PDA

You are viewing a trimmed-down version of the SkyscraperPage.com discussion forum.  For the full version follow the link below.

View Full Version : Erickson: Reflections of Canada's 'gutsy architect'



Holden West
Mar 7, 2007, 7:35 PM
Reflections of Canada's 'gutsy architect'
Arthur Erickson laments the repetition of boring designs in several major cities

Maria Cook CanWest News Service
Wednesday, March 07, 2007

http://a123.g.akamai.net/f/123/12465/1d/media.canada.com/idl/vitc/20070307/4353-1150.jpg
CREDIT: Ian Lindsay, CanWest News Service
One of Arthur Erickson's more recent designs is the
Waterfall building on West 2nd Avenue in Vancouver.

Arthur Erickson stops midsentence. He is distracted by a drawing on the wall of a house he designed years ago. "You know, I shouldn't have that there," he chuckles. "I keep seeing mistakes."

At 82, Canada's best-known architect is elegant, charming, opinionated and a perfectionist. "Oh yes, you have to be." Silver-haired, he is wearing an impeccable navy blazer with gold buttons and a silk tie.

Erickson sits with perfect posture in the boardroom of the Vancouver architecture office of long-time associate Nick Milkovich, where he turns up daily for work -- after sleeping in until 9 a.m. "Very lazy."

During a remarkable 54-year career, Erickson has designed some of Canada's most original and beautiful buildings, including the Bank of Canada in Ottawa, the Museum of Anthropology at the University of British Columbia, Roy Thomson Hall in Toronto and Vancouver's Robson Square complex.

Recent acclaimed projects include the Waterfall, a mixed-use building in Vancouver's tony False Creek neighbourhood, the Portland Hotel, a social housing project near Vancouver's Lower East Side and the Museum of Glass in Tacoma, Wash.

Erickson is known for his sensitivity to landscape, radical use of concrete, pure and pristine forms, water and light and careful attention to public spaces.

"His work is gutsy," says Janine Debanne, a Carleton University architecture professor. "He dares to make strong decisions about what a building -- be it a house on a cliff or a university campus -- wants to be. The works are propositions about how to live artfully, in nature, or in cities.

"The best of Arthur Erickson's work is deeply respectful. It raises the stakes, offers a strong vision of life, and then drops off to let life take over in its place."

Erickson was born in Vancouver in 1924. At 15, Erickson's drawings and paintings drew the attention of the Group of Seven artist Lawren Harris. In fact, Erickson was influenced by Harris's compositions, which he describes as "very lonely, strong and expressive."

After high school, Erickson studied Asian languages at the University of British Columbia, followed by military service with British Intelligence in India and Malaysia.

He thought he'd be an artist or diplomat. Then he visited the legendary American architect Frank Lloyd Wright at Taliesin, his famed Wisconsin studio. "Seeing what he'd done with just wood and canvas was miraculous. I thought if this is what you can do with architecture, I want to be an architect."

Erickson enrolled in architecture at McGill. In 1950, after earning his degree, he declined Wright's offer of an apprenticeship. "I could never follow him and his ideas because I found them much too fussy," he says. "But he was very brave and didn't hesitate to follow his instincts and that's what gives his buildings the uniqueness."

Instead, Erickson spent a couple of years travelling in Europe and the Middle East. Travel, he says, "is the one thing that I think is most important. It's the only thing that shocks you out of your complacency."
A generalist, he has designed everything from elegant houses to university campuses. Simon Fraser University in Burnaby (1963) first brought him international attention and opened the door to a busy career in Canada, the United States and the Middle East.

In the 1980s, then prime minister Pierre Trudeau picked his friend to design the Canadian Embassy in Washington, a controversial decision because it overruled the embassy's design committee.
Perhaps his best known building is the Museum of Anthropology in Vancouver, a modernist concrete structure inspired by the post and beam architecture of the Coastal First Nations.

"I still think it's one of my best buildings and simply because it's very basic. I've tried to argue that the beauty of concrete is leaving it alone and letting it do its own thing."

Current projects include a curvy building for Vancouver's waterfront Olympic Village, which Erickson says "has the look of adventure which is typically Brazilian, " and a luxury condo in Vancouver named The Erickson, and an "atrociously high skyscraper" (about 167 metres) in Vancouver. The tower will appear to twist 45 degrees from bottom to top, an optical illusion using hyperbolic paraboloids -- the members are straight but the surfaces curve.

He says he's discouraged by some of Vancouver's newest additions.
"The most depressing thing is the echo of similitude everywhere and it becomes very boring. The people who build have absolutely no sensitivity. We have a very low standard of appreciation. I guess the decision of the client to do something is based on either Hollywood or Disney or whatever. It's not a serious judgment."

As for Ottawa, although the capital is home to national cultural institutions, the city itself is not a vibrant cultural centre, he says.
"It's fairly boring as a city. Culturally what does one do when in Ottawa? It doesn't take long to go through all the museums and performances. Toronto is much more significant as the cultural centre for Canada."
The drawing on the wall that had distracted him was of a West Vancouver house designed in the 1960s as a series of wooden terraces stepping down a cliff side. "The person that bought it painted all the wood pink and it's just awful," he says.

He is troubled that some of his buildings are being changed for the worse. Roy Thomson Hall underwent a radical interior refit of which he didn't approve.

Erickson has survived bankruptcy and the loss of a life partner. A sensualist who loves beautiful spaces, good food and parties, he lives simply in a converted garage surrounded by a lush garden.

"Up until this year, I used to ski. I've only given it up because it scares me," he says. It might be a sign of aging, like the softer voice and longer pauses. If anything, the highs and lows of Erickson's life and career have been characterized by fearlessness and zest.
Is he happy?

"Yeah, that's my nature."

His ongoing creative process is an "investigation," he says. "You learn a lot from it, but if you're looking for answers, it's not there."

© Times Colonist (Victoria) 2007

jeffwhit
Mar 8, 2007, 8:33 AM
Erickson is still whining about Roy Thompson Hall? If he had actually designed a building suited to its purpose in the first place they probably wouldn't have gone over his head when renovating.

Don't get me wrong, a beautiful building and a landmark, but what's the point of a concert hall with no sound?

David
Mar 8, 2007, 6:07 PM
Never been a fan of his, especially since I'm a victim of his awful work up at SFU.

SFUVancouver
Mar 8, 2007, 7:36 PM
I'm of two minds about Erickson's work. On one hand he has a knack for creating very well proportioned spaces and I think quite a few parts of SFU just feel "right" somehow, and I especially love evidence of his sense of whimsy in the hidden parks and unneccesary architectural showing off. The only nice thing I have to say about his use of concrete at SFU is that the white cement elements of the Academic Quadrangle are almost too beautiful to be disparagingly called concrete; they are more like marble and they have aged very well.

On the other hand I do not share his love of exposed agregate. I think in our climate concrete often does not age well. It stains, moulds, and is not a human material in that its tactile properties are generally unplesant. It is abrassive unless polished and cold most of the time. Much of the time the form work is crude and looks rushed or projects a lack of interest in the public realm it shares.

Erickson has done some great works and I love the direction his late career works are taking as he marries glass with his love of concrete.

Holden West
Mar 8, 2007, 10:11 PM
Some pictures would be great.

I believe there are only a few of his buildings in Victoria--the 1989 south wing of the Laurel Point Inn (below), a dull, generic highrise apartment on Esquimalt Road, The Jawl Building on Ardersier Rd. and UVic's Cunningham Building (http://www.maltwood.uvic.ca/Architecture/ma/uvic_campus/buildings/u71cb.html) and the McKinnon Biological Sciences Building.

http://imagegallery.leonardo.com/IG/2/202878/202878_EXT_03_I.jpg

EastVanMark
Mar 9, 2007, 1:44 AM
Never been a fan of his, especially since I'm a victim of his awful work up at SFU.

Me neither. You mentioned SFU, but also the CBC building, that waffle iron building on Georgia (old Mac-Blo headquarters), Robson Square, etc.

Also, he puts himself and his design ahead of everything else. This was shown when plans were unveiled to develop large chunks of Burnaby Mountain around SFU. He put up a big stink because he said his design was never meant to be near any other structures. Its like an artist telling you not to have any furniture in your home lest you spoil the message of his painting.

Its quite ironic that some of his best works are outside the region. Maybe thats because he has to work within a certain framework outside the region, while here he gets a blank check. The proposed Vancouver's Turn building is more along the lines of his work outside the region.

David
Mar 9, 2007, 2:07 AM
yeah, i was going to mention it but i couldn't remember the details. It's really annoying that SFU can't do anything without his "approval" pretty much. His only good legacy is the fact that it is possible to walk the whole way across campus without being exposed to the elements.

YYCguys
Mar 9, 2007, 5:35 AM
I went to the UofL also called the UofHell by those of us who lived in it's dungeon like dormitories. The main building was designed by Erickson, but it must have been dirt cheap and incredibly fast to build: it's all, and I mean ALL, concrete! It's funny to see pictures of his concept for the campus back then...very futuristic in a 1960s kind of way. Even the more recent stuff isn't much better, what with the space ship looking Students Union Building!

http://www.uleth.ca/exp/backg.htm
http://www.uleth.ca/exp/vision/

ReginaGuy
Mar 9, 2007, 6:09 AM
Some pictures would be great.



He designed Regina's newest museum, which is almost finished construction

It's nothing groundbreaking or spectacular, but I like it
http://www.rcmpheritagecentre.com/Files/Image/site_images/majestic2.jpg

http://www.protectandpreserve.ca/Files/Image/site_images/Image00003.jpg

http://www.protectandpreserve.ca/Files/Image/Construction%20Images/Image00005.jpg

http://www.protectandpreserve.ca/Files/Image/site_images/Image00001.jpg

raggedy13
Mar 9, 2007, 6:30 AM
I went to the UofL also called the UofHell by those of us who lived in it's dungeon like dormitories. The main building was designed by Erickson, but it must have been dirt cheap and incredibly fast to build: it's all, and I mean ALL, concrete! It's funny to see pictures of his concept for the campus back then...very futuristic in a 1960s kind of way. Even the more recent stuff isn't much better, what with the space ship looking Students Union Building!

http://www.uleth.ca/exp/backg.htm
http://www.uleth.ca/exp/vision/

Look at this original 1969 plan...

http://www.uleth.ca/exp/images/final_report/3/model_shot_b.jpg

It looks cool but what a horrible idea. The problem I have with Erickson is that he doesn't design things from the perspective of the people who have to use these buildings (at least with his older designs). What if you have one class at one end of that building and then your next one at the other end. It looks like it would take 20 mins of walking for Christ sakes. I have the same issue with the law courts and Robson Square in Vancouver. Robson Square is useless in terms of functioning as a proper city square. Sure it looks nice but its not all that good as a gathering place or generating pedestrian traffic. And the law courts I think look great as well but at street level on Howe for example the whole block is essentially a useless stretch of wall and with the massive overhanging structure on that side sunlight is always blocked out.

Rusty van Reddick
Mar 9, 2007, 3:30 PM
It looks cool but what a horrible idea. The problem I have with Erickson is that he doesn't design things from the perspective of the people who have to use these buildings.

And there we see the ode to Wright. FLW had pure contempt for the people who would occupy his buildings- witness his Greek Orthodox church in Milwaukee- completely disrespectful of the religion and its intentions in cathedral design, impossible to heat properly, terrible sightlines and acoustics.

YYCguys
Mar 9, 2007, 6:04 PM
Look at this original 1969 plan...

http://www.uleth.ca/exp/images/final_report/3/model_shot_b.jpg

It looks cool but what a horrible idea. The problem I have with Erickson is that he doesn't design things from the perspective of the people who have to use these buildings (at least with his older designs). What if you have one class at one end of that building and then your next one at the other end. It looks like it would take 20 mins of walking for Christ sakes....

You're right, as a former student there, it did take a LONG time to get from one end to the other. Moving sidewalks would have been muchly appreciated, though I was the fittest then as I ever have been! But I did manage to be late for classes from time to time.

If you look in the top centre of the picture that Raggedy posted, that horseshoe shaped building is cool! That would have been fun to see and to use, possibly as a residence! That's about the only building I like in Erickson's original concept!

slapshotâ„¢
Mar 10, 2007, 12:18 AM
I went to the UofL also called the UofHell by those of us who lived in it's dungeon like dormitories.

Hahaha! We (who lived on the other side of the river) made fun of those who lived in the cellars!

Apart from the dorms (I never lived in those) I thought the U of L looked great. Mind you, I was a BFA student so I pretty much stuck to the Fine Arts wing and didn't have to travel from one end to another apart from my first couple of years.

subdude
Mar 10, 2007, 3:32 AM
Me neither. You mentioned SFU, but also the CBC building, that waffle iron building on Georgia (old Mac-Blo headquarters), Robson Square, etc.

Love the 'waffle iron building':

http://www.arthurerickson.ca/images/buildings/macblo1.jpg

First impression of Robson Square was good, but I've walked by everyday for years and it just looks crappily made - hopefully the restoration work will help, but I dunno...

Xelebes
Mar 10, 2007, 3:41 AM
Love the 'waffle iron building':

http://www.arthurerickson.ca/images/buildings/macblo1.jpg



Looks like Edmonton. :)

Arriviste
Mar 10, 2007, 3:45 AM
I love Erikson. Some of his best are:
Museum of Anthropology at UBC

http://gallery.eli.ubc.ca/albums/Images-of-the-UBC-English-Language-Institute/UBC_anthmuseum.sized.jpg

http://www.arthurerickson.com/images/buildings/sfu-night.jpg

And there are a few more I like. But they've been posted.

YYCguys
Mar 10, 2007, 8:51 AM
I love Erikson. Some of his best are:
Museum of Anthropology at UBC

http://gallery.eli.ubc.ca/albums/Images-of-the-UBC-English-Language-Institute/UBC_anthmuseum.sized.jpg

Wow! This one I really like! :tup:

twoNeurons
Mar 11, 2007, 6:55 AM
I think architects think of themselves too much like gods...

and think far too much of themselves. In reality there is nothing they have done that has not been already done, much more skillfully before in nature.

Arriviste
Mar 11, 2007, 4:10 PM
/\---HAHAHAHAHAHAHA
Thanks for the laugh. I needed it.
Architects, what the fuck do they know hey? All they do is create the built environment that we happen to inhabit!

Holden West
Mar 11, 2007, 5:18 PM
Good stuff. Particulary interesting to hear first hand experiences from people that actually worked in Erickson's buildings.

I think architects think of themselves too much like gods...

You should read Tom Wolfe's hilarious classic 1981 book about the great architecture gods; From Bauhaus to Our House (http://www.tomwolfe.com/Bauhaus.html).

Xelebes
Mar 11, 2007, 9:40 PM
From Bauhaus to Our House (http://www.tomwolfe.com/Bauhaus.html).

An error in the review: the British century was the 19th century; the French was the 18th century; the Dutch century was the 17th century and the Spanish century was the 16th century.

twoNeurons
Mar 11, 2007, 10:25 PM
/\---HAHAHAHAHAHAHA
Thanks for the laugh. I needed it.
Architects, what the fuck do they know hey? All they do is create the built environment that we happen to inhabit!

No problem, anytime.

Credit where credit is due, my friend.

It takes many people working together to build a skyscraper... and an architect plays a role like everyone else.

All I'm saying is that some architects think too much of themselves... and some people give them too much credit.

I don't mean to start an argument, but what I mean is that in the truest sense of the word architect's haven't created anything. They have used materials already existing, albeit at times in a skillful way, materials that other people have discovered before them. They then put them together in a way that sometimes is functional, sometimes not, sometimes beautiful, sometimes ugly.

Anyway, as for Erickson's work, I'm not a huge fan of his architecture, except that it stands out, and doesn't really blend with the surroundings. I don't think it really has aged well but it certainly bears the signature of its architect, for better or for worse.

SpongeG
Mar 11, 2007, 10:48 PM
they haven't created anything?

by that logic michelangelo never created david he just chipped away at some stone and voila?

or painters can take a blank canvas and use existing paints and wham there is a painting?

so sculpture and paints aka art are not creations?

Arriviste
Mar 11, 2007, 10:50 PM
/\---(to tintinium) Alright, well I don't want to get in to an argument either, but architects are continually making progress. Whenever industry creates a new material suitable to some application in architecture it is utilized by those advancing the craft.
This has been the case for the entire history of architecture. Whenever a new material that is suitable to the cause is created, it is utilized, such as composites in contemporary architecture, or concrete in Roman times. Architects build upon what they know, while trying to find new solutions to either old or emerging problems. It's not a static practice, the variables are always changing. The realm of environmentally sensitive building practices on increasingly large scale over the coming decades will hopefully change your mind. I think that when we are all exposed to the benefits of architecture that its representative of the best of our technology will we all fully appreciate the influence the art has on our lives, past, present and future.
One of my Profs stresses the fact tat these buildings the we are designing will be here long after we are gone, and that it's morally reprehensible to not utilize the best of our technology for the benefit of the environment, and ultimately ourselves. Because of this inherent relative longevity of a buildings lifespan, the more time spent creating something environmentally responsible, and habitable, the less waste is created over the buildings lifespan, and the maximum potential for habitation is exploited. Ultimately quality architecture has the potential to provide massive amounts of good if executed well.

Architecture is ultimately art. If you don't believe that anything worthwhile is being created artistically by our society, than I can see why you believe the same about architecture.
Basically I think you are wrong for the following reason: We as a species are constantly advancing. One of our core aspects of being is art, and thats proven throughout history. It evolves as we do, usually at the level of our societal advancement. Architecture, being an art does the exact same thing. You would be remiss in saying it does not advance or create a new for that would be refuting a basic principal of being human.

Xelebes
Mar 11, 2007, 10:51 PM
I think an architect is more like a choreographor than a sculptor - because the architect must choreograph sculptors, not sculpt themselves.

SpongeG
Mar 11, 2007, 10:57 PM
well i tend to think its all a creative field - they are creating things

same way an interior designer, web designer or graphic designer "Creates" things

they aren't reinventing the wheel or anything

Arriviste
Mar 11, 2007, 10:59 PM
Not all sculptors actually sculpt their final project. Many are cast by a team, in a location other than the studio of the artist. The artist generated the idea, and someone saw to it's tactility. would you then take away the title artist from the artist for his hands didn't create the finished piece? I sure wouldn't. Take Richard Sera for instance.

SpongeG
Mar 11, 2007, 11:01 PM
yeah like ave chilluly, he doesn't blow his own glass or even install the stuff - he directs for the most part

i saw a show where he saw some bottles in a shop and bought a bunch and than created an installation

or one where he took a bunch of ice blocks and used lights behind them and that was another installation albeit a temporary one

but its still his vision - many artists used found objects to create their art

Arriviste
Mar 11, 2007, 11:07 PM
They sure do. I appropriate a ton of shit in to my art. Even drawings sometimes get an outside influence. In photography thats all I am doing is appropriating, but it's my approach tot he appropriation that makes it art. Or would you not consider photography an art? See what we are saying titinium?

twoNeurons
Mar 12, 2007, 1:58 PM
Well, don't get me wrong, there is creativity needed for all those things. An artist starts with a blank canvas as does an architect does etc.

In large artistic endeavors, the piece of art is greater than the artist himself... and although people tend to want to pin a name to a piece of art, in order to give someone credit I think a truly great artist is the one that passes on that credit to those that enabled the vision to happen.

Unfortunately in the field of architecture, that doesn't seem to often be the case. But I'm sure there are some architects like that.

PS. Just to clarify one thing, it's not so much architecture I'm talking about it's more architects. I'm a firm believer that what makes a man great is his humility and willingness to put another ahead of himself. It seems I may have made myself misunderstood. Sorry 'bout that.

canucklehead2
Mar 12, 2007, 7:45 PM
I'd love to see his early designs for 100 story condo towers for Vancouver's West end...

twoNeurons
Mar 12, 2007, 8:05 PM
Didn't someone superimpose an image of what the skyline would look like with the CN Tower in it? or the now destroyed New York WTC?