You Either Love It Or Hate It

Personally, I hate it. What you see at right is the Sharp Centre for Design at the Ontario College and Art & Design in Toronto (OCAD). This building is not some relict of some 1960s failed urban experiment but a new structure built in 2004, designed by British Architect Will Alsop.

I didn’t know the building even existed until I spotted this oddity from the CN Tower. From the air I was not impressed but I wanted to see it in person. The next day and a short streetcar ride I was face to face with this architectural statement. Will Alsop is one of those acclaimed architects with very few actual buildings constructed, quite possibly a very good thing.

The bright painted victorian-era building is the oldest structure on campus which now serves as an art supply store. Of note is the pedestrian crossing signs which alert motorists of a pedestrian crossing zone. These were present on numerous streets that had long distances between major signalized intersections.

As a pedestrian it is hard to have a normal relationship with this building — likely the point entirely. The architect wants us to contemplate and question the design. He is begging us to debate his work.

I wasn’t sure if it was better to walk next to this building so that I could look across the street to a more pleasing (conventional) urban scale or walk next to the urban from and try to avoid looking at the building screaming for attention. It is like a car wreck, you can’t help but look despite the carnage and nightmares you’ll have later.

The base of the building is a rather clean modernist box with some nice window & door detailing and a good use of color. The entrance, however, is set below the sidewalk level for no reason that was readily apparent. This further decreases the pedestrian-building connection that I seek in urban settings.

Architects dig this kinda design. One of my favorite architects, the late Bruce Goff, did nothing but unusual anti-urban buildings. In his defense these were primarily residential structures on remote sites where the context was trees, not people. In architecture school I did my fair share of zany concepts.

We certainly need architecture as art but some art ages better than others. In 30 years time I think this building will be viewed as an eyesore, for those that don’t already think so. Often it is the specialty project that presents maintenance challenges as the buildings age, making them obsolete far faster than you’d think based on their initial price tags. Will this school muster the funds to rehab this building when it is falling apart or will they quietly let it fall into ruin or raze it for the latest craze of the day.

Art, as they say, doesn’t have to match your sofa. Do buildings as art have to match the street? No. If they did they’d cease to be art. For me I prefer my leading-edge art to be the exception, not the rule. These one-off buildings are OK as long as we maintain some sense of normal urban streetscape. The last thing we need is for a Blockbuster video to recreate this look on nearly every street corner in America. Cheap knock offs of a painting isn’t so bad, but cheap knock offs of high-design buildings is something we can do without.

– Steve