The Vancouver Art Gallery’s efforts to move to a new site, with a landmark building double the size of where it is now, are going to be a fascinating show of its own in the next few months.
This is one of those epic stories that happen to cities only every so often, as one group or another launches a major effort to remake a neighbourhood, create a grand new institution or take the city in a new direction. Our neighbours to the south of us in Seattle have been doing quite a bit of cultural monument building in the last couple of decades — library, art gallery, theatre, music museum – thanks to a lot of Microsoft money floating around.
But we really haven’t had a big debate over a cultural building since the new central library was built. The art gallery promises to generate that kind of heated discussion and more, as it lobbies for the land and, if that’s successful, runs a no-doubt international architectural competition to get a design for the new building.
Here’s my latest info on the gallery move, after a lengthy interview Monday with the heavy hitters there. And, just randomly, I found this story elsewhere about the mistake one architecture critic thinks the Seattle Art Museum made by agreeing to co-exist with an office tower in downtown Seattle — something that the city is pushing the local gallery to do on its 150 Dunsmuir site, rather than taking over the whole block for itself.
59 responses so far ↓
1 Urbanismo // Mar 10, 2010 at 7:55 am
Well if the ass-holes are hell bent on phuccin’ up a perfectly good scene there ain’t nowt we can . . . just more red ink . . .
What’s that about odious debt?
Aw, just shuddup and listen . . .
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GVZ66_gGGJY&NR=1
2 Wayne // Mar 10, 2010 at 9:02 am
I’m not impressed or optimistic about all this. Very little effort is made to even now to make the present gallery inviting (perhaps it’s deliberate). It always looks scruffy, the lawn is a mess, the north stairs are a skateboard park and the south stairs are usually cluttered with a congregation of lay-abouts.
A big question for me when it comes to the VAG is, what are they going to hang in a larger gallery?
The feds want the bus depot lot for an office building? Yesterday they announced that they could be selling off government land and assets to reduce the deficit. What the heck?
3 david hadaway // Mar 10, 2010 at 9:54 am
What is wrong with the VAG’s current location? It seems perfectly adequate for visiting exhibitions as well as to house and display a collection which is not, unless I’m missing something, of overwhelming size and quality.
Every curator on the planet now seems to think they are being cruelly deprived if they don’t get a Rogers / Gehry style trophy gallery. Well those places usually end up being big empty spaces with second rate displays.
Aside from the great national collections that we cannot even dream of rivalling, the best galleries have two characteristics. They are compact with densely displayed high quality contents. The Van Gogh museum is little more than a big room, the Frick a converted house. If we’ve got money to spend let’s remember that the content is more important than the container.
4 michael geller // Mar 10, 2010 at 10:02 am
As a former trustee of the Art Gallery and member of the expansion/relocation committee I have a particular interest in this discussion, and an appreciation of the pros and cons of the different proposals.
While my preference has generally been to more fully explore the design and development options to expand on the current site, there are some convincing arguments that can be made to relocate to Larwill Park.
Here are a few considerations that have not been fully reported:
1. The gallery already has some space underground. While the idea of further underground expansion seems a possibility, I am not aware of any planning studies to assess just how much space could be created. I doubt whether the current expansion program could be accommodated by underground expansion.
2. Another possibility that intrigues me is the concept of enclosing the current building in a glass box to create a more inviting structure, with additional area. However, this would likely result in the loss of the front plaza, which many regard as a cherished open space…(especially if the current fountain could be removed.) In the past, others (including Arthur Erickson and Larry Beasley) have also been concerned how an above grade expansion might compromise the design integrity of Robson Square.
3. The proposed expansion program effectively doubles the current facility. This expansion was contemplated to allow the gallery to exhibit much more of its permanent collection, as well as accommodate travelling exhibits. I suspect that if the decision is made not to move, it will be necessary to scale back the program, and/or contemplate a second facility at some time in the future. There are examples of art museums with more than one facility. Most Directors and administrators do not like this approach, but it is another option.
4. Many people in the art world believe that it would be easier to raise private donations for a fabulous new facility, rather than a renovated facility. This is an important consideration that should not be ignored.
5. While I was opposed to the relocation to the False Creek waterfront site, I disagree with those who suggest that the Larwill property is too far away….it’s really just a few blocks away, as many of us discovered when we wandered around the city during the Olympics. It is also part of an emerging ‘cultural precinct’ with the renovated theatre, an expanded CBC, the library and other related facilities.
6. I can understand why the gallery would like the site for itself. A stand alone building would offer the potential for a truly magnificent structure. (Maybe even designed by some of the city’s own accomplished architects). However, we must acknowledge that the city previously agreed to generate approximately $50 million or more from the sale or lease of the property’s development rights. One option could be a major office tower adjacent to a gallery; another would be an exclusive residential tower (although it should be noted that this site is not zoned for residential since it falls within the area being reserved for commercial development).
I personally would support a significant residential or mixed use ‘Shaw Tower’ model adjacent to to a new gallery, provided the building was allowed to be tall enough…(you’ve got to watch out for those view corridors, you know!) to help generate revenues from the property to support both the theatre renovations and the cost of a new gallery.
7. I appreciate that some will argue that once again, I am trying to accommodate everyone with my opinions, but that’s because in this case there is no one obvious solution (at least not to me). However, before a decision is made, I do think the gallery should revisit the earlier planning studies to determine just how much expansion potential there is on the current site, and whether the earlier concerns re: the loss of the public open space in front of the gallery, and impacts on Robson Square are still valid.
7. Finally, I would like to completely disagree with Bing Thom’s claim that relocating the gallery will suck the life out of this part of the city. If the gallery goes, the Vancouver Museum or other museums/public attractions would likely move in. Depending on the design approach, the space in front of the existing building along Georgia will always be a special place. And as we have seen during the Olympics, much can be done with the spaces behind.
All of this will take a lot of public and private money. But when I compare Vancouver with Seattle or other major cities, it is apparent that a lot of money should be spent to bring us up to par in terms of cultural facilities and amenities.
5 Booge // Mar 10, 2010 at 10:11 am
Why the rush of all sudden? What is the business case for enlarging the VAG? Has this proposal been openly discussed? Does it have public support?
I can’t recall any major showing that i have wanted to attend during the past 20 yrs. In the 60s ,70s, 80s i used to visit once a month or so. The VAG has lost their way.
6 Frank Murphy // Mar 10, 2010 at 10:44 am
VAG board: when you’re faced with funding and donor deadline blackmail you hit the brake pedal not the gas.
7 evilfred // Mar 10, 2010 at 10:44 am
Booge: Your anecdote can be countered by mine and many other’s. Maybe others’ tastes have moved on while yours have stood still. The Cyborg show, many photography shows, the Dutch Masters show, Huang Yong Ping, Zhang Jiang, Andrea Zimmer, there have been many excellent shows at the VAG in the last few years since Kathleen Bartells joined up.
8 Frances Bula // Mar 10, 2010 at 10:52 am
Michael,
Thanks for the great post outlining some of the complexities of the two sites that I wasn’t able to get to in my story. The art-gallery reps I interviewed Monday did say that they feel the centre of the downtown is moving east and that the Larwill Park site, which has CBC and the QE Theatre and Playhouse next door (plus who knows what eventually in the post office site), will be in the middle of it.
9 Frances Bula // Mar 10, 2010 at 10:53 am
Booge
As far as I can tell, there’s been talk of expanding the gallery since the mid-90s and of moving it since at least 2004. But, surprising to me, there hasn’t been a lot of public discussion about it until now, suddenly.
10 Booge // Mar 10, 2010 at 11:11 am
@evilfred Your point is well taken. It may be that I have “stood still”. It may also be the case that a majority of us are in the same place, and hence the VAG will _not_ be getting the support of a majority of tax payers. Let this come out in the open and be publicly discussed. And if after this process a majority wish it that a new VAG be built so be it. I might even support the move. But only after it has been well discussed and a case for expansion has been aired.
11 Ron // Mar 10, 2010 at 11:22 am
Simple solution for the Larwill Park site – subdivide it into two parecls – with a driveway or road down the middle (east-west parallel to Georgia). That will provide the VAG with a “standalone” site on Georgia (perhaps a bit taller structure would be required) and allow space to the north for an office tower (perhaps with condos above).
As an example, look at Shaw Tower and the Fairmont Pacific Rim – they share a block but are spacially separate structures.
I agree that “integrating” or “stacking” the VAG into a tower (such as SAM in Seattle) would not be desirable. Mixed use can be side-by-side and needn’t be intermingled – that would allow VAG to retain a prominent presence.
12 Ron // Mar 10, 2010 at 11:31 am
Incidentally – the Seattle Art Museum was “saved” when Nordstrom entered as a new tenat for office space in the tower.
http://www.mediabistro.com/unbeige/museums/seattle_art_museum_saved_by_nordstrom_coming_in_as_new_tenant_147145.asp
The bottom line on that project is that SAM should have realized that it was becoming a landlord of commercial office space and that it would therefore be subject to all the risks and liabilities that face large commercial corporations who lease out property.
13 evilfred // Mar 10, 2010 at 11:38 am
@Booge As far as I understood from reading the paper, Kathleen Bartels has revitalized the fundraising done by the VAG and that membership rates are way up.
14 evilfred // Mar 10, 2010 at 11:41 am
@Booge: re: http://v1.theglobeandmail.com/servlet/story/RTGAM.20090519.wbartels0520/BNStory/Entertainment/home/
“Contributed income (from donations) has risen from just over $500,000 in 2001, to a projected $4.8-million this year; earned income in the same period has jumped from $1.4-million to a projection of $5-million; and membership has grown from 9,000 in 2001, to 50,000 this year – with an annual operating budget of just $13.3-million.”
It seems that a lot more tax payers are supporting the gallery than before, at least compared to the 90s.
15 Urbanismo // Mar 10, 2010 at 11:51 am
Frances you may wish to compromise yourself by brown nosing the usual supposed know-it-alls who seem to have an opinion on everything but now it is time to hear from a practicing artist.
London UK,
The National Gallery 1831
http://www.nationalgallery.org.uk/paintings/history/about-the-building/about-the-building
Note the congested display
National Portrait Gallery 1856 where my family portraits reside.
http://www.npg.org.uk/about/history.php
Tate and Tate Turner 1847
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tate#History_and_development
Mexico City
Palacio Iturbide 1779
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Palace_of_Iturbide
Palacio de Bellas Arte 1904
http://www.britannica.com/EBchecked/topic/207249/Palace-of-Fine-Arts
Beaverbroo0k Gallery Fredericton NB 1981
Magnificent collection of Krieghof’s, Dali’s et. al.
Note the building dates and note in particular the quality of their respective collections.
Stop this measured polite nonsense: the building is of no consequence. To waste C$500 M + unnecessarily is irresponsible and counter-art!
16 Bill Lee // Mar 10, 2010 at 12:14 pm
Or just wait for the double dip and vast vacancies in towers downtown as branch offices hollow out.
If Gordon Campbell was really serious, he would add the (ex-)VAG to the Surrey downtown campus instead, creating a whole new arts precinct in the fastest growing city.
Really, no one supports the gallery. VAG member turnover is high, it’s become a reception hall for weddings and parties these days. Art is secondary as most sunday painters around town can tell you. It’s all about cross-booking shows that others have created (a common excuse in the North American art scene).
17 Sean Bickerton // Mar 10, 2010 at 12:14 pm
Ron offers a great solution that would accommodate both the Art Gallery and the new concert hall that was displaced by the Convention Centre and long-planned for Larwill Park
Music and art on the same site would be a great draw during the day and evening and would facilitate the kind of cultural cross-fertilization that could bring the whole area alive and create something unique to Vancouver.
If the Art Gallery would embrace sharing the site with the new concert hall, they would both come out ahead.
18 Bill Lee // Mar 10, 2010 at 12:16 pm
Concert Hall? QET, Centre for the Arts, The Garage, BC Place all letting out the rock concerts, the football fans, the balletomanes, the Canucks crazies. All drunk, all on the street, all trying to find parking.
Ah, there’s the rub. Where the parking? After all what is the central city for except for parking garages?
19 Frances Bula // Mar 10, 2010 at 12:50 pm
Dear Urbanismo,
How terrible of me to talk to the people in the driver’s seat to find out what they are thinking and doing. Next time, I will be sure only to interview people who have no control over anything when I am trying to let the public know what kinds of power plays are going on in the city. Silly me
20 mike0234 // Mar 10, 2010 at 1:02 pm
To add to Ron’s idea that a cut separating the block into two sites gives the art gallery a site all its own while leaving space for other uses…
I think the cut should be diagonal from Cambie/Georgia to Beatty/Dunsmuir. The cut is currently used as a pedestrian shortcut from Stadium Station to the library. It is the most direct walking route from Chinatown to Robson Street, with a series of squares in between at International Village, on the steps beside Stadium, in front of the the QE Theatre, and at the Library. These can be connected into a series of squares, perhaps with an additional square in front of the Drill Hall on Beatty, providing markers along the way of an identifiable and interesting route.
The diagonal cut would leave the art gallery with the side facing Georgia and Beatty, and an almost due north-facing side facing the cut that could bring in diffuse light.
With the tower on the north half of the block, the tower will not shadow over the art gallery.
21 Ron // Mar 10, 2010 at 1:59 pm
Good idea with the pedestrian route from SkyTrain/Keefer Steps to Georgia St. (with some luck maybe the now-closed pedestrian underpass under Beatty can be linked in under Dunsmuir to the site).
A viewpoint overlooking the Drill Hall would be nice.
Ultimately, having separate above-grade built forms doesn’t need separate legal parcels. The site can have one massive undergound parking structure and individual structures on top.
22 Ron // Mar 10, 2010 at 2:09 pm
Incidentally, with all of the institutional uses in the area, it’s not likely that you will see streetfront retail along that strip of Georgia (the retail is on Robson) – so a standalone structure would be fine.
Here’s what is being built across Beatty to the east (note the streetfront townhouses (no retail)):
http://www.6717000.com/cosmos/
23 MB // Mar 10, 2010 at 2:18 pm
We mustn’t ever forget about public open space in this discussion.
I believe the Larwill site presents a wonderful opportunity to provide the most beautiful and generous public plaza in Vancouver. How appropriate that it be part of a cultural institution!
I fear that subdividing the block any which way will minimize the available open space opportunities to the ‘leftovers’, as opposed to treating it like an important outdoor room or gallery or glass-roofed theatre or gathering space or performance platform or……..
The more I think about the comments that moving the gallery will lower the number of visitors to VAG because it’s too far away (and “abandon” Vancouver’s ‘heart’ to boot), the more I disagree. The blocks are short, the walk is still only 5 minutes from Granville, and a decent art institution will have it’s own centre of gravity and drawing power. The comments seem tainted by insecurity, doubt, and lack of confidence in the strength of our own culture. How typically 20th Century Western Canadian.
Georgia Street has been badly treated as our supposedly most significant “ceremonial” way. What better way to improve it than by anchoring it’s eastern end in a great art institute and urban plaza with unique design elements, and extend the Gallery Plaza character on Georgia all the way to Stanley Park?
This touches deeply on the topic of our tremendous lack of public art and poor urban design in Vancouver’s public spaces, notably ordinary streets.
In that light, Larwill may be part of Vancouver’s emerging Cultural Precinct, but the precinct surely wasn’t planned that way in much depth. Where is the unique urban design and streetscape treatment (see above comments on Georgia Street)? And it will surely be eroded greatly with a tower that doesn’t belong there because it has a totally different use.
24 Booge // Mar 10, 2010 at 2:24 pm
“membership has grown from 9,000 in 2001, to 50,000 this year – with an annual operating budget of just $13.3-million.”
Good on dem!
Still a big MINORITY of the population. If they can raise 30$ million in private funding, then they can plan on a building.
25 Urbanismo // Mar 10, 2010 at 2:54 pm
Castle Howard in Yorkshire was one of my favourite childhood haunts.
I cannot remember all the works but all the great masters were, and still are, represented in its magnificent én poche salons.
Castle Howard is still owned and occupied by the descendants of Admiral Lord Howard who shooed (with the help of Drake) the Spanish Armada into the fireboats waiting at Gravelines in 1588.
His descendants commissioned Sir John Vanbrugh to build the present edifice in 1722.
The interior walls of Castle Howard are coloured in all the primary hues: that is if you can see them between the old masters.
The interior is replete, floor to ceiling, wall to wall, in numerous and massive old master paintings and sculptures. I cannot recall the artists, they are so numerous and so grand.
Suffice it to say if only the likes of Michael Audain and Michael Geller had the cultural depth to understand, and would take the time to study, this historic cultural heritage it would give depth of understanding in their lives.
Perhaps, then, they would see VAG as more than a chunk of real estate and refrain from making shallow judgments which appear to have more to do with Vancouver deal making than our collective cultural heritage . . .
26 Urbanismo // Mar 10, 2010 at 3:03 pm
MB “and urban plaza with unique design elements, and extend the Gallery Plaza character on Georgia all the way to Stanley Park?”
Larwill is off centre to the Georgia Axis, lacking enclosure, surrounded by traffic, lacking a defining periphery.
Vancouver missed its great urban plaza opportunity when it chose a trivial computer graphic in preference to this . . .
http://members.shaw.ca/urbanismo/Cooperage.pdf
27 MB // Mar 10, 2010 at 4:34 pm
You’d have to close down the Georgia viaduct for that one, Urbbie.
Wait a minnit, that may actually have merit …….
28 Steve Drinkwater // Mar 10, 2010 at 4:59 pm
That the provincial government is trying to influence the location of this important civic centre is yet another example of how our present civic governance model is ultimately unworkable.
With a population of 578,000 (2006 census), the City of Vancouver is just too small to embark on such an ambitious project without financial assistance from a higher level of government.
And since the City’s share of Metro Vancouver’s population is only 28% (and forecast to decline), it’s hard to imagine Metro taxpayers willingly subsidizing a civic art institute in Vancouver. Metro is governed not by a directly elected council but rather by a council of regional mayors and councillors who are unlikely to support an expanded art gallery in Vancouver’s central core – they would want to locate it in the suburbs.
And forget about help from the Feds – they just pulled funding for a long-promised Pacific Maritime Museum.
Which is why, in the end, I think Victoria will dictate the VAG’s location. Rightly or wrongly.
29 Bill Lee // Mar 10, 2010 at 5:15 pm
Rate card for VAG weddings, parties etc. etc.
http://www.vanartgallery.bc.ca/pdfs/Rental%20Package%202010.pdf
about $4000 a floor rates on last page plus catering, plus guardians at $50/hour, plus….
Doesn’t it look nice as a dining hall? Lots of Gatsby images?
==== and earlier (ellipsis mine…)
Linkname: Recession takes a bite out of Vancouver Art Gallery
URL: http://www.globaltvbc.com/money/Recession+takes+bite+Vancouver+Gallery/2232985/story.html
John Mackie VANCOUVER SUN: Tuesday, November 17, 2009
VANCOUVER – Vancouver Art Gallery staff have seen their hours cut from five to 40 per cent as the VAG cuts back to deal with the recession.
Attendance at the gallery’s big summer show, Vermeer, Rembrandt and the Golden Age of Dutch Art: Masterpieces from the Rijksmuseum, was 21-per-cent lower than projections. Attendance was 36-per-cent off projections in May and June, but recovered somewhat later in the summer.
“May and June were particularly challenging,” VAG director Kathleen Bartels said.
“Things started to pick up in July, August and September. It was still the second-highest attended exhibition in the gallery’s history [171,211 between May 6 and Sept. 13], but we didn’t realize the projections we had hoped with the number of visitors.”
Bartels said the drop in tourism was the major factor in the shortfall.
“When you look at tourism overall in Vancouver, it’s been down pretty dramatically,” she said.
“That has certainly impacted the gallery, particularly when you have U.S. tourism that is down. The passport issues that came forth this
year [also] certainly affected U.S. tourism in this region.”
….The VAG had total revenues of $14.1 million, including $4.6 million in grants, $2 million from fundraising and $1.8 million through gallery admissions, according to its annual report for the year ending June 30, 2009. This fell short of the $14.8-million in expenses over the same period, including $3.5 million spent on exhibitions and $2.3 million for maintenance and security.
….Bartels is confident the gallery can still raise the tens of millions of dollars in private donations it would need for a new building.
“Oh absolutely, without question,” she said. “We feel very confident about our history of fundraising in this community.”
….Once the site is announced, there will be an architect selection process that could take eight to nine months.
“Then we start our fundraising. Building could take anywhere from three to four years.”
That probably means a new gallery wouldn’t be open until 2015.
“It’s hard to believe it takes that long, but something of this scale and magnitude and importance is something you can’t rush,” Bartels
said.
—– and side bar
Linkname: Some plans for building are better than others
http://www.globaltvbc.com/money/Some+plans+building+better+than+others/2230192/story.html
=======
30 Higgins // Mar 10, 2010 at 6:41 pm
We so don’t need this Geller guy’s advice in here. Maybe he misplaced his post for the Developer’s Gazette.
Downtown is moving East? Give me a break, only punks like Rennie & comp. wish for that to happen. Urbanismo, kudos man! You are like a breath of fresh air in here.
31 mary // Mar 10, 2010 at 6:58 pm
Why is no one talking about the Fed’s main Post Office site? I understand that it no longer functions efficiently for the Feds. Located right in the heart of the emerging ‘cultural precinct’, surely some one has approached the Feds about it. It’s an entire City block, has an underground tunnel linking it to the waterfront, has heritage merit according to some. Let the post office move to the ‘burbs.
32 Joe Just Joe // Mar 10, 2010 at 7:15 pm
Higgins is correct, everyone knows downtown isn’t heading east, it’s heading west. In 20 yrs the centre will be 4 kms due west of Denman. Cement shoes will also be popular.
While I certainly don’t agree with everything Gellar states, I value his opinion more then most of the posters here, and it certainly adds some balance which is why this site is more popular then most of the one-sided sites out there.
33 grumbelschmoll // Mar 10, 2010 at 9:56 pm
I have no comfort that the future of the VAG is in good hands given the pompous statements of members of its board. Before we give the VAG half a billion dollars to vacate the heart of the downtown, let’s think just what the highest and best use would be for that kind of money (certainly not a retractable roof for BC Place). Maybe the VAG’s ambition needs to be trimmed and integrated into a re-think of the Robson Square precinct. Let’s be bold. Let’s have an urban design idea competition for the precinct, and make a potential expansion of the VAG one of the program components.
34 Glissando Remmy // Mar 10, 2010 at 11:48 pm
LONDON 1850
“ Annual Income £20 quid, annual Expenditure £19.96, result happiness – Annual Income £20, annual Expenditure £20.06 result misery – David Copperfield by Charles Dickens”
VANCOUVER 2010
“Annual earnings $ IOU note banks, annual Expenditure $ Billions, result disaster –
Budget by BC Liberals “
So, in times like this I say, leave the VAG alone. It’s nothing to do with the present location or building. It’s more likely to do with Hypocrisy, Lying, and Gangsterism.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=HjONGEeOSyQ
We live in Vancouver and this keeps us busy.
35 Urbanismo // Mar 11, 2010 at 5:57 am
Hey, go Glissando Remmy . . .
Ummmm I don’t want to belabour this VAG stuff but I’m trying to get a handle on this Cultural precinct stuff. Where do Geller and Audain fit into culture? Haven’t they spent most of their working life dodging leaky condo accusations?
What the hell is a “Cultural Precinct” anyway? I haven’t had much too much experience culturally, most of my life I have been on the periphery chasing girls.
But I lived in a pretty little seaside town with an ancient castle, on the Yorkshire coast and went to school in Eboracum, as the Romans called it, better known as York: or Yorvik in Viking.
So I may know a little bit. Anyway neither of those places had a “cultural precinct”. In fact their, whatever you call ‘em, cultural nodes, Roman tesselated paving, library, museum, art galleries, Edith and Sacheverell Sitwell’s home were all over the place.
I’m trying to mine my limited cultural reserves . . .
Mexico city? No, it cultural stuff, again, all over the place: Pirámide de Cuicuilco, circa UNAM: Museo Antropologica: Parque Chapultpec: Casa Frieda Kahlo, Coyoacan: Carlos Slim’s Museo de arte, San Angel and of course Palacio de Bellas Arte in Centro.
Then there’s London. God there isn’t the space to codify its stuff.
If we keep on abusing our icons now we’ll never build a cultural inventory for our progeny to brag about.
Yup! I thinq Campbell’s just trying to pull another sleazy deal: what does he care cultural? And hasn’t “Bimboville” had enough of that.
36 Urbanismo // Mar 11, 2010 at 6:52 am
PS . . . I’d be very, very surprised if Geller or Audain spent any time at all chasing girls . . . or Premier Gordon Campbell for that matter . . . http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ccZgxmxm32k
37 Glissando Remmy // Mar 11, 2010 at 10:44 am
‘Porridge! Yer Jaickets oan a shoogly nail.’
Urbanismo, I am already walking on These Streets wearing my New Shoes!
I’m also having Eight Beers with a “twenty something”
http://www.youtube.com/watch#!v=aFIjSY0amtc&feature=fvw
While putting my records on.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wkEeNpWMvgk
Check them out!
38 Glissando Remmy // Mar 11, 2010 at 10:52 am
Errr…Urbanismo,
that Twenty Something link…a little glitch. There you go:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=aFIjSY0amtc
Enjoy!
39 Frank Murphy // Mar 11, 2010 at 11:34 am
Thanks for the Paolo Nutini link urbanismo. I don’t know if we’re on topic here but what a great lyric -
“I know you’ve got plenty to offer baby
but I’ve taken quite enough
I’m just a stain on your bedsheet
but you’re my diamond in the rough.”
40 Gassy Jack's Ghost // Mar 11, 2010 at 11:35 am
Does anyone know what has happened to the Cultural Precinct Plan? Weren’t a National Aboriginal Art Gallery and Chinese Centre for Culture and Trade supposed to be developed at the Larwill Park site. Both were given 5 million, I believe, to develop plans. Now the VAG wants back in on this site, and they want it all to themselves?
41 Urbanismo // Mar 11, 2010 at 11:50 am
. . . “stain on your bed sheet” errrrrr . . . ummmmm . . . that’s my point . . .
42 Sean Bickerton // Mar 11, 2010 at 11:53 am
mike0234 (Post 20) has a great suggestion building on Ron’s concept of dividing the Larwill park site in two so that we could provide the standalone art gallery along with the concert hall and tower on the other half, all joined by a plaza and pedestrian route directly linking downtown to Chinatown and Old Vancouver. Brilliant idea!
43 Urbanismo // Mar 11, 2010 at 12:01 pm
@ Glissando . . . “can’t separate love from lust . . . ” oh man you goddit!
44 Urbanismo // Mar 11, 2010 at 12:45 pm
@ Sean Bickerton . . . of course you are absolutely right . . . we must take this move seriously if not fait accompli . . . errrrr . . . for granted!
When all is said and done the Premier is on side . . . and if it works your vital wisdom and foresight may land you a spot on council next shot . . .
However Sean in your urgent need to be responsible there is the little matter of our neighbour and major trading partner to our south.
Our dear neighbour is in dire economic trouble(indeed as is the world) and there is good reason to believe its problems may spill across our shared border, sooner that we hoped.
The province is not in good economic shape either, not good enough to talk all this big-time stuff . . . Mind, I agree we need jobs but not phoney, make-work jobs . . . real jobs . . . creating useful, needed objects.
And talking art gallery (especially when we have a perfectly functional one already in use), concert hall and stadium roof IMO your obviously skilled insight is fine . . but for another, more prosperous, time . . .
So, yes, of course be responsible and try to figure out how to squeeze a stand-alone art gallery and concert hall (and that will take a bit of architectural legerdemain) onto the site and link it all to China Town etc . . . and yes, I like the linking idea . . .
However, as you have no doubt discerned, I am in favour of cultural continuity: i.e. keep the Rattenbury AG so we may build an inventory of collective memory.
But for the present my concern is economic and personal: my CPP and portfolio.
Also, denial of looming provincial debt and neglect of other very important priorities: i.e. public Tx, social housing, speculators, decimation of wild fish stock, and exponentiating land prices that are not justified, timber sale land converted to sprawl are IMO more urgent priorities.
As for me chasing the girls . . . hell I’m coming on eighty-one years old . . . I couldn’t get a shag in a brothel with a five hundred dollar bill in mi hand . . . Ojala . . .
45 Ron // Mar 11, 2010 at 1:00 pm
One newspaper article siad that the Province suggested the Plaza of Nations site to avoid the political mess that would ensue with the competing interests at the Larwill Park site – Federal office tower, Coal Harbour theatre, Aboriginal museum, Asian museum – all of which have previously been included in plans for the site.
WRT the Post Office – it’s no longer being sold by the Feds because of land claims issues.
WRT a plza at the Larwill Park site – Goergia St. alsoready has lots of plazas – too many in my view – as they add to the emptiness of the area. 401 West Georgia – Library Square plaza – CBC plaza, QE Theatre plaza nd the set back of the Post Office from the street.
WRT the Georgia St. axis – it’s still being planned by the City (it commissioned a study last year) – it also appears in the latest from Aquilini (GM Place towers) and Concord Pacific:
http://forms.rennie.com/GMplace/header.jpg
http://i3.photobucket.com/albums/y78/hollywoodnorth/concord2020/IMG_1095.jpg
http://i3.photobucket.com/albums/y78/hollywoodnorth/concord2020/IMG_1093.jpg
46 Urbanismo // Mar 11, 2010 at 3:24 pm
Thanxz for the stuff Ron . . .
Those lit up chunks of plastic are reminiscent of the snow job that revolting woman Gracie unveiled to con us into accepting her give away of the Expo lands to Concord: that was . . . errr 1970+/-.
Gracies glitter gave us FCN and look what we got.
Ummm last time I heard of Aquilini they were slum landlords ever up for ordinance infractions.
Expect the worst . . .
Clearly NEFC planners have leant nothing and forgotten nothing.
47 Urbanismo // Mar 11, 2010 at 3:33 pm
Correction Ron . . . Gracie’s con was 1988 +/-
48 Urbanismo // Mar 11, 2010 at 4:01 pm
The new retractable stadium roof notwithstanding, apparently no attempt has been made to buffer the yelling and screaming coming from the Surrey yahoos when their team wins: that noise permeates the city.
You can enjoy a rock concert sitting in Vanier Park: I’ve done it, on a summer evening, a couple of times.
Brent Toderian came up with the bright idea to requiring prospective buyers of the surrounding tower condos sign a release: absolving the city et. al. of disturbance of the peace responsibility.
And he runs the planning dept. Shows us what a pack of bloody fools our vaunted planners are . . .
49 Urbanismo // Mar 11, 2010 at 4:34 pm
Ummmmm interesting . . . I notice a similarity.
Toderian’s NEFC High level Review was nothing like the current glittering plastic Ron showed us.
Indeed it has a remarkable similarity, public space coming off the Georgia Axis to this . . .
http://members.shaw.ca/urbanismo/Cooperage.pdf
Huh . . . plagiarism and they don’t have the grace to acknowledge . . .
Repugnant the lot o’ ‘em . . . .
50 MB // Mar 12, 2010 at 9:26 am
@ Ron …. your attitude about public open space is a major and all too common barrier to city building with human scaled urbanism.
Every one of the outdoor spaces you cited were treated as merely left over spaces, wasteful and empty (except for cars at the PO.
Well, maybe if one of them looked like a smaller version of this….
http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Washington_square_park.jpg
….you’d have a different perception of what is possible with public open space and its influence on adjacent streets and city life.
I can’t think of a better complement to an art museum than Vancouver’s own “Washington” Square, albeit covering only a third of a block.
It’s what you put in the spaces that counts.
51 Urbanismo // Mar 12, 2010 at 9:53 am
or . . . http://www.vieux.montreal.qc.ca/tour/etape16/eng/16fena.htm
52 mike0234 // Mar 12, 2010 at 11:45 am
There may be too many plazas along Georgia, but really the problem is that there are too many unbounded plazas along Georgia setback from larger-than-human-scaled buildings, plazas that give no reason for the passerby to shortcut through. Of the plazas along Georgia east of Burrard, only the north lawn of the art gallery and the space just north of the library are at all enclosed by buildings.
Especially at the post office and the QE theatre, there is no reason to casually walk through the plaza in front. But there is also no reason to enter the library plaza except to go to the library. And this space has other problems: it is in shadow nearly all day, and though it is partially enclosed it lacks buildings across the street to face onto it.
Incidentally, the plaza in front of the QE theatre covers 1/3 of the block.
Georgia is an ode to modernism on a monumental scale through a dead zone some like to call our cultural precinct. For those who value consistency, another block-sized monument with a windswept plaza is a fitting last piece in this puzzle. There is no space for both a Washington Square and an art gallery. And I’m having trouble picturing Place d’Armes across from the Sandman Inn.
My desire is for a more human scale, but it is a compromise that tries to fit into the theme on Georgia. It includes a mixture of uses on the site, a small plaza enclosed by cafes and restaurants in the mid-day sun (Georgia/Cambie), maybe the entrance to the new gallery itself, and a shortcut through the block that gives people no reason at all to be there. It includes the monument, but one that is adapted to the space around it.
53 MB // Mar 12, 2010 at 3:10 pm
The Larwill block has every advantage for a fine-grained exciting urban plaza coupled with an art museum.
The north side of Georgia is sunnier than the south. An art museum / gallery will generate more daily foot traffic than the QE Theatre, which is tied primarily to evening performance schedules, especially if the space is animated by restaurants and outdoor performances. And a plaza enclosed on three sides with the above amenities will cut the wind.
Moreover, I think Georgia Street is ripe for a revamp given how badly it’s been treated so far. Remember, this was supposed to be our Grand Ceremonial Way. The reality is that it became little more than a traffic conduit with poorly executed open spaces and architecture (with the exception of the Rattenbury and the Bay) at its edges.
54 Urbanismo // Mar 14, 2010 at 6:03 am
http://members.shaw.ca/urbanismo/2010.pdf
55 Bill Lee // Mar 14, 2010 at 2:48 pm
Somewhat hidden on the [site map] vanartgallery.bc.ca/sitemap.html
A recent selection
http://www.vanartgallery.bc.ca/press_releases/news_about_annual.html
But the latest posted is 2008-2009
http://www.vanartgallery.bc.ca/pdfs/Annual_Report_2008_2009.pdf
96 pages (yawn) about one quarter illustrated (Herzog alert on fourth page and 56th ) and lots and lots of ‘names’
Donors (assumed cash) down to the $500 level. Donors of art (always controversial) start on page 77. Accounts start on page 79
@evilfred // Mar 10, 2010 at 11:41 am
Fiona Morrow story from May 19 2009 Globe and Mail
EvilFred quotes “and membership has grown from 9,000 in 2001, to 50,000 this
year – with an annual operating budget of just $13.3-million.”
But 2008-2009 Memberships $816000 / 50,000 members = $16 Oh?
Is there a discrepency? 816000 / $70 = 11,600 individual members
but note Note 17 (always check the notes)
” [Note] 17. PRIOR YEAR RESTATEMENT:
In prior periods, the Association recognized revenues from annual memberships when the memberships were sold. During the current year, the Association changed its accounting policy to more appropriately recognize the revenue from annual memberships over the life of the memberships. The change in accounting treatment has been applied by management on a retroactive basis with the impact of decreasing 2009 opening net assets by $370,205 (2008 – $389,735), decreasing memberships revenue by $104,852 (eighteen months ended June 30, 2008 – increasing memberships revenue by $19,530) and increasing deferred memberships revenue by $475,057 (2008 – $370,205). The prior year comparative figures have accordingly been restated.”
56 Bill Lee // Mar 16, 2010 at 12:18 pm
Speaking of their annual report and the tiny amount that comes in via admission tickets, the recent Toronto’s ROM (Royal Ont. Museum, an applied arts and crafts museum with some zoology specimens) ticket rises for their “Diamond” addition provoked
http://www2.macleans.ca/2010/02/03/are-admission-prices-too-expensive/
Are admission prices too expensive?
Museum and gallery officials struggle with their costs and what people can afford to pay
by Anne Kingston on Wednesday, February 3, 2010 10:10am – 5 Comments
When Edmonton’s Art Gallery of Alberta, or the AGA, opens its glass doors this weekend, lineups are expected to mimic the steel ribbons furling around the building’s exterior. Ten thousand free-entry tickets for the first two days have been snapped up by locals keen to check out the $88-million reno. The response echoes the excitement surrounding Frank Gehry’s revamped Art Gallery of Ontario (AGO), which drew 68,000 on its free first weekend in November 2008, and continues to attract 1,500 to 2,000 to its no-charge Wednesday evenings.
The spectre of crowds clamouring for gratis access to gawk at Goya and Degas reflects a modern Catch-22 with more twists and turns than the AGA’s bold new facade: on one hand, there’s a decided hunger for the public gallery experience, reflected in strong emerging 2009 attendance numbers. As Kelvin Browne, the vice-president of marketing and major exhibitions at the Royal Ontario Museum (ROM), puts it: “In a virtual age, the power of real things increases.” Yet there’s also resistance (and inability) to pay the admission these institutions must charge to cover budget cutbacks and still create the “Wow!” spaces and quality exhibits required to attract audiences fed a diet of virtual spectacle. Adult admissions to the country’s major institutions vary widely: the AGA is raising its to $12 from $10, due to higher costs of running its expanded space and an ambitious new programming push, says executive director Gilles Hébert. “It’s a thing of value,” he says. Post Gehry redo, adult entry to the AGO rose to $18 from $15, an increase that prompted the architect’s quip, “highway robbery.” Ottawa’s National Gallery charges $9. The Vancouver Art Gallery (VAG) charges $19.50 (winter), $20.50 (summer). And at the ROM, it’s $22.
….Calculating admission prices is an “art and science,” says Sue Bloch-Nevitte, head of AGO public affairs. “Research says you never ask, ‘How much would you be willing to pay?’ ” Among other considerations, galleries do due diligence to ensure rates are in line with similar local venues, says Dana Sullivant, the VAG’s director of marketing and communications (the VAG measured itself against ski resort Grouse Mountain, $37.95, the Aquarium, $22, and Science World, $18.75).
Pricing admission to induce people to take out a membership is a less overt gambit. This delicate tipping-point practice is explicit in the ROM’s entry, where a sign announces it’ll cost $74 for two adults and two children, $104 for two adults and four children, but a (relatively) mere $139 for an annual membership offering unlimited access.
Paradoxically, offering free access can be a gateway drug that makes people come back for more. Last year, the Toronto library system began offering almost-impossible-to-procure free passes to cultural institutions, including the AGO and ROM. People who live two hours away from the venue by public transit line up for hours, says board spokesperson Linda Hazzan. Many end up taking out memberships.
—— I argue for free for all, and a special welcome to out-of-towners (a free coffee and cake?) [to compensate for the poor exhibits not on the Michelin guides (that's the UBC MoA)]
57 Frank Murphy // Mar 18, 2010 at 9:47 am
You may be aware of the Hespeler Library in Cambridge On. A glass wrap encasing the original brick Carnegie Library. Kongats Architects.
58 Ron // Mar 19, 2010 at 6:31 pm
WRT plazas on Georgia Street – the question I suppose is whether you improve the existing open spaces (maybe by building restaurants and retail around their perimeters or at least opening up additional doorways from existing structures along their periemters) or starting from square one on an adjacent site expecting that the difference in the built form between the two will miraculously draw the sparse number of pedestrians in the area to come to one over the new kid on the block.
Also, from the sound of the VAG’s desire for an iconic structure, that doesn’t seem like it will have streetfront retail at pedestrian scale around its perimeter (whether an external perimeter or an internal courtyard). Neither the ROM or the AGO in Toronto have that – and neither does the Guggenheim in Bilbao, Centre Pompidou or even the Louvre. I suspect that we may see a largely blank facade with tourists walking the perimeter in search of the entrance. At best you may get another Gallery Cafe and a VAG Souvenir Shop.
59 Norman // May 17, 2010 at 8:04 pm
There is no way taxpayers should shell out $300 million for a new art gallery. For a fraction of price, that solutions could be found to the problems at the current location. A lot more effort should be put into attracting exhibitions that the public wants to see. How about this for a solution to the storage problem: put the Group of Seven and Emily Carr paintings away for about 10 years.
Leave a Comment