New Vancouver Art Gallery | 9fl | Proposed

[Architype]

I'm just wondering if it's wise to put an art gallery (with priceless exhibits) right at sea level; that's my only criticism.

[Hong Kongese]

You worry too much!

[mr.x]

Originally Posted by Architype

I'm just wondering if it's wise to put an art gallery (with priceless exhibits) right at sea level; that's my only criticism.

Unless you're afraid that some frogmen will try to sneak into gallery by swimming into the creek, or if a major earthquake all of a sudden causes the entire building to fall into the creek or maybe a tsunami might sweep the entire structure.

[fever]

While I agree that some of Calatrava's and Gehry's work is amazing, and neither of them are lacking in imagination, I think it may be a bit contradictory to list a few establishment names and ask for uniqueness. I don't understand the craze for these few big names in architecture.

[SFUVancouver]

I'm not keen on the new location for the Art Gallery. It is too far from the heart of downtown and the BC Place precinct is pretty forlorn and will be for quite some time yet.

With that said, I think that the new location will give the project architects a lot more to work with than they would have at the Beatty Street site. I am just so apprehensive about the Art Gallery's insistence on a starchitect-designed building and I don't think the Royal Ontario Museum, for example, is well served by the Lee Chin Crystal. I don't think the VAG, or we, as the public, have deep enough pockets to do something utterly spectacular that is necessary to realize the Bilbao effect, nor do I think the planned 320,000 sqft program for the new building is large enough when the whole point of moving from the current building and its ~160,000 square feet is due to a lack of space to display the collection.

I also think that this is our last, best chance in Vancouver to get ourselves an honest-to-goodness downtown piazza, the large outdoor urban public gathering space that we utterly lack. I do not see a lot of room for that based on the initial renders that were released with the BC Place stadium announcement.

I have high hopes for the relocated VAG and, of course, very little has been finalized to date, but I am not sold yet on the plan.

[hollywoodnorth]

Originally Posted by SFUVancouver

nor do I think the planned 320,000 sqft program for the new building is large enough when the whole point of moving from the current building and it's ~160,000 square feet is due to a lack of space to display the collection.

Ya I don't get this also.......I thought only 5% of the collection was able to be displayed currently? So now we go up to a whopping 10%? and with the collection always being added to..........we will be back down to 5% in a decade or 2. WTF?

[nathan6969]

Originally Posted by hollywoodnorth

Ya I don't get this also.......I thought only 5% of the collection was able to be displayed currently? So now we go up to a whopping 10%? and with the collection always being added to..........we will be back down to 5% in a decade or 2. WTF?

With that in mind, I think a 3 million sq ft art gallery would be a little unrealistic.

[agrant]

Originally Posted by hollywoodnorth

Ya I don't get this also.......I thought only 5% of the collection was able to be displayed currently? So now we go up to a whopping 10%? and with the collection always being added to..........we will be back down to 5% in a decade or 2. WTF?

I was thinking the exact same thing. Although I thought the numbers were a current display of 3% and so doubling would bring it to 6%. I believe what they do is constantly change many of the art displays, making sure things don't collect dust for too long and the public aren't always looking at the same thing each time.

[djh]

The location will turn out to be a boon, I believe. With such proximity to Science World, this could make a nice tourist cultural jaunt along the seawall from one museum to a another gallery.

Agreed, it's not big enough. Be brave, Vancouver!

[Hourglass]

Originally Posted by djh

Agreed, it's not big enough. Be brave, Vancouver!

Out of interest, a limited (and therefore maybe not so representative) sampling of relative sizes for some other art museums in other North American cities:

SF Museum of Modern Art - 225,000 sq ft
Seattle Art Museum - 150,000 sq ft
Milwaukee Art Museum (incl. Calatrava's Quadracci Pavilion) - 341,000 sq ft
Denver Art Museum - Hamilton Building (146,000 sq ft) + North Building (210,000 sq ft) or 356,000 sq ft total
Art Gallery of Ontario - 486,000 sq ft

So 320,000 sq ft for VAG isn't too shabby...

[mr.x]

If only the Premier was as committed to the Maritime Museum project at Lonsdale....I would love to see the Maritime Museum's size expanded, considering they've downsized it from 100,000 sq. feet to 80,000 due to funding issues. A 200,000 square foot Maritime Museum would be incredible, considering that the maritime museum at Vanier Park is only able to show 5% of its collections because the facility is so small.

With the Art Gallery, I'd love to see the plan increased to 400,000 sq. feet....maybe spend $400-million on it, especially if they want a world-class landmark design.

[MistyMountainHop]

MoMA has 630,000 sq. feet, let's try to get closer to that!

[mr.x]

Originally Posted by marmorek

MoMA has 630,000 sq. feet, let's try to get closer to that!

lol, i wouldn't mind bigger. The bigger it is, the better....though at the same time, they better be able to balance their finances with such a large museum.

Also, it would be great if the province started subsidizing museum tickets (just like in Europe).

[Bert]

This would be a great place to showcase a daring, absolutely off the wall design like Tadao Ando’s box on springs concept (mentioned on the first page of this thread). Something like that in such a prominent location would completely change the image of Vancouver as architecturally staid. I doubt we'd get anything that exciting if we held a design contest where the public chose the winner.

Another institution I'd like to see in the area is something very similar to the Shanghai Urban Planning Exhibition, except obviously for Metro Vancouver, which would have huge future maps and models, displays of the historical urban evolution of the region, and electronic kiosks outlining the sustainability, transportation, etc. plans for our region. I know I’d personally visit it several times a year if they kept it up to date. Not sure if there’d be a broader market to support it though. Maybe there would be, given Vancouver's position as a planning leader in the North American context, at least.

A couple links:
http://home.wangjianshuo.com/archive...ition_hall.htm
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Shangha...xhibition_Hall

[Architype]

False Creek could have been destined to become a showcase of great buildings. The site would have been close to my first choice for an Art Gallery. But "False Creek" is not a great name, maybe it should be renamed, just a thought.

[flight_from_kamakura]

wow, that shanghai exhibition hall is crazy. personally, i find it quite ugly, but i could see how it would fit over there.

as for the new site, here are a few questions i have:

1. the casino, what's to be its fate? will it be reassembled on another site? (i could just imagine this thing going out to richmond or something like that).

2. the creekside park expansion, how does this announcement change the process there? recall that everything east of carrall is set to be developed into park lands, how will this look? will it be another sport oriented park? natural landscape? a plaza area? will we see a concession building? will the park be divided? will it even become a park? with everything else mostly clear, this is the last really big question.

3. how will concord modify their plans for the sites to the east of bc place? will they be forced (by the city, by the zoning plan for the area) to include office space? regardless, how many condo units will be built here? i recall that the original plan was for a pair of midrise buildings, will we see a push for greater height? this has 'prime', 'world class' and 'one of a kind' written all over it.

4. what on earth did vancouver trade to get the art gallery site? how much of the canada place total site was ceded for the vag? will 'special considerations' come in the form of height and density bonuses for the plaza of nations site? will it be taken off-site? cmp just gave a way a piece of land worth $50 million, could they realistically make that up onsite?

5. what of the cultural precinct set to be developed along georgia st? has this just suffered a critical blow? will another cultural institution move in to fill the void? will the beatty site be on the block sometime soon?

6. how many years away is this thing really? if they're looking to build something spectacular (i vote calatrava), it's difficult to imagine that the money will be in place before 2011-2012 or later. if this is the case, what is the chance that the site changes?

7. what of the bc place parking lot sites? obviously, those just became a lot more valuable, and properly zoned, they could well swim against the current, paying for a handsome portion of the new roof. but might pavco look to develop them, or at least develop them in conjunction with another entity?

other thoughts:

sfu vancouver touches on how this could well pull the cbd a bit further out of the core, and it could push the core a bit further off the peninsula, and this strikes me as really important. with a street car coming in here, (potentially) a new hospital going in on the old union station site, and infill all along the way, the city's progress east is unfolding quite nicely.

it's a pity that the cooper's towers were designed without prior knowledge of all this. there's a certain sterility along that stretch, and it would have been neat to have had retail etc in there.

[jlousa]

I would imagine everything is still up in the air, both the COV and VAG were unaware of this development until just before the announcement. The COV in particular only found out a few hours before hand. A lot of the plan can only happen with COV approval, so I take it the real work is still to happen. I would imagine that the CMP gift of that land is very conditionally on some favourable zoning. If that doesn't doesn't occur there would probably be a plan B of the BC Government buying the land, the deal falling thru, or Pavco trading a chuck of their excess land for that piece.

The Casino will probably be moved but remain in the area, they do not want to move though, they have very extensive plans for a new parkade, as well as upgrading their existing kitchen. If they are forced to move there will be another attempt by the public to shut them down by protesting any zoning changes at their new location.

Creekside park is still set to be a park (not sports fields), it will not be built by Concord though until after their last properties are developed (at least approved). They are still hoping for 5 highrises west of Carrall.

What happens with the Beatty lot at this point is anyones guess. There will obviously be huge pressure on the city for social housing if no gallery is built. I still prefer that location to the false creek one for the gallery. A lot of good work went into the Cultural district plan.

[johnjimbc]

Not sure how much it means but the mayor was quick to point out that the city would still like to make the site a cultural site, perhaps the long awaited location of the Coal Harbour Arts Center (which would obviously need a name change ; ) that was not built due to the new convention center.

I do think there would still be great value in making the site part of a cultural district since the theatres are near by. By building another cultural facility there, it could even help bridge the existing arts facilities to the new Arts Center and existing Science Center on False Creek.

I agree, however, that there may be great pressure to use the land for other purposes, such as below market housing.

[furbe]

Originally Posted by johnjimbc

Not sure how much it means but the mayor was quick to point out that the city would still like to make the site a cultural site, perhaps the long awaited location of the Coal Harbour Arts Center (which would obviously need a name change ; ) that was not built due to the new convention center.

I do think there would still be great value in making the site part of a cultural district since the theatres are near by. By building another cultural facility there, it could even help bridge the existing arts facilities to the new Arts Center and existing Science Center on False Creek.

I agree, however, that there may be great pressure to use the land for other purposes, such as below market housing.

The government actually wanted to build a new office tower on the site, but I believe there was some resistance or problems in accommodating everyone's needs/wishes. Now that the VAG has left, I'm quite sure it's going to be retained as the new Arts Centre in addition to accommodating a new federal office tower. I believe that their ambition is still to do an international design competition as before, although I'm sure there's many issues that have to be worked out before it gets to that stage. So a side benefit to the announcement is that we could potentially be looking at 2 international design competitions and two significant new architectural additions to the city.

I can also confirm the rumor on this forum that most stakeholders didn't even know about this until hours before the announcement. It's a bit scandalous it seems the way it was pushed through without consultation and we'll have to see how that plays out.

I'm a bit mixed in my feelings towards this announcement. On one hand, it's nice to see things moving forward. I'm pleased to see such strong government support, and it gives me hope that maybe we can build something special. The biggest hurdle for getting things like this done seems to be a kind of overriding pessimism in this city that we could never build anything extraordinary or that it's always a waste of money. You need leadership and vision to get things done, and for that I have to give Gordo credit.

The flip side is that I'm not totally sold on the location and question whether the move is going to be a good one for the VAG or not. In order to make it work, I think we now require the architect to build something extraordinary. A building that inspires as much from the exterior as it does from the interior. Otherwise, despite the fact it sits on prime waterfront land, the location is far worse than their current location (or formerly proposed location). It's a fair distance for tourists and residents to walk, far from a transit node, and there are currently no other amenities in the area to draw foot traffic. It really has to be extrodinary to encourage people to visit, and I would hope that the architect also takes full advantage of the location with a top notch restaurant. In many ways, I kind of wish that the Arts Centre was on the waterfront and the VAG was at the formers location. One is more a destination and doesn't rely on foot traffic, where the other does.

[mr.x]

^ those are some very valid points. I agree, the Beatty bus depot location was much better in terms of pedestrian activity.....but with the False Creek site, they'd better build something really architecturally amazing. That's one reason why the crowds keep flocking to Science World - you'd be surprised how busy it actually is everyday, even though it has mediocre exhibits. It also has SkyTrain, and so does the False Creek site for the art gallery - though Stadium Station is a little bit further away than Science World from Main Street Station.

There's potential that this project can rejuvenate that area of False Creek, bring in some pedestrian activity.....add in the renovations to BC Place across the street and the condo/office tower developments.