The new opera and ballet theatre is being built at an incredible speed. If you haven't visited the website recently go to the link below for construction photographs and a virtual tour of both the interior and exterior.


http://www.fourseasonscentre.ca/index.htm

WHAT A PLAIN JANE OPERA HOUSE! How dull can you get? Bricks and glass! At least it does not have a world class price tag, and it will do its job, unlike many jaw droppers.

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.

After having endured years of opera at the Hummingbird, an opera house "that works" will be a god-send! I, for one, like the clean lines of the new centre BUT I'll reserve final judgement until I "hear" the building.

You're encourageable are be.

A "WOW" building could have been built for that money...even less. But they picked Jack Diamond knowing full well his style...which is the exact opposite of "WOW". So obviously the COC didn't want a "WOW" building...at least not facade wise. I think it's refreshing that a cultural building isn't relying on the flash to base its success on.

I happen to like Diamond's style...and the Opera House looks to be a great Diamond building. The COC and National Ballet deserve a first class venue.






KGB

I like the facts that a taxpayer supported opera house is both cheap - ass and does the job! I like Diamond's ability to deliver truly great buildings at exceptionally low prices. This opera house, at $150 million, is DIRT CHEAP. And has esthetics qualities as well.

Isn't it refreshing that the taxpayer isn't expected to pick up the tab for a jaw dropping playpen for the wealthy?
The COC and the National Ballet deserve a functional buildings with great acoustics. And the taxpayer deserves not to be taken in for a ride- Diamond, to his credit, has has successfully balanced both. What a star architect!

The Words of Jack Daimond himself:
Diamond says, “There’s a vast array of considerations. Cost being one of the first. We must be aware of the cost but not cut funds to the extent that it will affect the operation and quality of the building as an opera house. That’s an issue—balancing where you spend the money. The second one is the technology of sound isolation. We’re not dealing with the quality of sound but the quantity of sound—illuminating the quality of sound so that the quieter it is the better you will hear. We should not hear or feel the sound/vibration from the subway, the streetcar, sirens, and trucks. Those are some of the technical questions.” see [link] http://www.fourseasonscentre.ca/insights/insights.htm [/link

Though I find the exterior design rather dull Im still looking forward to seeing how the building looks.

Too bad they didn't pick Gehry for this one...one of his creations would have been spectacular at this location.

It's very sad how the mainstream taste for architectural beauty has evolved into such a superficial affinity for the outrageous. It's the same reason that tattoos and peircings are no longer considered outrageous. Not that there isn't anything wrong with being outrageous, but outrageous is not the only thing that constitutes good architecture. It's also "easy" to understand, because it's so obvious, which lowers our abilty to have more depth of appreciation.

Personally, I am happy with either a good Ghery or a good Diamond building. Why is it that some Torontonians can't just be happy with a great, much needed facility? Purpose-built opera houses (and good ones at that) aren't something many cities get that often.






KGB

It's very sad how the mainstream taste for architectural beauty has evolved into such a superficial affinity for the outrageous. It's the same reason that tattoos and peircings are no longer considered outrageous. Not that there isn't anything wrong with being outrageous, but outrageous is not the only thing that constitutes good architecture. It's also "easy" to understand, because it's so obvious, which lowers our abilty to have more depth of appreciation.

Personally, I am happy with either a good Ghery or a good Diamond building. Why is it that some Torontonians can't just be happy with a great, much needed facility? Purpose-built opera houses (and good ones at that) aren't something many cities get that often.



KGB


Well, I for one never said that it was the only thing that constitutes being good architecture. However I really find nothing interesting about Diamond's opera house design. And yes, Im quite aware something doesn't have to be outrageous and flamboyant to be interesting. But from what I've seen it doesn't even meet the mark in that respect. Hopefully the finished product is better than the renderings.

Will it be great? That remains to be seen. I sure hope it is...

It's very sad how the mainstream taste for architectural beauty has evolved into such a superficial affinity for the outrageous. It's the same reason that tattoos and peircings are no longer considered outrageous. Not that there isn't anything wrong with being outrageous, but outrageous is not the only thing that constitutes good architecture. It's also "easy" to understand, because it's so obvious, which lowers our abilty to have more depth of appreciation.

KGB


Part of the reason is that opera houses often tend to be focal points. Just as the OCA&D - an art school, is supposed to be freaking outragous, many think - reasonably - that an opera house is an IDEAL project for, if not architectural lunacy, then at least, some eye candy. The plain- Jane Toronto opera house, conversely, is decidedly not post card material, and would just as easily fit into 905 or on some university campus.
And there's nothing wrong with that. Nothing wrong with an acoustically correct, brick and glass box opera house.

Further, as I have long stated, the signature look for Toronto is the cheap -out. Part of the reason for this look is the loathing senior levels of governments have of this city. It's only a natural consequence that we get a 'modest' opera house.
It's a heck on an opera house for a pathetic $150 million.

Part of the reason is that opera houses often tend to be focal points. Just as the OCA&D - an art school, is supposed to be freaking outragous, many think - reasonably - that an opera house is an IDEAL project for, if not architectural lunacy, then at least, some eye candy. The plain- Jane Toronto opera house, conversely, is decidedly not post card material, and would just as easily fit into 905 or on some university campus.
And there's nothing wrong with that. Nothing wrong with an acoustically correct, brick and glass box opera house.

Further, as I have long stated, the signature look for Toronto is the cheap -out. Part of the reason for this look is the loathing senior levels of governments have of this city. It's only a natural consequence that we get a 'modest' opera house.
It's a heck on an opera house for a pathetic $150 million.


I would have to agree that it represents the perfect opportunity for some creativity.

How many ways can Are Be repeat the same misguided, misanthropic, politically based statement?



"I would have to agree that it represents the perfect opportunity for some creativity."


Then why don't you start an opera company and hire an architect to design an "outrageous" opera house for you then? The COC opted for this design...how many times does this have to be pounded into minds? They picked an architect known for very non-outrageous approach to architecture....let's just assume that's what they wanted...not what YOU wanted.

Personally, I applaud them for it.

And by attributing this outrageous design idea with creativity just cements my not-so-great opinion of mainstream taste in architecture.

I will wait to make a personal judgement of the building when it's finished...renderings just don't work well.


Again...listening to people complain non-stop over good things is annoying. NOTHING seems to satisfy some people...maybe you would be happier if it just stayed a fuking parking lot.

The second coming could happen in Toronto, and people would find something to complain about. I can understand misgivings about something that is truly a bad idea...but this just isn't one.






KGB

Again...listening to people complain non-stop over good things is annoying. NOTHING seems to satisfy some people...maybe you would be happier if it

Sure there's some people that can't be satisfied, but I think it's mostly that there's nothing that can satisfy everyone.

How many ways can Are Be repeat the same misguided, misanthropic, politically based statement?



"I would have to agree that it represents the perfect opportunity for some creativity."


Then why don't you start an opera company and hire an architect to design an "outrageous" opera house for you then? The COC opted for this design...how many times does this have to be pounded into minds? They picked an architect known for very non-outrageous approach to architecture....let's just assume that's what they wanted...not what YOU wanted.

Personally, I applaud them for it.




I see...so the only valid opinion is one of praise? There is nothing that needs to be pounded into anyone's head...everyone is well aware this is the design they chose. That doesn't mean we must like it, nor does it mean we are not entitled to criticise the design. It's public domain. If you have a problem with people having differing opinions, perhaps you shouldn't bother visiting a message board.


And by attributing this outrageous design idea with creativity just cements my not-so-great opinion of mainstream taste in architecture.

I will wait to make a personal judgement of the building when it's finished...renderings just don't work well.


Again...listening to people complain non-stop over good things is annoying. NOTHING seems to satisfy some people...maybe you would be happier if it just stayed a fuking parking lot.

The second coming could happen in Toronto, and people would find something to complain about. I can understand misgivings about something that is truly a bad idea...but this just isn't one.


KGB


Again, if you don't like it, then why bother visiting?

And yes...I'd be quite happy to see it remain a parking lot if it means they came up with a better design in a few years, or even many years.

Im quite happy with the idea of an opera house...but not with the design. There is a difference. I find the attitude that we should just be happy we're getting something alarming.

I'm really happy that it's getting built! It might not be much to look at from the exterior, but the hall inside is state-of-the-art. Apparently it has a revolving stage, just like every other European opera house. Thankfully now I won't have to go to the Hummingbird center as I do now to watch the opera.

"If you have a problem with people having differing opinions, perhaps you shouldn't bother visiting a message board."


And if you have a problem with someone disagreeing with your opinion...then maybe you should piss off too. Don't get mad at me because I call you on yours. That's the way she goes....it's not a free ride.







"Im quite happy with the idea of an opera house...but not with the design. There is a difference. "


Yea...well it seems you keep missing my point.....IT IS A GOOD DESIGN!!!

You just don't know it, because it doesn't employ the kind of architecture that the ignorant masses find the flavour-of-the-month these days...that's all.






KGB

"If you have a problem with people having differing opinions, perhaps you shouldn't bother visiting a message board."


And if you have a problem with someone disagreeing with your opinion...then maybe you should piss off too. Don't get mad at me because I call you on yours. That's the way she goes....it's not a free ride.

Hmm...I didn't get mad. Im not the one who had a problem with your opinion. Your response was one of irritation that I don't like it, seemingly because it doesn't fit your infalliable view of things.

Then why don't you start an opera company and hire an architect to design an "outrageous" opera house for you then? The COC opted for this design...how many times does this have to be pounded into minds? They picked an architect known for very non-outrageous approach to architecture....let's just assume that's what they wanted...not what YOU wanted.

That's a rather juvenille response. The only way I can critique the Opera House is if it's my own? How ridiculous. I never said what I preferred was how things MUST be. And I never said it MUST be completely outrageous either. YOU chose to interpret things that way.





"Im quite happy with the idea of an opera house...but not with the design. There is a difference. "


Yea...well it seems you keep missing my point.....IT IS A GOOD DESIGN!!!

You just don't know it, because it doesn't employ the kind of architecture that the ignorant masses find the flavour-of-the-month these days...that's all.





KGB




The exterior design is good...to you. But not to everyone. I find it dull and lacking in creativity. Im sorry that you have trouble accepting the opinions of others. And lets not dress it up as your contradicting opinion...your "opinion" isn't about the building but rather a personal attack on my taste, which, without knowing me, is somehow "ignorant". I would call that "ignorant".

I think it is quite novel - an opera house in an urban setting whose main focus is on the performance.

KGB said: The COC opted for this design...how many times does this have to be pounded into minds? They picked an architect known for very non-outrageous approach to architecture....let's just assume that's what they wanted...not what YOU wanted.

What they truly did is employ a pocket lint genius who can deliver a cheap - ass opera house with great acoustics, instead of an inspiring municipal focal point. This opera house is not complex- it's cheap - ass! How anyone can see anything but a humble exterior is beyond me. It's a square box made of brick and glass: it's complex as suburban office park!

To repeat what Diamond himself said:

Diamond says, “There’s a vast array of considerations. Cost being one of the first. We must be aware of the cost but not cut funds to the extent that it will affect the operation and quality of the building as an opera house. That’s an issue—balancing where you spend the money. The second one is the technology of sound isolation. We’re not dealing with the quality of sound but the quantity of sound—illuminating the quality of sound so that the quieter it is the better you will hear. We should not hear or feel the sound/vibration from the subway, the streetcar, sirens, and trucks. Those are some of the technical questions.” see [link] http://www.fourseasonscentre.ca/insights/insights.htm

I Would suggest that COST was the KEY FACTOR in selecting Diamond. Had cost not been a critically serious concern, the opera house would have been, as is traditionally the case, an architectural wonderment, and not this box that would just as easily fit on a university campus or in any suburb. Arguably, the North York Center for the performing arts is more challenging than the opera house.

Toronto does not have the money, and governments are loath to give money to Toronto, and thus, we are getting a very cheap opera house. The reason why the opera house is not deigned by an international star is because we simply do not have the money an d no government will give us the money: Toronto cannot risk a billion dollar boondoggle.

Consider :
What happened to past stars brought into the condominium arena of Toronto? Hume could have also researched the struggles of his favourite stars in their own backyard, where for example, Alsop and Libeskind's most recent projects have not gained public acceptance and full go-ahead from planners, due to "programmatic and budgetary challenges to their viability" (see Architectural Record, Sept. 4, page 27). One may actually ask how a condominium shaped like a bolt of lightning would solve our problems.
- - - Toronto Star, Oct 16/04 Babak Eslahjou, Core Architects.
We get screwed enough by senior levels of government. If the opera house were to be designed by a star, and go over budget, the thing would sit half finished! A monument to the loathing of Toronto by the rest of Canada.

POINT: BUT WAIT! - The opera house is a monument signifying the treatment of Toronto by senior levels of government. The design of this opera house can be seen as a form of political protest: Senior levels of government screw Toronto and don't want to give us money, and we get the resulting 'reserved' opera house.
It's not Diamond's fault the project's a cheap - out from the start. But, still, it is clear on the face of it that this opera house is a cheap - out.

KGB said:

What they truly did is employ a pocket lint genius who can deliver a cheap - ass opera house with great acoustics, instead of an inspiring municipal focal point. This opera house is not complex- it's cheap - ass! How anyone can see anything but a humble exterior is beyond me. It's a square box made of brick and glass: it's complex as suburban office park!

To repeat what Diamond himself said:

I Would suggest that COST was the KEY FACTOR in selecting Diamond. Had cost not been a critically serious concern, the opera house would have been, as is traditionally the case, an architectural wonderment, and not this box that would just as easily fit on a university campus or in any suburb. Arguably, the North York Center for the performing arts is more challenging than the opera house.

Toronto does not have the money, and governments are loath to give money to Toronto, and thus, we are getting a very cheap opera house. The reason why the opera house is not deigned by an international star is because we simply do not have the money an d no government will give us the money: Toronto cannot risk a billion dollar boondoggle.

Consider :
What happened to past stars brought into the condominium arena of Toronto? Hume could have also researched the struggles of his favourite stars in their own backyard, where for example, Alsop and Libeskind's most recent projects have not gained public acceptance and full go-ahead from planners, due to "programmatic and budgetary challenges to their viability" (see Architectural Record, Sept. 4, page 27). One may actually ask how a condominium shaped like a bolt of lightning would solve our problems.
- - - Toronto Star, Oct 16/04 Babak Eslahjou, Core Architects.
We get screwed enough by senior levels of government. If the opera house were to be designed by a star, and go over budget, the thing would sit half finished! A monument to the loathing of Toronto by the rest of Canada.

POINT: BUT WAIT! - The opera house is a monument signifying the treatment of Toronto by senior levels of government. The design of this opera house can be seen as a form of political protest: Senior levels of government screw Toronto and don't want to give us money, and we get the resulting 'reserved' opera house.
It's not Diamond's fault the project's a cheap - out from the start. But, still, it is clear on the face of it that this opera house is a cheap - out.

I think you're going overboard by calling it a cheapout. By all accounts it should be a good quality building. That said, it's obvious they had a budget, as do all projects. I would have to agree that cost was probably one of the factors when choosing Diamond. I wouldn't call that an insult though, quite the opposite. The thing is, cost is always a factor - so to say they chose him soley (or even largely) because he's a "cheap - out" architect doesn't really work.

I think it is quite novel - an opera house in an urban setting whose main focus is on the performance.

I agree completely...the setting is fantastic and by all accounts it should be excellent accoustically.

"I think you're going overboard by calling it a cheapout. "


Does anybody even listen to are be any more...he just repeats the same thing over and over again...with no regard to any other dialogue in the thread...it's like he is just a program...not a person.

He sounds like the single most unhappy, miserable person I have ever come across on these forums....I guess that will never change until his racist, facist, gun-loving ass-wipe Conservatives win an election. LOL!!






KGB

^Well, He is a lawyer (99% sure)

Well, if he is, he would never win a case if he presented it the way he does his posts.

I doubt very much he is.






KGB

A beautiful city like TO deserves a beautiful operahouse. I think that the design and location could be better. Click on the link to see the brand new operahouse in Copenhagen. I really like how they locate it by the water.

http://www.kifora.dk/Web/Opera/Opera%20okt.%202003.htm

KEY POINT ABOVE ALL OTHERS: I'm happy the taxpayer of Toronto is not going to get stuck with a half finished building, or a building where the acoustics get chopped in order to pay for titanium, or get a 'wow' building with bad acoustics, like in Sydney etc.
POINTZ:
1. 150 million for an opera house is DIRT CHEAP
2. Diamond, in my opinion, was selected because he can deliver tremendous bang for the buck! THIS BUILDING WILL USE EVERY IMAGINABLE TRICK - TO STRETCH EVERY DOLLAR, AND TO MAXIMIZE THE $10.00 FOR ESTHETICS- not because his complex square glass and brick box style.
3. Superstar architects were avoided as they REGULARLY fail to deliver 'on time and on budget.' etc.
4. As others have pointed out, that this binding will have great acoustics- which, of course , is key- more important than flash. I'll admit that it is more important that the opera house sound great than look great, but, this building does not look great.
5- KGB- you don't have the guts to explain how this square brick and glass building is 'complex' ! You don't have the guts to show how this box is anything more than what one would find at an ex-urban office park! Prove me wrong! Prove me wrong- demonstrate that the exterior of this opera house is on par with the other major opera houses in the world! Let's be serious for a moment: KGB, you wouldn't want Toronto's new opera house on a post card, would you?

I think it looks great
http://www.fourseasonscentre.ca/images/images/renderingExterior.jpg

enjoying a drink while overlooking Osgoode Hall with twinkle lights overhead... nice.
http://www.fourseasonscentre.ca/images/images/renderingLounge.jpg
http://www.fourseasonscentre.ca/images/images/renderingLounge01.jpg




TORONTOCOPENHAGEN, thanks for the pics. Not to be rude, but Toronto's is looking even better.

I couldn't agree more with Are Be. We ARE getting a cheap opera house, and NO I wouldn't want to see it on a postcard. Toronto wants to be a world class city so badly, and yet it does not want to do what it takes to get recognized internationally. By local standards; it's great. Imagine if we got stuck with something like the NAC in Ottawa. *shudder* Still, it is no Sydney Opera House (aesthetically), or like anything in Vienna, Berlin, Milan, etc. We simply won't be on the international radar here.

Unlike Are Be, I wouldn't mind an extra $1.49 on my property taxes or whatever to build something a little extraordinary - what civic leaders forget is that tourism brings a massive amount of dollars to Toronto. Having another architectural destination could add to that. Just a little while ago my friend in Chicago called wondering about "exciting new architectural developments in Toronto" which he read about in the newspaper. The article he read mentioned OCAD and the new ROM. I was hard pressed to mention the opera house. If it were enough to draw people like him to the city, and many of them, then the opera house would pay for itself in increased tourism and tax dollars. I speak in the long run, of course.

Still, it's not completely unfortunate. While opera houses are civic buildings and add to the overall cultural and architectural fabric of a city, they are not intensely used buildings. In fact, since 90% of the time they sit empty, they can end up being black holes of pedestrian traffic. For this reason, the location is perfect - already on a busy intersection of University and Queen across from Osgoode Hall (which is another pedestrian black hole, so it won't detract from nearby businesses). I am so glad that it's not a sprawling complex like Lincoln Center (NY) or Place des Arts (Montreal), however amazing they are.

Still, it's not completely unfortunate. While opera houses are civic buildings and add to the overall cultural and architectural fabric of a city, they are not intensely used buildings. In fact, since 90% of the time they sit empty, they can end up being black holes of pedestrian traffic. For this reason, the location is perfect - already on a busy intersection of University and Queen across from Osgoode Hall (which is another pedestrian black hole, so it won't detract from nearby businesses). I am so glad that it's not a sprawling complex like Lincoln Center (NY) or Place des Arts (Montreal), however amazing they are.

Exactly. It may not be an architectural masterpiece but it fits nicely with its surroundings.

You guys are buying into the same bullshit people many urbanists are complaining about....caring about "star" architecture, and not focusing on what's really important.

We are not getting a "cheap" anything. Jack Diamond does not build any "cheaper" buildings than anybody else....his style just has more to do with "complete" buildings, rather than all-flash-no-substance crap these losers like Ghery (well, not really) fob off as "postcard" architecture, and rip people off in the process....laughing all the way to the bank.

Toronto should not follow the loser cities by buying into this crap about being "world class" by buying it with "star" architects. Aren't we already breaking the bank with simultainiously building a bunch of those already (ROM, OCAD, AGO)?

What we are getting is a "smaller" building...that's why it "only" costs $181 million. It just doesn't have any more space than is absolutely necessary to "perform". The COC and National Ballet will be retaining their own headquarters for everything else. So, the reason it costs "less" than you think, is because there is less building to build...not less architecture. Yea, Ghery charges more for his crap...and he was willing to lower his fees to build way back when...they turned him down...maybe the COC just has more taste than that. Which is why they picked Diamond...he's a much better architect, and his designs are more to their taste...and mine too...I like Diamond's tasteful minimalist look. To expect every building in Toronto to start looking like a Ghery building will put us in the same catagory as those cities desperate for "world class" status by thinking it's as simple as being foolish enough to think these bauble buildings can do it....they can't.

And oh goody...we will also have a building with the name Trump on it too. Aren't we all excited? Aren't we so WORLD CLASS!!! <barf>





KGB

i for one am a big fan of the architecture. i think it will stand out more than people think. and if it lives up to the promises of having among the best acoustics in the world, then it will definitely be on the international radar.

i for one am a big fan of the architecture. i think it will stand out more than people think. and if it lives up to the promises of having among the best acoustics in the world, then it will definitely be on the international radar.

What, you mean tell me that the inside counts? Fascinating!

...
We are not getting a "cheap" anything. Jack Diamond does not build any "cheaper" buildings than anybody else....his style just has more to do with "complete" buildings, rather than all-flash-no-substance crap these losers like Ghery (well, not really) fob off as "postcard" architecture, and rip people off in the process....laughing all the way to the bank....

...I like Diamond's tasteful minimalist look. ....
KGB
Ah! So, for the same money we could have had a focal point, but we chose this box instead?!?! FREAKING OUTRAGE! (Unelss, as I suspect, Diamond's building is the price leader.)

If the taxpayer gets stuck with cost over-runs, then, I too am a huge fan of Diamond's discount price tasteful minimalist look.

Budget was certainly a consideration on this project. Are Be is going overboard of course, as usual, but he is correct in his assertion that budget has played a factor (as it does in all projects). I would also have to agree this isn't simply a case of the COC wanting the design to be like this; the final product has been scaled back considerably from it's initial renderings (and not for the better, IMO). This is most certainly due to budgetary constraints.

Regarding Gehry...even with him lowering his fees, I doubt they could've had one of his creations for $150 million CDN. The cost of construction would just be so much higher than it would for Diamond's design.

Diamond is a good architect and they didn't make a mistake in picking him...however I don't think any of us can really say exactly why they chose him. It's a mystery that only those involved with the project will really know and it's pointless to think about anyways. I'm looking forward to seeing the finished product.

It's very simple why they chose Diamond and not Ghery....they needed a building that required more than a blank space with wacky lines and materials on the facade. This building has to work on all accounts...and it's on a very tite site for an opera house. Diamond is just more interested in making buildings work...Ghery is just interested in creating his "art".

I'm pretty sure the COC and NB are interested in making themselves known by fabulous performances in a top notch facility...not because the building they perform in looks wacky.

Don't get me wrong...I like that stuff too...just don't knock the stuff that doesn't follow that agenda...cause it's the stuff that doesn't follow that agenda that is generally the overall better architecture.






KGB

Conversely, the COC and the NB may have avoided star architects because Toronto does not get very favorable treatment form senior levels of government, and thus, they had to choose an architect knowing that they would have to get the opera house for $10.00. They could not afford to risk a star architect:
for example, Alsop and Libeskind's most recent projects have not gained public acceptance and full go-ahead from planners, due to "programmatic and budgetary challenges to their viability" (see Architectural Record, Sept. 4, page 27). One may actually ask how a condominium shaped like a bolt would solve our problems.
- - - Toronto Star, Oct 16/04 Babak Eslahjou, Core Architects

And instated, picked Diamond, an ideal architect for this city, rendered broke by senior levels of government. Cost considerations are often important, but in Toronto's case, they are absolutely paramount- heaven forbid that a politician is seen helping Toronto.

Diamond says, “There’s a vast array of considerations. Cost being one of the first. We must be aware of the cost but not cut funds to the extent that it will affect the operation and quality of the building as an opera house. That’s an issue—balancing where you spend the money. The second one is the technology of sound isolation. We’re not dealing with the quality of sound but the quantity of sound—illuminating the quality of sound so that the quieter it is the better you will hear. We should not hear or feel the sound/vibration from the subway, the streetcar, sirens, and trucks. Those are some of the technical questions.” see [link] http://www.fourseasonscentre.ca/insights/insights.htm

"Conversely, the COC and the NB may have avoided star architects because Toronto does not get very favorable treatment form senior levels of government"


Sorry, but experience has taught me not to put much value in your assumptions. And as you have demonstrated, you just feebly attempt to hide the fact this is all just political based to you....I suppose everything would be SOOOOOO much better if we had just elected some facist conservative evil bastards eh? LOL!!






"Cost considerations are often important, but in Toronto's case, they are absolutely paramount- heaven forbid that a politician is seen helping Toronto."


If that were the case...then we wouldn't have an opera house at all....any other Cdn cities getting purpose-built opera houses???? noop...don't think so.

I think it's high time people started acknowleding the fact we are getting what may very well be a top-ten opera house for a top notch opera company, built in a good downtown location...well designed by a good local architect.

We all know everything will just be shit to you are be...until a conservative gov't is sitting in City Hall...Queen's park and Parliament Hill.
(let's all pray that never happens)






KGB

So, you don't think that the exterior of the opera house is shit? Are you blind, KGB?

No are be...I don't think it's shit.

In fact, it's transparent open-ness to University will add some liveliness to the street even when the people are inside...and lightens up what is usually solid and forboding facades of opera houses (remember...opera houses do not have windows).

Pink and titanium slanted walls might have caught your eye, but would not actually perform well, or become a "part" of the street...in fact those kind of buildings ignore the environment.

This is what Diamond is very good at. Even more impressive given the limitations of such a small site.






KGB

^would some French influenced ersatz complete with a Mansard roof please you more

Caltrava, Gehry and other 'star' architects defiintely would demand a site 5 times it size so their 'project' would stand out in a 'wasteland' of pools, fountains and unusable, 'keep-off-the-lawn' greenspace. No thanks

^would some French influenced ersatz complete with a Mansard roof please you more

Caltrava, Gehry and other 'star' architects definitely would demand a site 5 times it size so their 'project' would stand out in a 'wasteland' of pools, fountains and unusable, 'keep-off-the-lawn' greenspace. No thanks
Ah! To be given the Montreal treatment! Or, if only 416 was given back a billion a month.. ah -- the opera house we'd have! Perhaps a Caltrava, Gehry, and Aslop collaboration! POSTCARD CITY! Imagine what an impressive, billion dollar opera house we'd have!

I guess we'll have to settle for our brick and glass box. At least it will sound good.

^ Frankly, a billion dollars needs to go to TTC, not an opera house.

Agreed!
But, on the other hand, if we got a billion a month back, we could have a Caltrava, Gehry, and Aslop collaboration for an opera house. Spare one month's return for an opera house!

Of course, we just pay and pay. And as we pay out 2 or so billion a month from 416 and billions more from 905, all we can afford is this modest, tasteful, non- postcard opera house that we are getting.

"Ah! To be given the Montreal treatment! "


Let's be glad we didn't get the "Montreal treatment"...decades of decay and neglect, with a few giant white elephants to still pay for after they are obsolete. And last time I checked, Montreal is not getting a purpose-built opera house.







"Imagine what an impressive, billion dollar opera house we'd have! "


Yea...that sounds like real fiscal responsibility...if private money wants to blow a billion it's their money....but a billion of taxpayers money for a 2000 seat venue would actually be stupid.

Is it me...or is Are Be the official court jester of the Toronto board?







KGB

What's a measly billion if we'd be getting it back on a monthly basis?
Why shouldn't Toronto have a masterpiece for an opera house instead of one that is 'tastefully reserved'?

money doesn't equate to masterpiece and it's a little early to pass judgement from a bunch of renderings on Diamond's 'refined' design (all about the finishes)

The project itself is okay, nothing spectacular though. I actually agree with KGB and Valintino, bringing in a big name architect would be a waste of money.

Wanting to have a "Postcard" structure is kind of a crappy way of grabbing attention. The SOH is great but that was really the only reason for it to be built was to grab attention.