Designs on Calgary
Designs on Calgary
Designs on Calgary: Five of the World’s Leading Architects Present Their Visions for Calgary’s National Music Centre
The new National Music Centre at the King Eddy will be a treasure for Calgarians, Albertans, Canadians and beyond. Because it will belong to the community, Cantos felt it was important to keep the community apprised of our architectural selection process. Thus was created Designs on Calgary. We invited the public into our process via public presentations by our competing architects on July 23, 2009 at the Grand Theatre. We opened up our website for commentary and feedback we encouraged local media to show what we were up to and we put presentation boards on public display at Bankers Hall and Bow Valley Square through the month of September.
We received amazing feedback from the community and are incredibly grateful for your support. We’ll keep you engaged as the process continues forward!
18 Comments
Other Links to this Post
RSS feed for comments on this post. TrackBack URI
Subscribe
By henry, July 24, 2009 @ 9:52 am
. . . we have no in Calgary living architect!
By L.J. Robertson, July 24, 2009 @ 10:14 am
What a fun fun night! Thanks for the efforts taken to showcase the culmination of some hard fought battles to save and designate the King Edward Hotel. Vis a vis the submissions, let’s not forget that the lynch-pin in all of this is a heritage site. While all of architects have come up with some exciting concepts, only one seems to treat the Eddy as though it is something other than an inconvenience to the project. Hurray for AWA, who seems to be able to celebrate the building in its old glory, which others seem to have forgotten. Adjudicate wisely!
By Michael Ireton, July 24, 2009 @ 12:08 pm
First of all, heartfelt congratulations to and support for Cantos for the courage and vision to undertake this incredibly exciting international design competition. While I was unable to attend the presentation event, I have looked at each of the submissions on the web, and these are my thoughts:
First, a general comment. While the submissions all “riffed” on the notion of music and sound, some did so more successfully than others. And while all addressed that issue to one extent or another, and all addressed program, social interaction, and program, there was not enough attention paid (for me, at least) to either temporality or environmental considerations. I’m also surprised that NONE made reference to Goethe’s famous quotation, “I call architecture frozen music”. On to specifics:
The Allied Works entry is by far the least exciting. To be brutally honest, I find it rather trite, banal, and frankly somewhat patronizing. I DO like the idea of the “playable building” in their submission.
The Diller Scofidio submission is visually quite interesting, but the least clearly articulated and substantiated. It left me wanting more–more information, more content, more of everything. It is the most frustrating of the submissions.
The Atelier Nouvel submission is the most ambitious and inspiring, although I find it oddly out of keeping with other projects of theirs which I have admired in the past. It may be a bit TOO ambitious, both in scale and cost, but it is breathtaking.
The Saucier + Perrotte submission is attractive and well-articulted from a programmatic point of view, but from a purely formal point of view it is quite bland and the least interesting, engaging, or inspiring. I do respect and support the “environmentally conscious” aspect of the design, but would like to know more about that.
Finally, the SPF:a submission seems to have it all. Conceptually, it is the most extensively and clearly articulated and expressed entry. It responds well to “local” considerations, both site-specific and more broadly defined. Formally, it is striking, engaging, and inspiring without being TOO radical or esoteric. Programmatically, it is thorough, sound, and clever (in the best sense of the word). The “green” aspects of the project are well-expressed and integrated. It incorporates the existing structure (an important but relatively small and far from overriding aspect of the total project) thoughtfully and respectfully.
Were I on the jury, I would lobby and vote for the SPF:a submission, but as an ordinary citizen I will be pleased with whichever entry “wins” the competition–AS LONG AS IT IS NOT EVISCERATED BEFORE ACTUALLY BEING REALIZED.
Again, kudos to Cantos for a process which stimulates and invigorates discussion about–and hopefully realization of–exciting, engaging, thoughtful, and sophisticated contemporary architecture in Calgary.
By Michael Ireton, July 24, 2009 @ 12:11 pm
It should say “SPACE, social interaction and program” in my second paragraph…sorry!
By Geoff, July 24, 2009 @ 4:23 pm
It really was a great evening, and perhaps it’s a testament to the high quality of the presenters that my impressions were completely different than those above.
AWA offered what would be, I’m sure, a fine and functional space but I have to side with Michael: it’s just a little too ordinary.
Jean Nouvel said he wanted to give Calgary a landmark and then he proceeded to phone it in, both literally and figuratively. If I wanted to hide a building in the Calgary skyline I’d make a skinny rectangle of middling height and park it on a busy intersection. An outdoor music space is nice for 4 months a year, but I’m not so sure I’d locate it adjacent to two four lane downtown streets, and anyway, the Plaza is only three blocks away. (But if he wants to bulldoze the Plaza and Nouvelize it, let me be the first to urge him on.)
Worst of all, it seemed like a project that could be ANY institution in any city. Like an art gallery project that got rejected in Seattle, so he moved it to Calgary and pried open the side to make it a piano. Nouvel, like others, said he wanted to treat the building as an instrument, but the other four entries actually MADE their buildings instruments. I hope he had a better night at the MOMA.
The lads of SPA really seemed to have passion for the project, and I agree that their submission was balanced and thoroughly conceived. They went one better on Nouvel by providing an outdoor performance space where you can just close the door at the first sign of snow. In contrast to Nouvel, they actually put you in the belly of the instrument with an atrium that shunts music to you from various compartments in the building. A fine submission.
It’s hard to find fault with the superb Saucier piece, and I can see this being a compromise candidate in that it seems functionally solid, conceptually less risky than SPF and DS&R, but still puts Cantos and the East Village on the map. Critics will call it hulking and ominous and a Mother Ship threatening to engulf the Eddy, so let us defenders go there first: It is all those things and some of us have been waiting our whole lives to be beamed up.
Michael, you say the Diller, Scofidio & Renfro piece is the least clearly articulated but I think just the opposite. I’ve posted in another blog that what I love about the collection side of Cantos is that it feels more like a lab than a museum. An anti-museum. So Diller won me over in the first five minutes when she put up a slide that said UNMUSEUM.
Respectfully, I have to disagree with L.J.Robertson too when he calls the Eddy the lynchpin of the project. Or at least, I’d like to emphasize that it isn’t the BUILDING that we honour but the institution — what happened inside, which was an improbable melting pot of race and class and culture bound by a shared love of the music. Which happened to take place in a shitty old building. (Hey, the Sistine Chapel was shitty old building until Michaelangelo came along.) Diller alone waxed about this legacy and I felt that she, more than the others, GOT IT. The facing panels of instrument rooms with the “mixing room” in between was utterly inspired. Risky, yes: strangers starting up an impromptu jam session from different rooms could just as easily turn into Bosch’s Instruments of Torture; but even with all the glass cubes closed, it’s a lovely tribute to harmony and shared experience and a damn cool lobby to step into.
While mingling in the bar after the presentations, I felt a distinct generation gap. Some of the more seasoned members of the audience seemed relieved by the final, Allied presentation, as if it had rescued the evening from a lot of modern bafflement. My wife and I, at a paltry 33, might well have been the youngest people in the theatre and we feel a clear preference for Diller, SPF and Saucier. We’re outnumbered in city planning circles, of course, but I hope and think that Cantos is young at heart. This is about musical and cultural excellence, and as the mature among us are already excellent, let’s not forget that for an institution, it pays to invest in the young.
Be brave, Calgary!
By Jan Patterson-Levi, July 24, 2009 @ 6:22 pm
My husband and I sat in awe as we watched the presentations last evening. We are pleased we don’t have to make the decision as to which architects concept will be chosen. But if it were up to us Zoltan Pali would be the ONE! As Pali started his presentation he seemed so comfortable and made us feel as though we were in his living room as friends as he regaled us with his ideas. We particularily liked his design and the way the Eddy will be utilized. We enjoy the fact that one can see into each of the buildings from the
other. Also the use of the second floor rooms as terraces/balconies.
Another thing which impressed us was that in the video we got to meet each member of the team at SPF:a who worked on the project and liked how they built their model with blocks. And we really like the look of the design which is not all glass or a weird shape as was the Diller, Scofidio & Renfro design. The space
called the “living collection” reminds me of those little curio cabinets one has in homes to house their tiny collectibles.
Whichever one is chosen will be a bright spot in the East Village and as a founding member of the Canadian Country Music Hall of Fame, I am so pleased that the Cantos Music Foundation
has aquired it. I so look forward to visiting the Cantos National Music Centre in the future!
There again I say which is my pick as Zoltan Pali had that name on his design.
By Thomas, July 24, 2009 @ 10:20 pm
Unfortunately, being a few thousand miles away, I didn’t get the chance to go to the presentation itself, but have gone through as much of the materials available as possible. As Geoff mentioned, I do hope that Cantos does go for the proposals that take a bit of a risk, and doesn’t cede to the conservative route that has stunted the city visually for so long. Luckily ,I feel like only one of the proposals really does this, and that would be the one put forth by Allied.
While still solid, I feel like the Allied proposal is a little bit square in comparison to the others. Their concepts felt more like architectural jargon instead of real original insight. In the end I don’t feel confident that their vision would be as exciting as they planned. Having seen a few of their other projects (most recently the Museum of Art & Design here in NY), I have to say the end results tend be on the underwhelming end of things.
It’s fairly clear that SPF put their entire heart and soul behind the project. They have a solid, beautiful, concept, and sound reasoning for all their decisions. I feel like out of the gate, it is the front runner, as well as it should be.
SP’s proposal is also very handsome, but has an air of “generic contemporary architecture” to it that inevitably never gets built. I would be very happy if it won however, since the work of their’s that has been built has been amazing.
The Nouvel is a conundrum. Im having trouble deciding whether the proposal was half assed, or just hasnt be represented properly. The value in his work has always been in the materials, and we’ve only seen far-off skyline renderings, which leaves a lot the imagination. I absolutely want to see more, as we can never under estimate this groups work.
The DSR proposal is also very solid. While I don’t have anything bad to say about it, it might also be the one that feels a little on the safer side. No matter what, it would be a great building, but Im not sure if it would be truly iconic on an international level.
In the end, we have some very solid proposals overall. It’s hard to go wrong, but I feel like it’s possible to go more “righter” with some!
By J. Johnson, July 25, 2009 @ 2:05 am
I want to say thank you to the Cantos Foundation and to all the architectural firms for letting us all be part of such a great learning experience at the Grand Theatre! It was truly an amazing night and I look forward to following the progress of the building of the National Music Centre! I am sure that any of the designs we saw will make a wonderful home for the centre and will make Calgary proud! As the others have said here, I do not envy the people who have to make the decision but thank you to all of them, too, who will help Calgary to have a wonderful cultural area in the East Village. I was very inspired by all the ideas and the speeches, too. Yes, I do think music brings people together and I’m sure many connections will be made by people who come together at this new centre – I can feel the creativity now! I also like the idea of a roof top meeting place looking over the city at night! Thank you again for a very special evening and to all who made it happen, including all the volunteers!
By Anna, July 25, 2009 @ 10:23 am
A wonderful evening at Cantos doing what we should do with every significant building project in Calgary.
Diller’s proposal was simply outstanding. The presentation covered the historical and social significance of the Eddy and then magically brought those qualities together in a modern and poetic building. The idea of a mixing room for the sounds of different instruments to mingle together is lovely.
Zoltan’s proposal was my second favorite. They put everything into it and it is really quite outstanding. I’m a little concerned about what will happen behind the bridge on the north side as i fear this might become like the rear side of the convention centre. Too much shadow nomatter the weather.
Saucier’s project was very strong. Unfortunately I got a little lost in the description. Loved the treatment of the skin and the staircase; i think we’ve seen that from him before.
Allied works fell flat for me. I can only imagine our chinook winds playing his building and causing havoc on the street.
Jean Nouvel’s proposal trades a public plaza for a skyscraper. It isn’t worth it. The proposal seemed to have the least amount of effort and thinking behind it and the most amount of ego.
I would have kept low ceilings in the Eddy. There’s something really wonderful about dark clubs with low ceilings that is hard to find anymore. They’re intimate. Who cares if its out of fashion.
Congrats to Cantos!
By Daniel Kilgallon, July 25, 2009 @ 6:08 pm
I have to say I like Jean’s idea the best. It isn’t the same sort of style you see everywhere else in North America. Calgary is deserving of something unique.
By Anna, July 25, 2009 @ 9:28 pm
Having said I liked Jean’s idea the least, I do fear it will be the winner because Calgarians and the folks funding this project will want something close to what they already have in this city. Dare not venture out and be really brave. There was little to do with how music is experienced and produced in his proposal. And the projections on the building were taken from Cantos and more importantly from conceptual artists. It was the least thought through proposal and you could tell from the lead architect that a few schematics were done but not much more than that. Two other teams really did consider how music is experienced and how it is shared and produced. Nouvel’s team didn’t even mention the artifacts. I worry about who will design the public plaza in the Nouvel submission. Will it turn out like our Olympic Plaza? Oh the horror!
By Christopher Jager, July 27, 2009 @ 9:27 am
If a prerequisite of great architectural design is controversy, this competition is off to a wonderful start. The design from Saucier + Perrotte of Montreal was outstanding. From the design beginnings as squiggly lines and a rectangle that approximated the King Eddy, the Montreal architects took the audience on a journey that emulated the shape of music. Form followed function as they saw shape in recorded music. Science as form, people as beauty and sound as an experience created a dynamic container for the future home of Cantos. The flow of people, the flow of music, light, colour and visual panorama were all accounted for. It was interesting what they did not save. Let us be honest. There is not a façade, brick or architectural element on the King Eddy worth saving. Still, they recognized the proportion of the King Eddy and the rhythm in the series of simple windows. They incorporated those proportions in their new design to pay tribute to the past. The caliber of the Saucier + Perrotte proposal was truly world class. Simply beautiful.
Elizabeth Diller’s model was honestly presented as the best they could come up with after setting the more obviously ugly designs aside. Unfortunately it was only a large scale version of my grandmother’s glass menagerie.
Calgary does not need another 18-storey tower with a throw-back drive-in. The proposal by Bernard Beisell lacked creativity, but in true French style they kept the arrogance.
Brad Cloepfil from Allied Works in Portland, showed up but not with much of a design. He had to prop up that lack of protein by reverberating what his group did elsewhere. Their proposal hit me as a giant’s musical toy created by filling glasses with varying levels of water. I still don’t know where he was going with this.
Zoltan Pali’s notion of a diagonal “Soundscape” was simply cavernous and cold. I do recognize the enthusiasm of the design team but in the end it was only a distant, second best proposal. Maybe it was all that brown and orange floor tile that that made it look more like the world headquarters for A&W.
By Paul, July 27, 2009 @ 12:34 pm
Five designs from some very talented people are sure to invoke all kinds of spirited debate. All the architects understood that the opportunity is far more than simply designing a building – it is the chance to impact an entire city. Whatever design is chosen will be the beginning of an East Village renaissance.
By Keith Moe, July 30, 2009 @ 11:41 am
Thanks for a wonderful evening. I thoroughly enjoyed the presentations and the diversity of creative process that resulted in 5 amazing submissions
In my opinion the foremost metric that should be held up to the design submissions would be the insightful consideration for the quality of the visitor experience. Of course there would need to be a clear definition of the desired visitor experience … but assuming that this desired visitor experience would rely on such principles as ;
1) principles of interactivity and visitor engagement there would need to be space that would accommodate and encourage that interaction.
2) dynamic and ever-changing exhibits and programs to not only draw new visitors but influence repeat visits.
3) connections to community partners that would honour their commitments and enable ongoing relationship building would require space and programs to do so.
4) multiple platforms for multiple audiences I believe will demand flexibility of space to accommodate this.
5) connections that link Cantos to the community that it resides in, the City, the Country and beyond making it both relevant and integral will need offerings that resonate with each of the forementioned
6) leverage the relevant history of the Eddy in respect to richness of musical experience valued Calgarians and beyond.
Although important, the exterior architectural form can play a part in the above noted objectives, it is the interior planning , the programs offered , the initiatives and the people that bring the desired richness of experience to life.
I would also like to suggest that a full uncovering of stakeholder needs be realized to inform the final programme for the the advancement of the design concepts which will also serve to ensure that opportunities are not lost that would benefit Cantos objectives. Also corresponding development of strategy associated to people, processes and technology should be considered to optimize success and that objectives are fully operationalized.
In my opinion two submissions were the most successful in enabling Cantos to meet their objectives through envisioning a building that not only is a signature to the objectives but purposefully designing towards fostering the valuable and rewarding experiences listed above. These would be Diller Scofidio and Renfro and Studio Pali Fekete Architects . Both the mixing room (DSR) and the sound chamber (SPF) resonate with the interactivity and audience engagement. The Diller Scofidio vertical display wall allows for a more extensive display of artifacts and enables constant change. The open planning of SPF also allows for flexibility but I wonder if it allows enough display space …. however if the bridge concept SPF allows for the greatest amount of floor space available for display and programmes. I believe most all of the submissions allowed for performance and education space i.e connections to community partners but would like to see more to confirm …. Donor features and other strategies might be considered. I liked both the SPF and DSR considerations to the passive audience as well as the engaged audience in the viewing platform to the performance space (DSR) and the transparency of the lobby with associated seating in the SPF submission. I really respected the SPF submission in addressing the existing Eddy building and it appears to me that this would be an incredible destination “anchor” draw combining dining lounge and performance …… perhaps more accessible to a broader audience than the concert hall proposed by DSR.
Thanks again and I look forward to hearing more developments as they are realized.
By Josh, August 4, 2009 @ 1:03 pm
Inspiring. I think Calgary would be lucky to have any of these designs realized.
Just for your interest a local message board had a poll with discussion. Looks like SPF is the clear favourite:
http://forum.skyscraperpage.com/showthread.php?t=171825
By Matt, August 4, 2009 @ 1:13 pm
The S + P images look too much like renderings, if that makes sense. It’s difficult to get a good sense of the actual materiality and presence. I got a similar sense from the DSR proposal – it’s hard to tell how the actual materials and functioning of the building might work. I think the SPF was the most thought through both from a program and buildability perspective.
By LSK, August 10, 2009 @ 2:39 pm
I completely agree with the people that are looking for a younger, more risky look. Calgary’s downtown needs a bit of a face lift, let’s be honest.
By john, August 18, 2009 @ 1:00 pm
First………my note to “Henry”. There are Calgary Firms involved. Just take a little look forward into the Five selected groups.
These are amazing, i saw my first blues artist at the king eddy when i was 16. Clarence Gate Mouth Brown. Under age and drinking Pilsner.
I love the slim design. I hope to see an out door show there soon.