Does anyone remember that hot topic in the old Archinect about Alsop's OCAD?... has anybody paid a visit? someone from Toronto? how is it being under this thing?
The facade is metal deck painted white with black boxes. The red staircase coming from the table's bottom is an emergency staircase (to be only used during a fire). The other day I was walking by and all the students were outside across the street. The fire alarm had gone off. I guess somebody wanted to experience the staircase. The inside is just plain boring. The main entrance doors are in the stupid retro orange glass that will be outdate in two years. You can't even see the main entrance because it is 6' underground. My option, it is a pre-engineered metal building on stilts.
Okay, so the cladding is a far cry from the beautiful seriographed glass that was originally spec-ed and the interior sucks, but the building is FANTASTIC!
I am hugely impressed with OCAD. At the same moment as the neighbouring AGO and nearby ROM displayed their insecurity by hiring starchitects (Gehry & Liebeskind respectively), OCAD hired Alsop (who may be well known to us, but outside of architecture circles, in Canada anyway, is completely unknown. While the AGO and ROM got bogged down in controversy, OCAD quietly built thier building which is more daring than either of the other two.
The interior is completely banal, it is true. Everywhere is drywall meets vinyl base meets carpet tile, total developer style for sure. On the plus side, it has a completely un-precious quality which will hopefully make the art students (and the administration) feel free to mess with it and make it their own. The big shame is that when you're on the sidewalk you can't wait to go in and experience how it feels to be up there. Unfortunately, there are NO moments when you get the sense of where you are. The building has impressive views and could have done with some double-height spaces and some expansive glass (or at least something modest at the end of a corridor anyway) to get a sense of wow-where am I!? But this is totally absent.
Clearly, OCAD chose to spend all its money on a massive steel structure to float the new building over the old and make a BOLD gesture. Appropriate for an art school? I think so, also for Toronto where nothing much (architecturally) ever happens.
I'm looking forward to seeing the landscaping finished (wasn't yet when I left Toronto this summer) which will see a much needed connection between Grange park and the street, the whole reason behind propping the building up in the first place.
More in the building's defence, I was impressed when I learned that Alsop early on eliminated all parking from his scheme (that is, not just failing to include new parking, but actually take away all their existing parking). The client was aghast but he stuck to his guns arguing that in a tight urban setting, especially with lots of pay parking available across the street and elsewhere, including parking was inappropriate.
How can you, "coryn", called a building "FANTASTIC" when the inside sucks? For any architecture to be considered "FANTASTIC", you have to have both outside and inside work. OCAD has neither. It might be an engineer's wet dream for the stilts, but it not a Calatrava's who uses structural that is intergral into the design. It is a simple boring building that could have been done by a first year architectural student.
What controversy are you talking about for the ROM? The building is on schedule. Visit the web cam:
this building is getting old very quickly.
i lived in the apartment building adjacent to the site during construction and i must say, i was impressed...at first.
even while walking/shopping on queen street looking up mccaul was a treat. but now, i just show non-architectural friends and watch their faces contort in a horrible fashion as they ask 'what the fuck is it?'
the interior is boring...the facade is plain...the structure looks like a mechano-set-nightmare gone bad, and the 'park' beneath is a joke.
basically, it's a giant kleenex box in the sky...and so un-toronto it hurts.
tear it down quickly!! possibly while they're doing the 'dome.
I'm with Strawbeary. This is NOT a building that will be timeless. It's one that you look at and wonder... what were they thinking 20 years ago. The only difference is that it already looks hideous, and it's not even finished.
Tricky, I think you bring up some good points, I'm glad this is becoming a forum. Maybe others can weigh in... is it enough for a building to invest itself in a singular gesture? Is Tricky right, no architecture can be fantastic unless it is fantastic inside and out?
I didn't agree right away, but after giving it much thought, I think it's fine that the building is great outside (though others, clearly disagree) and standard inside. OCAD is an institution with shallow pockets. They had to prioritize. With their budget, they could easily have gone the safe Canadian route, hired KPMB, Jack Diamond, or any other number of nice, respectful (if just a tad boring) local architects and done a quiet little building that was a grade above developer-standard. Clearly, they chose instead to invest their money in a grand urban gesture--an iconic building that connects Grange Park to the street. What do people think? Is this strategy bullshit or legit?
Tricky and Stawberry both deride the building as being first year arch student quality (or worse!). That's EXACTLY what I love about it. I don't know where you go to school but the first year projects here are some of the most exciting, if naive (or maybe precisely because they're naive) work being done. It is rare for a building to begin with such pure, simple (not simplistic) ambitions much less keep them all the way through construction.
Come to think of it, it's a lot like Habitat in Montreal. Habitat, whether you think the exterior, like OCAD, is good or bad on the outside, but certainly iconic and fresh given its context. Like OCAD, its interiors are poor (perhaps poor is harsh for both projects, but rather, uninspired and totally standard). Despite this, Habitat continues to have a huge waiting list of rich Montrealers dying to buy in at luxury condo prices. Why? I think its the spirit that the building conveys and I would argue that that spirit is precisely that of student work. Coincidence that Safdie was still studying at McGill when he won the commission?
As for timeless, this is another good forum discussion. What is with this desire for timelessness? Is this a North American fetish or is the whole architecture community obsessed? I really don't understand why it is tirelessly invoked as some sort of given truth or assumed ambition. Simultaneously, we ask our best buildings to be pure expressions of their time. Can we have both? Do we even want them? Fashion dates, films date, literature dates, art dates, what's so wrong about looking at a building and saying, oh hey, I know you, you're from the 70s, etc?
Please, if you have any thoughts on these things, respond. As an architecture student myself, I am still testing out how I feel about all these things; I am not so absolute in my opinions, but rather genuinely curious to see these larger issues debated.
Any building by will alsop sucks ass. i mean, come on, that guys keeps serving us the same shit over and over again i.e boxes on legs with blobs floating inside. On top of that and not content with being a bad architect who thinks he's just too cool that guys is in fact real prick full of himself and arrogant beyond belief. Cant stand anything even remotely associated with him.
Timelessness is not necessary, but it reflects values that have always been desirable. (Commoditas, Firmitas, Venustas.) Or, to reflect this in more contemporary terms:
1. Buildings are expensive, moreso than cars and fax machines. Their investors would like to believe that they are not building something which will become obsolete but will in fact still be considered ‘beautiful’ (insert your own adjective) 10 years from now.
2. Buildings embody a huge amount of energy and resources. It’s obscene to imagine them as somehow disposable, unless disposability is somehow designed into the building through use of reclaimable resources with minimum additional expenditure of energy. Unfortunately painted metal panels, drywall, and vinyl base don’t easily meet this description. It’s better to think of each building as recyclable INTACT, the embodied energy remaining in place and not requiring demolition. Therefore you might want it to be less of a folly and more likely to be easily maintained, long-lasting and soundly built, and, maybe, timeless.
I have no way of knowing if OCAD is built well or not. As a landmark, I kind of like it. If OCAD were to leave it at some point, I see no reason the building couldn’t be ‘recycled’, i.e., reprogrammed to a different use. (If it’s shoddy construction, the hell with it.)
So the key becomes whether public sentiment over the next decade leans toward finding it endearingly eccentric or an eyesore. If it’s found to be an eyesore and its materials end up in a landfill, it’s a bad design. If its eccentricity is appreciated by its local public, it’s successful and has the opportunity to be, if not timeless, a notable representation of its time.
How do we know in advance? Ah, that's the problem we all face as designers. Most would prefer not to take the risk. I applaud the risk taken - and wait to see what happens.
I love Alsop's stuff, if only because it's crazy that he actually gets his sketches built. I worked at his office as an intern for 6 months or so, and thought he was actually very nice and down to earth so I guess I had a different experience from doberman. He called me personally to set up the interview and asked me how much I wanted to get paid and what I wanted to do and let me go at it... People seemed to like working there and many were very talented and modest. I think this building is ugly, but also beautiful. It makes you gasp, it just looks ridiculous. Alsop's line is all about playfullness and fun, and I think his buildings reflect that. Somehow he succeeds in getting people to believe in what he wants to do, which increases my respect. His process involves doing silly sketch watercolors and then getting them built. From what I could see he really sticks to the concept from the very beginning.
steven ward,
'Buildings embody a huge amount of energy and resources. It’s obscene to imagine them as somehow disposable, unless disposability is somehow designed into the building through use of reclaimable resources with minimum additional expenditure of energy. Unfortunately painted metal panels, drywall, and vinyl base don’t easily meet this description.'
metal panels, drywall, and vinyl base are all the right materials to use for a building which might be interior remodeled later. and probably this building will change interior use quite often.
drywall is an excellent material,cost,ease of installation,fire resistive qualities and availability.nothing precious for an art student to bust and paint over,hang, etc..gyp bd is a revolutionary silent hero.
painted metal; baked enamel paint? great.easily replaced,metal is recyclable. vinybase? try 8" h, great looks.again ain't too precious.
whats left? structure is daring. the building image is post-pop. and it brings a lot of energy to surrounds.one of a kind statement. good for its architect and the client.depth? well, sketch becomes a big building.. timeless? who knows. i just remember every new yorker hated wtc back then.
just reflecting on your points..
You're right, abra, that it's helpful to think of the drywall and vinyl as removable 'stuff' inside a reusable shell. I hope that this building's interior is designed so that it can accommodate change of use.
Drywall is cheap and easy. My only issue was that it must be torn out and thrown away. And gypsum as a raw material isn't environmentally benign. While not the best, sure, it's probably fine.
Vinyl is a little more problematic. The materials required to make it, the processes of its production, and the means of disposal all make it less comfortable than either a more permanent product, a more natural product, or a product which uses 'less' like an aluminum j-bead or something minimal. Again, the vinyl will likely just be ripped off and thrown away.
The metal panels, I hope, will remain - assuming the building lasts. Although metal is recyclable, it's an energy-intensive process. Metal with enamel must be stripped in some way before the recycling can begin. Usually it's not worth the effort and the metal is scrapped...
I like the building. My comments were also just reflections and hopes. The best thing for everyone would be if Toronto loves the thing and it stays forever and has several lives beyond OCAD.
11/29/04 5:48
this building is getting old very quickly.
i lived in the apartment building adjacent to the site during construction and i must say, i was impressed...at first.
even while walking/shopping on queen street looking up mccaul was a treat. but now, i just show non-architectural friends and watch their faces contort in a horrible fashion as they ask 'what the fuck is it?'
the interior is boring...the facade is plain...the structure looks like a mechano-set-nightmare gone bad, and the 'park' beneath is a joke.
basically, it's a giant kleenex box in the sky...and so un-toronto it hurts.
tear it down quickly!! possibly while they're doing the 'dome. "
I had the same impression of Peckham Library when I was there. The detailing is poor, especially on the exterior copper panels where it meets the ground level even the toughned glass got smashed. The library assumes that Brixton would suddenly become graffitti/vandal free as soon as it got built - not so, as the copper cladding was covered in scratches and spraypaint, making the bottom end very very messy. The space underneath is not amazing and accumulates rubbish.
I don't think that much consideration was sunk into how these issues could of been addressed and yet make the concept still viable.
Ill post some pictures in the gallery when I get home.
Dec 1, 04 8:46 am ·
·
Block this user
Are you sure you want to block this user and hide all related comments throughout the site?
Archinect
This is your first comment on Archinect. Your comment will be visible once approved.
Alsop's OCAD in Toronto
Does anyone remember that hot topic in the old Archinect about Alsop's OCAD?... has anybody paid a visit? someone from Toronto? how is it being under this thing?
Please Archinect (Paul or anyone), is 420 the maximum horizontal size for images? is not possible to display larger images?
Medit - you can upload larger images to the image gallery
oh yeah, but I meant in the discussion topics... anyway, thanks.
The facade is metal deck painted white with black boxes. The red staircase coming from the table's bottom is an emergency staircase (to be only used during a fire). The other day I was walking by and all the students were outside across the street. The fire alarm had gone off. I guess somebody wanted to experience the staircase. The inside is just plain boring. The main entrance doors are in the stupid retro orange glass that will be outdate in two years. You can't even see the main entrance because it is 6' underground. My option, it is a pre-engineered metal building on stilts.
Okay, so the cladding is a far cry from the beautiful seriographed glass that was originally spec-ed and the interior sucks, but the building is FANTASTIC!
I am hugely impressed with OCAD. At the same moment as the neighbouring AGO and nearby ROM displayed their insecurity by hiring starchitects (Gehry & Liebeskind respectively), OCAD hired Alsop (who may be well known to us, but outside of architecture circles, in Canada anyway, is completely unknown. While the AGO and ROM got bogged down in controversy, OCAD quietly built thier building which is more daring than either of the other two.
The interior is completely banal, it is true. Everywhere is drywall meets vinyl base meets carpet tile, total developer style for sure. On the plus side, it has a completely un-precious quality which will hopefully make the art students (and the administration) feel free to mess with it and make it their own. The big shame is that when you're on the sidewalk you can't wait to go in and experience how it feels to be up there. Unfortunately, there are NO moments when you get the sense of where you are. The building has impressive views and could have done with some double-height spaces and some expansive glass (or at least something modest at the end of a corridor anyway) to get a sense of wow-where am I!? But this is totally absent.
Clearly, OCAD chose to spend all its money on a massive steel structure to float the new building over the old and make a BOLD gesture. Appropriate for an art school? I think so, also for Toronto where nothing much (architecturally) ever happens.
I'm looking forward to seeing the landscaping finished (wasn't yet when I left Toronto this summer) which will see a much needed connection between Grange park and the street, the whole reason behind propping the building up in the first place.
More in the building's defence, I was impressed when I learned that Alsop early on eliminated all parking from his scheme (that is, not just failing to include new parking, but actually take away all their existing parking). The client was aghast but he stuck to his guns arguing that in a tight urban setting, especially with lots of pay parking available across the street and elsewhere, including parking was inappropriate.
How can you, "coryn", called a building "FANTASTIC" when the inside sucks? For any architecture to be considered "FANTASTIC", you have to have both outside and inside work. OCAD has neither. It might be an engineer's wet dream for the stilts, but it not a Calatrava's who uses structural that is intergral into the design. It is a simple boring building that could have been done by a first year architectural student.
What controversy are you talking about for the ROM? The building is on schedule. Visit the web cam:
http://www.rom.on.ca/webcam.php
this building is getting old very quickly.
i lived in the apartment building adjacent to the site during construction and i must say, i was impressed...at first.
even while walking/shopping on queen street looking up mccaul was a treat. but now, i just show non-architectural friends and watch their faces contort in a horrible fashion as they ask 'what the fuck is it?'
the interior is boring...the facade is plain...the structure looks like a mechano-set-nightmare gone bad, and the 'park' beneath is a joke.
basically, it's a giant kleenex box in the sky...and so un-toronto it hurts.
tear it down quickly!! possibly while they're doing the 'dome.
that thing is so hideous. i am embarrassed to be an architect if that's what architects do and what other architects call "fantastic"
it is not even first year arch student quality.
what is so neat about it? tell me.
coryn didn't convince me of anything except that the interior sucks. thanks, now I know the whole thing blows.
what's with the cow tile? those aren't windows?
how much design intelligence and sophistication did it take to design this? what a joke
I'm with Strawbeary. This is NOT a building that will be timeless. It's one that you look at and wonder... what were they thinking 20 years ago. The only difference is that it already looks hideous, and it's not even finished.
Tricky, I think you bring up some good points, I'm glad this is becoming a forum. Maybe others can weigh in... is it enough for a building to invest itself in a singular gesture? Is Tricky right, no architecture can be fantastic unless it is fantastic inside and out?
I didn't agree right away, but after giving it much thought, I think it's fine that the building is great outside (though others, clearly disagree) and standard inside. OCAD is an institution with shallow pockets. They had to prioritize. With their budget, they could easily have gone the safe Canadian route, hired KPMB, Jack Diamond, or any other number of nice, respectful (if just a tad boring) local architects and done a quiet little building that was a grade above developer-standard. Clearly, they chose instead to invest their money in a grand urban gesture--an iconic building that connects Grange Park to the street. What do people think? Is this strategy bullshit or legit?
Tricky and Stawberry both deride the building as being first year arch student quality (or worse!). That's EXACTLY what I love about it. I don't know where you go to school but the first year projects here are some of the most exciting, if naive (or maybe precisely because they're naive) work being done. It is rare for a building to begin with such pure, simple (not simplistic) ambitions much less keep them all the way through construction.
Come to think of it, it's a lot like Habitat in Montreal. Habitat, whether you think the exterior, like OCAD, is good or bad on the outside, but certainly iconic and fresh given its context. Like OCAD, its interiors are poor (perhaps poor is harsh for both projects, but rather, uninspired and totally standard). Despite this, Habitat continues to have a huge waiting list of rich Montrealers dying to buy in at luxury condo prices. Why? I think its the spirit that the building conveys and I would argue that that spirit is precisely that of student work. Coincidence that Safdie was still studying at McGill when he won the commission?
As for timeless, this is another good forum discussion. What is with this desire for timelessness? Is this a North American fetish or is the whole architecture community obsessed? I really don't understand why it is tirelessly invoked as some sort of given truth or assumed ambition. Simultaneously, we ask our best buildings to be pure expressions of their time. Can we have both? Do we even want them? Fashion dates, films date, literature dates, art dates, what's so wrong about looking at a building and saying, oh hey, I know you, you're from the 70s, etc?
Please, if you have any thoughts on these things, respond. As an architecture student myself, I am still testing out how I feel about all these things; I am not so absolute in my opinions, but rather genuinely curious to see these larger issues debated.
Any building by will alsop sucks ass. i mean, come on, that guys keeps serving us the same shit over and over again i.e boxes on legs with blobs floating inside. On top of that and not content with being a bad architect who thinks he's just too cool that guys is in fact real prick full of himself and arrogant beyond belief. Cant stand anything even remotely associated with him.
sorry about the typos i just get really pissed when i see some architectural turd by alsop...
coryn - thanks for your response. i respect your opinion. will post again when i have time
Timelessness is not necessary, but it reflects values that have always been desirable. (Commoditas, Firmitas, Venustas.) Or, to reflect this in more contemporary terms:
1. Buildings are expensive, moreso than cars and fax machines. Their investors would like to believe that they are not building something which will become obsolete but will in fact still be considered ‘beautiful’ (insert your own adjective) 10 years from now.
2. Buildings embody a huge amount of energy and resources. It’s obscene to imagine them as somehow disposable, unless disposability is somehow designed into the building through use of reclaimable resources with minimum additional expenditure of energy. Unfortunately painted metal panels, drywall, and vinyl base don’t easily meet this description. It’s better to think of each building as recyclable INTACT, the embodied energy remaining in place and not requiring demolition. Therefore you might want it to be less of a folly and more likely to be easily maintained, long-lasting and soundly built, and, maybe, timeless.
I have no way of knowing if OCAD is built well or not. As a landmark, I kind of like it. If OCAD were to leave it at some point, I see no reason the building couldn’t be ‘recycled’, i.e., reprogrammed to a different use. (If it’s shoddy construction, the hell with it.)
So the key becomes whether public sentiment over the next decade leans toward finding it endearingly eccentric or an eyesore. If it’s found to be an eyesore and its materials end up in a landfill, it’s a bad design. If its eccentricity is appreciated by its local public, it’s successful and has the opportunity to be, if not timeless, a notable representation of its time.
How do we know in advance? Ah, that's the problem we all face as designers. Most would prefer not to take the risk. I applaud the risk taken - and wait to see what happens.
Toronto can be so grey in winter.....why not? People in the neighbourhood have been talking about it since construction started.
I love Alsop's stuff, if only because it's crazy that he actually gets his sketches built. I worked at his office as an intern for 6 months or so, and thought he was actually very nice and down to earth so I guess I had a different experience from doberman. He called me personally to set up the interview and asked me how much I wanted to get paid and what I wanted to do and let me go at it... People seemed to like working there and many were very talented and modest. I think this building is ugly, but also beautiful. It makes you gasp, it just looks ridiculous. Alsop's line is all about playfullness and fun, and I think his buildings reflect that. Somehow he succeeds in getting people to believe in what he wants to do, which increases my respect. His process involves doing silly sketch watercolors and then getting them built. From what I could see he really sticks to the concept from the very beginning.
perhaps i am jealous...
steven ward,
'Buildings embody a huge amount of energy and resources. It’s obscene to imagine them as somehow disposable, unless disposability is somehow designed into the building through use of reclaimable resources with minimum additional expenditure of energy. Unfortunately painted metal panels, drywall, and vinyl base don’t easily meet this description.'
metal panels, drywall, and vinyl base are all the right materials to use for a building which might be interior remodeled later. and probably this building will change interior use quite often.
drywall is an excellent material,cost,ease of installation,fire resistive qualities and availability.nothing precious for an art student to bust and paint over,hang, etc..gyp bd is a revolutionary silent hero.
painted metal; baked enamel paint? great.easily replaced,metal is recyclable. vinybase? try 8" h, great looks.again ain't too precious.
whats left? structure is daring. the building image is post-pop. and it brings a lot of energy to surrounds.one of a kind statement. good for its architect and the client.depth? well, sketch becomes a big building.. timeless? who knows. i just remember every new yorker hated wtc back then.
just reflecting on your points..
You're right, abra, that it's helpful to think of the drywall and vinyl as removable 'stuff' inside a reusable shell. I hope that this building's interior is designed so that it can accommodate change of use.
Drywall is cheap and easy. My only issue was that it must be torn out and thrown away. And gypsum as a raw material isn't environmentally benign. While not the best, sure, it's probably fine.
Vinyl is a little more problematic. The materials required to make it, the processes of its production, and the means of disposal all make it less comfortable than either a more permanent product, a more natural product, or a product which uses 'less' like an aluminum j-bead or something minimal. Again, the vinyl will likely just be ripped off and thrown away.
The metal panels, I hope, will remain - assuming the building lasts. Although metal is recyclable, it's an energy-intensive process. Metal with enamel must be stripped in some way before the recycling can begin. Usually it's not worth the effort and the metal is scrapped...
I like the building. My comments were also just reflections and hopes. The best thing for everyone would be if Toronto loves the thing and it stays forever and has several lives beyond OCAD.
well said steven.
"
Total Entries: 6
Total Comments: 19
11/29/04 5:48
this building is getting old very quickly.
i lived in the apartment building adjacent to the site during construction and i must say, i was impressed...at first.
even while walking/shopping on queen street looking up mccaul was a treat. but now, i just show non-architectural friends and watch their faces contort in a horrible fashion as they ask 'what the fuck is it?'
the interior is boring...the facade is plain...the structure looks like a mechano-set-nightmare gone bad, and the 'park' beneath is a joke.
basically, it's a giant kleenex box in the sky...and so un-toronto it hurts.
tear it down quickly!! possibly while they're doing the 'dome. "
I had the same impression of Peckham Library when I was there. The detailing is poor, especially on the exterior copper panels where it meets the ground level even the toughned glass got smashed. The library assumes that Brixton would suddenly become graffitti/vandal free as soon as it got built - not so, as the copper cladding was covered in scratches and spraypaint, making the bottom end very very messy. The space underneath is not amazing and accumulates rubbish.
I don't think that much consideration was sunk into how these issues could of been addressed and yet make the concept still viable.
Ill post some pictures in the gallery when I get home.
Block this user
Are you sure you want to block this user and hide all related comments throughout the site?
Archinect
This is your first comment on Archinect. Your comment will be visible once approved.