Delta Tango Bravo

Someone IMed me the link to the illustration of the building that you've posted. I thought it was a joke.

Then they sent me a link to actual photographs of this monstrosity under construction. It is all too real.

What I can't understand is how a) this design was approved by the College, and b) how this design received approval by the municipality. I would think that anyone living in the area would form a torch-wielding mob and run whoever is responsible out of town on a rail. UGLY!

Good God!

Wow! You really hate it?

Ever since I saw the proposal for the addition to OCAD I've been making an effort to pop by every so often and check on its progress 'cause I think it's top-rung.

On a somewhat related note, have you seen what they're doing to the Royal Ontario Museum? If not, take a look. And that's the toned-down version, the original was ten times more far out, and therefore ten times better, than that. The current plan is still pretty darn cool though.

Well, I better get back to work. This Windows High Contrast Black (extra large) scheme is making it so much easier to get things done around here... ;-)

Interesting to hear a positive review Matt. I'm also looking forward to seeing the ROM completed. Interesting concept. I'm always fearful that I'm criticizing something just because it's unfamiliar. What did the residents of Barcelona think of Gaudi's architecture? The Casa Mila is one of my favourite buildings. However, something about the OCAD (the awkward balance, the top-heavy weight, the design-for-designs-sake feel, the lack of timelessness) makes me dislike it immediately. Maybe time will prove me wrong...

I'm tired of architecture that "blends in." I want my built environment to shock, entertain, delight -- to capture the essence of all that's possible. OCAD must teach its students to imagine; how can they be expected to do that in a building that would satisfy you?

I went to Prague just to see Gehry's "Fred and Ginger" (below); I see the new OCAD building reaching beyond the daring that Gehry expressed there.

<img src="http://lava.ds.arch.tue.nl/gallery/praha/f8.jpg" style="margin: 12px 0 0 0; text-align: centre; border: solid 6px black;">

While I think the new OCAD is indeed a hideous pig of a building, Peter's point is well-taken. At least its got people talking. If you want to see a truly hideous, unimaginative style of architecture, take a look at this home, thousands of which serve to make Vancouver one of the ugliest architectural cities anywhere.

Link to photos of OCAD extension under construction

OMFG.

But after the talking the building has to work, has to exist in its surroundings. And it should speak to something even if it is to shock. The Pompidou Centre in Paris or the Lloyd's building in London speak to building turned inside out, an anatomy of a structure. The "Fred and Ginger" has wit in its visual play, line as well as fluidity. But what does OCAD building speak to? 1953 cartoon. Well, fine. I've had that thought. Oops. The building is still there. Anymore thoughts? Nope. No wait - sophmoric. Yup, that's a thought.

Peter, is being audacious or 'daring' actually a reason on its own for building something? While Gehry's buildings are innovative, they seem to have more care for general esthetics balanced against that innovation. Granted, this all comes back to the unanswerable question "what is art?" Even just purely from an upkeep standpoint, I can see Gehry's Bilbao Museum or "Fred and Ginger" appearing fresh even twenty years from now. I may be wrong, but the OCAD design looks five years out-of-date already and just wait for the rust to hit those pillars...

Wow, that linked school you posted looks just like the Central Lakes Community College, in my hometown of Brainerd, MN.

Some updated photos here.

I think you guys are all missing the point here ... the design is brilliant. See, when the Roadrunner passes under the big flat part ("A"), Wile. E. pulls the rope attached to the pillar ("B") ...

Can you back up your statement of “That's hideous.”? Do you have anything smart to say about the building (even if it is a negative point of view)? Your comment is equivalent to the “eww, that’s gross” rant of a 12-year-old girl. I guess my comment to you is, don't waste my time with your lack of real opinion.

It's a subjective opinion about the aesthetics of the new OCAD building...what justification needs to be made? If you'd bothered to read the comments further, you'd have noticed that Daniel spelled out his criticisms:

<i>However, something about the OCAD (the awkward balance, the top-heavy weight, the design-for-designs-sake feel, the lack of timelessness) makes me dislike it immediately.</i>

Can *you* back up your statement of "Your comment is equivalent to the 'eww, that's gross' rant of a 12-year-old girl"? Whose time is being wasted again, exactly?

filmgoerjuan smells like poop.

Point taken. I was wasting your time... but thanks for indulging me.

Maybe it takes time for people to accept it.

The new building is a reflection of what people want to see and of waht they don't. I am not saying that the building is lovely or "eww, that's gross", but simply that it has spawned conversation, it has gotten our attention, and that is it's purpose. By judging it, you are feeding it, and making yourself sound more learned than you apparantly are.

<i>By judging it, you are feeding it, and making yourself sound more learned than you apparantly are.</i>

Aha, you've found us out! We only criticize the building because secretly we think it is brilliant. We know that saying that it looks ugly will generate more attention for the building than if we say that it is the most beautiful piece of architecture ever constructed.

I don't want to drag this out, but I have learned to appreciate things, which includes the new building, not for it's aesthetics, but more for it's attitude towards experimentation. If anything, I wish that it was more risky or experimental. And if it was, I would be happy for two reasons 1)the pure insanity and over-the-top gesture of the attempt to invoke innovation and 2)laughing quietly to myself while all the critics out there go red in the face with fury.

Lastly, I would like to thank you for drawing more attention to the new OCAD building than was initially intended, which is evident in your actions of the creation of this site :)

I like "Citizen Kane", I think it's a great film.

Lots of people I know *don't* like "Citizen Kane"...they find it either boring or too long or too B&W or just don't see what the big fuss is all about.

However, I don't feel the need to justify the film to them, to explain about <i>mis-en-scene</i> or deep focus or any of the myriad innovations that the film used. They don't like it...I do like it...I can live with the fact that not everybody appreciates things for the reasons that I do.

So why do so many of the comments above seem to be along the lines of "you don't get it" or "it's not about aesthetics, it's about making people react". I do get it...I don't care what the architect's vision for the structure was, it's not germane to my reaction (i.e. "UGLY")...which is a perfectly valid reaction to have.

I can't help but notice that you sound a little defensive. It seems to me that you have gone out of your way to tell us all how much you hate the Sharp Centre for Design, and encourage others to feel the same way you do. But when someone actually stands up for it, you state that you don't need to justify yourself. Is that so? You have taken time out of your busy schedule of photographing gaffiti on buildings and on a girls rear end, and even witty comments to boot, to make this site. It makes perfect sense to me now that you didn't post this page for intellectual dialogue, but rather as a place where other people who support your beliefs can vent.

Do you even live in the Toronto area? Have you ever actually seen the building apart from photographs? Maybe where you come from ( I am assuming that you are from British Columbia, judging from your link ) that you are not used to the type of joie de vivre that Toronto prides itself on. This city thrives on creativity. Your statement of " Worst. Building. Ever" can be easily translated into "Best. Accomplishment. Ever." When will you recognize that pretty and "UGLY" do not exist to the person who appreciates experimentation.

You might want to get your facts straight first: this isn't my site, it's Daniel Burka's (see the "Who Am I" further up the page on the right-hand side). He made the initial post about "Worst. Building. Ever." I didn't build this site, I don't update it, I just read it regularly and have made a few (perhaps too many) comments on this post. I'm not sure why you think this is my site nor why (and this just an impression I've gotten from your previous comment) you think this site was created to slam the OCAD building. This site is a blog, this page about the OCAD building being just one of many, many others Daniel has written on a wide variety of subjects.

The bottom line is that I don't think that my opinion is any more important than yours or anyone else's. My reaction to it is purely visceral — I'm not claiming otherwise. I respect your right to like the building for its "attitude", but that's not really an approach that works for me. C'est la vie. Agree to disagree. Neither of us is "right" in any kind of absolute sense.

<i>[W]hen someone actually stands up for it, you state that you don't need to justify yourself. Is that so? You have taken time out of your busy schedule of photographing gaffiti on buildings and on a girls rear end, and even witty comments to boot, to make this site.</i>

OK, the disingenuous "taken time out of your busy schedule" crack is a pretty lame troll. And quite frankly I'm surprised that you didn't see that the photograph of the "gaffiti" [sic] on "a girls [sic] rear end" was actually a subtle critique of the male-female dynamic in contemporary society. Honestly...what *are* they teaching people at art school these days? ;)

My many appologies on the mix-up. I think that even our squabble, both of us willing to not give into the other is refreshing. I would like to thank you for providing your time to fuel my obsession with debate, although it is obvious that you have proven superior.

In answer to your question, art school does not really teach so much as it gives one the opprotunity to try out new mediums without restraint or limitations (minus the skinning the cat incident last year).

Our banter has lost it's direction, it's topic. I can see that through all this, all you wanted from me was to acknowledge your opinion, albeit vague ;) All I wanted from you was to acknowlede that the Sharp Centre for Design was a neat building, and that pretty or ugly do not matter. You see, I wanted to defend my school, be proud of my institution. Hell, I'm paying $10 000 a year in tuition and suppiles, and I do not like to hear others say "Oh, you go to that ugly school", I know this because it's happened.

I think that the most positive thing about it is that people recognize the name OCAD now, and I don't have to explain that I go to the "Ontario College of Art and Design".

Basically I could care less about the building. I am persuing fine art, not design. It has proven itself to be a real landmark though. When the Eiffel Tower was built, many claimed it was the ugliest thing they had ever seen. And if I remember correctly, didn't they want to tear it down? "Safe art" is boring basically, but anything more that that is dangerous.

On friendlier terms, you really do over use parentheses :)

Well, we really *have* spent way too much time bandying this topic about. I think, in part, my reaction to the building has been in part because I fear it is going to come to life and kill all humankind. ;)

And if you think I overuse parentheses, you don't even want to do a count of my use of em-dashes and ellipses. Seriously, it's some kind of bizarre punctuation-related obsession with me.

I live in Toronto, and I recall the day when the unveiled the design for the building, and most people were a little shocked and disgusted by the hideousness of the building.

In my opinion, it's simply really ugly. As a Toronto-ian, it's just a another disgrace for architecture in our city, there's many other ugly buildings in Toronto.

I heard of several students at OCAD who spraypainted on the building "Post-moderism sucks" or something like that and that got people thinking and reconsidering how an eye-sore can become the focal point for a college that's is known for being prestigious in the fields of design and visual arts.

While the building may be a success as an attention-grabbing device for OCAD, it is a failure as a building. The public areas are very poorly laid out; the elevators are inadequate for the volume of traffic; and the acoustics are terrible. The users of the building (i.e., students) don't seem to have been much of a consideration.

perhaps if the designers / architects had put some good innovative thought into function and the needs of the students who pay to go there they could have put the school into the spotlight without having to resort to shock value.

I think the OCAD building is a perfect example of Toronto cultural-institutional architecture. Like the AGO and ROM renos (and the opera house, to a lesser degree) this is pure gimmick -- novelty for the sake of novelty -- coupled with a celebrity architect's autograph (for instant credibility). I'm sure these buildings will make the covers of all the design magazines and the international design elite will be peeing themselves with excitement for days (nay, weeks!). Then they'll move on to the next flavour du jour, and we'll be stuck with these eyesores for decades. (Notice how well our 50's/60's modernist architecture has aged.)

"OCAD Student" above exhibits perfectly architects' and design peoples' insistance that architectural criticism be founded upon rational, intellectual arguments. What ever happened to "just plain ugly"?!

All that said, I don't think the OCAD building is that bad. (Don't get me started on the AGO though...)

Here's a great article from Toronto Life on the topic: http://www.torontolife.com/magazine/index.cfm?listing_id=32 (Google: "toronto architecture ugly" if the link's dead.)

Hi, your first hyperlink returns a 404 at this time...

controversy has always surrounded architecture in the past. think about the Guggenheim museum, New York was appalled at Frank Lloyd Wrights design. yet, it was given the honour of a national landmark in order to save it from an expansion that would have changed its design to accommodate more space. it is the youngest building in that category at 30 years old (when inducted) - and the building is beautiful. truly amazing.

the world trade center, otherwise known as the twin towers, were very much disliked when they were built. people thought they were bay area took up too much prime real estate and thought that they would never stand. but their height and presence was an essential part of The City's skyline, the most identifiable part of a city on an international level.

architecture is all about creating interest and beauty in buildings. in a few years, maybe decades, the OCAD building will be viewed as an integral piece in the city's diverse culture and landscape.

i love it. its far out, it doesn't care what you think and makes a statement. its all about the art, and that's what OCAD is.

You can't criticize this building until you've experienced it, and the spatial quality it evokes in the middle of urban Toronto. The building delighted me, coming upon OCAD was a singular experience. I was thrilled by the commodious public space afforded by the scheme, the quality of the day lighting on the largely open site beneath it and the pedestrian experience at street level.

Ignore the form and admire what the building does, the experience it creates and what it does in and for the community in which it resides. Only then can you judge it on formal and stylistic grounds.

People seem to focus on it in a layman’s object fetishist frame, that meek, traditionalist closed mindset that has fostered so much urban banality and banished so many potentially wonderful public spaces. This is a building (and a client) that "gets it" that understands that a city has a life and thrives on diversity, excitement and public space.

Spend an hour on a pleasant day on a bench in the side court and then judge for yourself.

sounds like the ugly building may create a space that's nice fun place to be inside of.

but to say it's: "all about the art" ? "it doesn't care what you think" ? "Ignore the form" ?

it seems to me that experimentation is ok if the art is portable or temporary, but a large building like this affects more people who are face it daily, like "victim" says, we'll be stuck with it for a long time.

It's taken me a long time to fully appreciate the building, and I'm still wobbling on the fence. I love the building for it's experimentation. It's the school's way of saying it isn't afraid to be "out there" and we (as student's, artists and designers) shouldn't either. BUT I agree with a comment made above by another OCAD student about the inside of the building. The architect was so busy experimenting that the students and faculty weren't considered whatsoever. The ventialtion system is ridiculously loud, the white noise in all the rooms is very hard to hear over. The echo is terrible, and all the blank white walls invite graffiti that they keep covering up (which is a shame, some of it is really good). The elevators are another problem entirely, it's too far to take the stairs most days (unless you're going down) and during busy times the wait for the elevator can be upwards of ten minutes.

Basically I'm saying that I'm all for experimentation and good design, but the OCAD building is really an example of only the former.

I am applying to go back to school this year, specifically to OCAD. And I would be lying if I said my choice was solely based on OCAD's prestigious reputation. I want to study illustration and design in that beautiful monstrosity. My first reaction to it was definitely shock and fear, but soon after I began to be intrigued by the design. I do think it does look a little po-mo derivitive to begin with, like it should have been built in italy in the 1980's. But now I've seen it in person, and while I can't speak to it's function on the inside, I have to say it is delightful to stand beneath. It's fanciful, it glows, it makes my imagination and pulse race. It excites me. I'm already excited to go to art school, but to know that I'll be working inside that funny building makes me even more excited.
On top of it all, I have to say that it's not even all that imposing. You can barely see it from a block or two away. When you're underneath it, you don't notice there's something above you. It really won't be seen by anyone other than those who were purposefully hanging out in that artsy neighborhood anyways (and therefore not too easily offended by experimentation).
I think it's great that Toronto is experiencing such an architectural renaisance. I've been to Chicago and loved it, and one of the best things about that city is that it has a history of strange and exciting architecture. Eventually (after a decade or so) opinions mellow, and people become proud that they took such risks. At first, people DID hate the Guggenheim's (Gehry's, and Wright's), and the Eiffel tower, and the first skyscrapers, and the Sydney Opera House, and pretty much everything we consider "good" architecture today.
Famous art is usually made so by strong emotional reactions of all kinds.

The most horrible constructions in the city of Exeter where I live part of the year is the whole of Sidwell street...O.K we got bombed by Hitler in the 40s...but the stuff they threw up is truly soul less and numbingly bad.Unfortunatelt the new stuff going up isnt much better...just look at platform 101 and the buildings opposite the prison...aaaaarrg!

Some of my favorite buildings are in downtown Birmingham Alabama...lovely city and the new buildings there are good too....but then Hitler never got that far.

FERD