is no longer a Ghery. "


Wow...that's so deep Are Be.





KGB

Diamond is like McGiver from the old Canadian TV series: Out of pocket and dryer lint, some shards of glass, and $10.00, he can build a functional building that with esthetic qualities!

:rofl:

Diamond is not a "cheap-out" architect at all....most would call him a better architect than Ghery could ever hope to be...he doesn't design the same way Ghery does...Ghery would be considered an "incomplete" architect that just tries to wow people...he's all smoke and mirrors....flash over substance. Not that there is something wrong with his little toys...it's just that Diamond's work is much more complex and meaningful.
KGB

Thanks, someone had to say this.

"and $10.00, he can build a functional building that with esthetic qualities!"


What's all this nonsense about "10 dollars" and "cheap" ???

This is a $181 million project for a 2000 seat theatre...it doesn't sound too fuking cheap or inexpensive to me.






KGB

So you must be furious with the crap result! Unless the $ 200 million includes the cost of land (donated.) I bet the Opera house is a deal - a true work of genius- at $50 million.

Edit: Got some more info:
How much will it cost to build the Four Seasons Centre?
The project cost is $181 million including the gift of the land from the Government of Ontario, valued at $31 million.

OK, plus we have to factor in special materials and special construction, and to employ experts in opera house construction -- all this, quite reasonably - drives up the price without improving the look of the building.

In any event- the Diamond designed opera house will do its job, and deliver a hell of a bang for the money. Even at $150 million, we're getting a cheaped out opera house! You don't get a jaw dropping, post card material opera house for relative peanuts! Often times, jaw dropping opera houses- designed for civc boosterism- jingoism - cost much more than 200 million! Thankfully, we're being very fiscally conservative with our opera house. We're getting the best opera house pocket lint can buy! And one that works- unlike the one in Sydney.

A day a Gehry project is cancelled is a happy, happy day. What the world does not need is yet another load of old soup cans hammered into an approximation of Mechabarbarstreisand ass-fucking the U.S. Steel Building.

If you don't believe me, go to LA and take a look at the Disney Concert Hall, but only after you put on these special protective goggles.

"his style happens to be very flamboyant so some people tend to dismiss him. "


I disagree...I think his "flamboyance" is what most people are attracted to...his detractors would have more basic reasons for disliking his work.


KGB

I was referring to his detractors actually. I've never heard anyone who didn't like his work actually critique it...they just dismiss it outright as bad simply because it's not flashy and it's unconventional (Im not referring to you specifically here). Or they say all his stuff looks the same, which I don't really understand since many if not most architects, including the greats, have a style which is evident in their work and create very similar looking buildings.

It's as if flashy and unconventional automatically means bad...the way I see it there is room for both flash and good design. Im interested to hear why people think Gehry is the former but not the latter.