The local media blogworld is vastly different that the traditional media world — we like each other. Spacing often receives emails from our “competitors” alerting us to specific posts or upcoming events that may be of interest. This is what happened today when Robert Ouellette sent us a link to his analysis of the new Filmport studio. Robert writes excellent columns on architecture for the National Post whenever they ask him — his observations add a level of sophistication to their sometimes hyperbolic outlook on the world (the Post’s Toronto section is staffed by a bunch of lefties which adds another intriguing layer to Lord Black’s once formidable experiment). Since I’m about 4,000km away in cloudy Vancouver, I was unable to make it to the launch, but Robert was there and he was not exactly pleased with what he saw. Below are portions of his post:
I went to the FILMPORT site to watch Mayor David Miller announce the next phase of development there…. I signed in, got handed the media package, took some photos, looked at the media package, and left before Mayor Miller could tell the assembled throngs how great this new building is. Maybe he would have hedged his bets and just said that FILMPORT is an essential part of the city’s planned economy. Whatever his take, I did not want to be there to suffer through it.
The reason for my early departure? The proposed Alsop & Quadrangle Architects “iconic landmark” is perhaps one of the most poorly considered designs I’ve seen since leaving the first year architecture studio at university….
In this case… we are seeing Toronto’s early struggles with architecture as art, or at least architecture as something more than utilitarian box. Certainly the bureaucrats can’t be expected to know what’s good and what’s bad. They are too worried about the economic disaster this development looks like it will be because of the increasingly strong Canadian dollar. Does anyone else remember the financial bath Ataratiri turned out to be for the city? The timing was not right for that much hyped development just as the timing appears bad for FILMPORT….
This is not a general condemnation of all Alsop’s work. Far from it. But my guess is that he had something else entirely in mind until the budget was slashed.
In any case, who decided this was the building needed to showcase Toronto’s film district? I predict there will be a lot of denials heard from City Hall and the Waterfront in the coming months and years. “But look at OCAD” they’ll say, “how were we to know?” The good news is that we’ll probably get better at using architecture to promote the city. The bad news is that somebody is going to have to pay for what increasingly is looking like another Ataratiri development scheme.
I do not have the refined architectural experience that Robert possesses, but I kinda like the building and I’m unsure why he thinks the building is one of the most “poorly considered designs I’ve seen” (I’m sure he has a good argument). I’m of the mind that this is more of what the city is looking for, at least architecturally, as it develops the waterfront. We’ve recently seen a plethora of dissenting views on Jack Diamond’s mediocre building design for Corus Entertainment — it will be interesting to see the feedback the Filmport building receives over the next few days.
But we want to give our readers the first chance to voice their opinion: Do you like the porposed design of the new Filmport studios?
28 comments
The ends of the building are quite unattractive. I’d like to know who started this “wacky-shaped holes” trend…
I don’t really think this compares to OCAD. OCAD was controversial, but it doesn’t look gimmicky the way this does. Besides the fact that the OCAD addition is on stilts, it’s really just a regular box. This looks busy, unstable, and unwelcoming.
Not my style, but I’ll take it over Jack Diamond any day.
Shrug. I like it.
The building itself is OK, I’m with Robert though that the last thing the city needs to be doing is building this kind of structure in that location in the service of what has become moribund industry. The city does need to invest in the creation of employment zones rather than yet more residential I just think if your going to build a big permanent office building you need to put it somewhere where there’s actually some transit service and make it attractive to more industries than just film production.
Does it matter? It’s one building out of what seems to be at least 22 buildings on the site. There isn’t even any indication on the Filmport website which of the 22 buildings it is, although I can guess that it’s the corner lot of the “Filmport Community” section.
I’m more interested in how this fancy-pants business and tourist area is going to deal with the significant truck traffic (transport, construction waste, recyclables, road salt, etc.) that currently cuts right through the Filmport site, and vice versa. Commissioner’s street is the only east-west road south of Lakeshore in that part of the port lands, and is a major thoroughfare for the area’s industrial traffic. Filmport’s site plan that shows a redesign of Commissioner’s street, complete with street parking on both sides and traffic islands in the middle, doesn’t seem to be too concerned about facilitating the transportation needs of its neighbours…
I’m also wondering why a choice piece of waterfront property is being devoted to acres of warehouse space. I thought this was the kind of development we DIDN’T want on the waterfront. Why is it that Home Depot is an inappropriate development again? At least Home Depot would be open to the public, while the city’s own Filmport’s studio area (which takes up the majority of the site) is going to have a gate and tight security to keep people out. So we’re cutting city services, but have the money to finance the development of cavernous warehouse spaces that will make prized waterfront property inaccessible to the public. Riiiight…
While I share some of your concerns Melissa, not every piece of land should be public down near the waterfront. We need a mix of uses. This may not be ideal, but your tone makes it sound like there is only one thing for the waterfront and that’s public space. While I like parks and greenways, etc., it is also good to have a variety of uses so that there are people down there at all times of the day. Also, the ‘prized land’ you talk about has been planned for a while so this should come as no surprise to you.
The master plan found on Filmport’s site is outdated and does not reflect the current vision of Waterfront TO (just look at the map in Spacing’s current issue).
Services are much easier to cut that committed funds to projects, like it or not. But one thing to remember is that this financial crisis is not forever, and will be fixed by this time next year: either the city taxes us on land transfer and vehicle registration, or the province starts funding the city again. Too many people have lost sight of that. 2008 will be rough, but by 2009 we should be in a decent position.
here’s Filmport’s web site:
http://www.filmport.ca/filmport/
I’m not sure what that design has to do with film production, but it’s a cool building.
This must be for offices or administration – you don’t shoot a film in a building like that, you get a high-ceilinged enclosed space with no windows; basically a big warehouse.
Still quite cool-looking. I’m sold.
Reminds me of a 30-years-later version of CBC Vancouver…
For me, who works in the film biz, the final thing is whether this really works as a studio complex.
I get a bit scared when I hear about communities gathering and the curious public (from the Filmport site) as it starts to sound like a theme park rather than a production facility. Film making is a pretty boring activity to watch so I am not sure exactly how people are going to connect with the facilities: sounds like happy talk to me.
In terms of secondary support or post facilities so much of that no longer needs to be located right next soundstages. And the long term support services tend to hover around smaller studios that are booked all the time rather than mega stages that may be empty for months.
This whole project leaves me with more questions than answers and while I like the concept I think it would have been a great idea 20 years ago. Now, especially with the majority of domestic production stuck in low cost factual (reality) shows, I hope there will be enough non-Canadian work for a studio complex of this size. Add to that the potential Pine Studios to be built on Sterling Avenue and we may be way over capacity.
The buildings as revealed today on an artistic level? Ho Hum.
Lina–
I meant that the area should be publicly accessible, not necessarily public space. “Mixed use” does not necessarily mean acres of warehouses enclosed by high security fencing. There are other uses that I think would make for a better “mix” in that area, uses that would facilitate the development of walkable, vibrant, sustainable communities. I don’t see this high-security industrial park as consistent with that vision.
And I’m still not convinced that this is something the city should be funding. A similar development is being proposed for Bloor/Landsdowne by private investors (Castlepoint Developments and Pinewood Studios). I’m not sure what is to be gained by public investment in something the private sector seems more than willing and able to fund themselves.
And what makes you so sure that the city will be out of financial trouble by 2009? Do you know something I don’t? Even if the money the city is trying to get right now comes through, it doesn’t even begin to cover things like the affordable housing, infrastructure development & repair, or additional services that the city needs so desperately–things that I think would be far more beneficial to Torontonians across the GTA than a waterfront film studio.
Damn I’m tired of architectural narcissism. Wish builders, financiers, politicos and architects would burn their copies of “The Fountainhead”. Let’s leave the justification of sociopathy to the 20th century.
Given what the species has done to the planet, so far, you’d think we’d mandate or laud buildings healthy for the environment, and healthy as an environment for its users.
Your poll needs an “indifferent” option! It is Will Alsop, is there really that much to talk about? I don’t say that to outright dismiss him, but I just don’t see what there is to discuss. I love the fact he gets other people talking, but well.. all I can really do is shrug about his work.
it reminds me of the architecture from the old soviet union. So where does the statue of lenin go?Er I mean layton ,sorry!
I think its great. Depending on the site plan i could see this being a great hang out in the summer or during sunny days. I do wish that glass curtain wall faced the channel which would have made this area a huge sunny space for people to hang out. But with it facing north it should help reflect some light and provide some shade in the summer. Hopefully the square is designed well to provide seating for people to relax. The one thing I like about this building is how it should blend in with the neighbourhood in the future when the surrounding area is full of mid rise structures.
To clear up the confusion:
The Aslop building is NOT intended to be a film studio. The film studios/soundstages/workshops/production offices are in an separate area. The Aslop building is part of the “Filmport Community” area–an area outside the fenced-in studios/soundstages. The Filmport Community is the mixed-use (commercial office complex with ground floor retail) strip accessible to the public. This is the area where the film industry folk and the curious public are supposed to mix and mingle.
This is the area where the film industry folk and the curious public are supposed to mix and mingle
Oh yah, that’s a great idea, seriously who believes that there is any demand or need for this? This has Lastman era clueless boosterism written all over it, I know, lets surround it with fiberglass moose. The industry neither wants nor needs a facility like this, neither does the public, it won’t create employment, it wont actually generate retail traffic, all it does is create a white elephant structure that will be underused and eventually unwelcome on it’s site.
I’d say an old, underused industrial area is a much more appropriate place for Alsop’s experimental architecture than Grange Park was. It creates a new space rather than intruding on an existing, well-developed space.
The whole mix and mingle thing seems contrived to me.
Money invested in TV/film is good for the city in many ways BUT the industry is very at risk to changes in the value of the dollar here and elsewhere. I think that regardless of the funding, building a megastudio is a risk.
For personal and professional reasons I would like to see the smaller studio on Sterling built by Pinewood as it would fuel a much needed regeneration in the Lansdowne (and give Sam Gelati something new to protest) area. It would preserve an employment zone and add new companies to the area; without all the feel good mix and mingle hype. And in complete self interest I would be able to walk there!
I am pretty ignorant of these things, but it seems that usually architecture is either hated or ignored, and only in rare cases is it liked.
It is interesting to read that the building is kind of pointless though.
Important for all to note, whatever your opinions on this building, Filmport, or anything else: this is NOT , repeat NOT, a city-funded project. Not with one cent. TEDCO, which is not the same as the city, facilitated the land assembly and was paid by the principal investors to remediate soil there. Filmport is being accomplished with 100% private money (which is probably why it’s under construction, and not languishing in some committee room somewhere). Just because David Miller shows up at your press conference doesn’t mean City Hall is involved financially…
What do you even call that? vomitecture?
What is it made of? This thing is going to look like a festering hole in 10 years – I fear that it will fit right in with the rest of Toronto at that time. Pray for a recession – its the only way people are going to take the time to actually think about what is being built in this city.
I can’t wait to see what Alsop does to Kensington Market. I’m hoping for something of Corbusian scale – maybe then people will wake up.
Interesting…everyone wants to be a designer. And the article about the OMB above has NO COMMENTS. Too bad, because the real issue about how the City grows and develops is in that article. Hey, at least the Spongebob Squarepants building and this big angry toaster get people talking. Great architecure is about passion. You might not like it, but it will be memorable…unlike the Concord project on the rail-lands. Ugh. Just how many more aluminum and blue glass buildings do we need???
I have to walk around an Alsop building just to take my garbage out. Meanwhile, my alma matter OCA(D) has been transformed by Alsop into a building which is a monument to ego and a very twentieth century view of art. Inside, once you get past the mammoth concrete lobby the classrooms and studios seem cramped and uninspiring.
As far as I am concerned Toronto already has its share of Alsop buildings and we don’t need any more.
I do appreciate that the city is developing a taste for beyond-the-glass-box thinking, but I don’t appreciate why the people who want to pay for buildings in this town have such a stiffy for foreign egotechts and can’t find anyone local to satisfy our need for big whacky buildings.
Does it make us a great international city to outsource our creativity? Hardly.
I think that obviously depends on how you intend “international.”
Kevin> I don’t understand a few things (and this is more general observations, but you’re the last person to express these things):
How is this an ego project? What makes something ego, and not? I think any creative person has to have an ego in order not to be crushed by the criticism. Is anybody that creates a style of their own an ego(tect, etc)?
Why does it matter that Alsopp is foreign? Toronto buildings have always been designed by a mix of locals and foreigners. TD Centre/Germany, BCE Place/Spain, CN Tower/Australia, City Hall/Finland — i’ve never heard anybody complain those buildings were designed by foreigners. It’s like seems kneejerk provincialism to call him out for being foreign — and every other industry has people from all over working locally here in Toronto. If Hollywood decided to only hire local, there would be a massive amount of Canadians coming home from L.A.
As for OCAD, I teach there and have found the tabletop works just fine (slow elevators though). And the students, often on their own, have used it as inspiration to do something else. So it seems to work.
Ed Jones: I’m never going to be able to look at this building again without thinking “Big Angry Toaster!”
Anyways, I don’t mind it. It’s a nice enough building, although I wonder how much he considered the seasonal position of the sun in this design – if the glass is on the south side, people are gonna bake in there.
If nothing else, Alsop is making interesting buildings. We’re lucky enough to have a legacy of well-preserved Victorian and high Modernism in Toronto, but people seem to forget that. Maybe a few more gravity-defying collage projects by crazy European postmodernists will get Torontonians looking up again.