June 5, 2008
Everything Old Is Pug Again
As far as people's choice awards for architecture go, the Argyle Authentic Lofts (above, top) were all but a shoo-in. Old and new, pretty but reserved, the project was predictably named the most-loved entrant in this year's Pug Awards on Wednesday night, with an overwhelming 91.4% of the more than 50,000 voters saying they loved it. And why not? As Philip Preville put it this morning, the building is "pure heritage preservation." Though Preville uses it as something of an insult, there's a good reason why Torontonians have a fetish for old (looking) buildings: they keep disappearing.
The biggest losers? The spectacularly boring and unbelievably beige 76 Shuter (above, bottom), with only 14.7% of voters saying they loved it, presumably because those 14.7% don't know what love is. The beige-painted, orange-bricked, green-tinted Battery Park didn't do much better, scoring a 15.2%. Perhaps most telling: of the twenty-one nominated buildings, only eight scored higher than 50%, and only four scored higher than 60%.
Almost a year after it officially opened, the ROM Crystal unsurprisingly divided voters, with 62.0% saying they loved downtown's latest behemoth. The Crystal's lackluster showing points to the biggest problem of a people's choice award in which the percentage of positive votes determines the winners: the most risky and interesting buildings are doomed to the middle of the pack, while the tamer choices gravitate towards one end or the other. The people have chosen, and they have chosen safely.
Photos by Joy von Tiedemann, courtesy of the Pug Awards.
| 
add to stumble upon
add to reddit
email this
add to facebook
add to del.icio.us
I'm not sure I'd called the Argyle building "plain" - I'd say it's deserving of the win.
Also, I think they should make a line of paint named "unbelievably beige" available at Home Depot.
I think the Argyle building is beautiful (I didn't call it "plain," though I did suggest it was "tame"); I really, really, really like it, and am happy it won. I also really love the ROM and think it's by far the most interesting, most exciting, and ultimately best building built in the city in 2007.
Well, most ridiculous doesn't always mean the best.
I agree completely with spacejack. The problem with the ROM "crystal" is not that it is risky or daring or interesting -- it is that it is poorly done.
The interior spaces are dismal and don't take full advantage of the concept, the interactions between new and old seem accidental, the materials inside are cheap (and will not wear well) and the detailing is terrible.
When this architect was chosen, I believe he had only had about two buildings actually built, and his lack of experience shows.
I'm tired of it being glorified because it is edgy. Sure it gets attention, which is what they wanted, but so does screaming obscenities on the street corner.
Agreed with friend68 - I loved the crystal when the design was unveiled but the finish is atrocious. Inside or out, the architects, engineers and workers just dropped the ball. What particularly annoys me is that the crystal does not look much like a crystal but instead the cladding evokes a cheap spare parts warehouse in an industrial zone. Big opportunity to make something spectacular missed thanks to poor execution.
Wait, what?
Tell me if my comprehension is off:
...isn't there a bit of a disconnect around the fourth point? I can't view the PUG website on this work computer (Flash troubles), so I'm not going to put my foot in my mouth by assuming statistics...but at the very least the crystal is in a decent percentile, isn't it?
"after the fourth"... feh.
I can't verify anything, but apparently the scuttlebutt around the ROM office when the winner was announced was that it wasn't really the winner. A different design had been picked, but the Crystal was chosen because of a relationship between the architect and a higher-up at the museum.
Rumours aside, the original design was mostly glass, which the final product obviously isn't. You'd think someone on the board would realize that a building that has the sole purpose of housing artifacts shouldn't allow sunlight to beam directly inside all the time. Toss in the horrible lack of space inside, and the bargain details, and it's a terrible building.
I'm getting pretty annoyed with the recent snobbery of architects in Toronto. TVO had a roundtable on the Pugs a couple weeks ago, and Adam Vaughn seemed to be the voice of reason. As architects lamented how the Argyle failed to SHOW that it was modern, Adam pointed out that ANY heritage perservation in this city is a good thing. The ROM was defended weakly with the tired argument of how it creates discussion, and Vaughn once again brought up the lack of functionality for a museum. People praised glass-balconied condo after glass-balconied condo, when in reality, they all looked strikingly similar and unimaginative.
A design needs to contribute to the area around it and the city it belongs to, as well as perform its function adequately at the least. If it's hated by a large percentage of the population - you've failed.
Paul, the Crystal did well, but only compared to the other buildings. 62% is pretty lackluster (38% didn't like it), and "middle of the pack" is probably not as apt a description as middle of the scale. My point is that polarizing buildings don't have a chance at winning (or losing).
The architect is actually very experienced and celebrated, but why I do not know. He has designed many of the blights upon landscapes around the world:
http://www.daniel-libeskind.com/
Just because you can make a statuette of Jerry Seinfeld out of fusilli pasta, doesn't mean you should. Likewise, just because the technology is there to make these monstrous buildings (I mean that as in ugly, not large), doesn't mean you should.
Fusilli Gerry
http://jp.youtube.com/watch?v=p5ncsjMVzcc
Cheers,
Tuds
Given that the ROM Crystal epitomizes the kind of architecture that divides popular opinion, I think it'd be more genuinely "lackluster" if it were 38% pro/62% con than vice versa...