Duck Lightning
Active Member
I like that it has glass windows surrounding the entire bottom floor. Very easy to look inside and see what's going on compared to the existing Art Commons.
Arts Commons | 18m | 4s | City of Calgary | KPMB
- Thread starter Surrealplaces
- Start date
DougB
Active Member
The addition looks OK, but a few concerns:
- consumes more of Olympic Plaza than I would have expected
- doesn't do much to the exterior of the existing building other than paint it white (maybe it is reclad)
- seems to preserve the parks maintenance on the NW corner for some reason
- doesn't seem to integrate with the existing Teatro building, leaving a narrow and probably useless corridor between the existing building and the expansion
- does it consider the eventual Stephen Ave subway?
Duck Lightning
Active Member
It's just announcing the design of the new Art Commons building, anything else is just placeholder as the designs of the Olympic Plaza and Art Commons revitalizations have yet to be completed
Mull
Active Member
1875
Senior Member
$660mm doesnt get you much these days
makes the arena look like a bargain
makes the arena look like a bargain
DiscoStu
Active Member
outoftheice
Active Member
From the architect on the CMLC page...
“The expansion building’s curved form, exterior cladding, and interior finishes are inspired by Alberta’s dramatic landscapes and the regional lodge typologies,” continued Bridgman.
Okay so me thinking it looks like a dressed up community hall annex isn't far off given they were apparently going for the regional lodge look.
“The expansion building’s curved form, exterior cladding, and interior finishes are inspired by Alberta’s dramatic landscapes and the regional lodge typologies,” continued Bridgman.
Okay so me thinking it looks like a dressed up community hall annex isn't far off given they were apparently going for the regional lodge look.
MissingMiddle
Active Member
The interior functional spaces look nice enough, but it's really not my cup of tea.
It might be the perspective, but the proportioning of the massing seems kind of awkward. I can't make sense of the reasoning for the curves or angles. I find the cladding rather simple, but not in an elegant way. The surrounding steps do nothing but add an accessibility barrier, and the building itself eats up quite a large footprint, with very little density, in a location where outdoor space is a premium.
I'm happy they're embracing timber, but beyond that it's incredibly bland.
It might be the perspective, but the proportioning of the massing seems kind of awkward. I can't make sense of the reasoning for the curves or angles. I find the cladding rather simple, but not in an elegant way. The surrounding steps do nothing but add an accessibility barrier, and the building itself eats up quite a large footprint, with very little density, in a location where outdoor space is a premium.
I'm happy they're embracing timber, but beyond that it's incredibly bland.
ByeByeBaby
Active Member
I hope I was one of the ones confused by the video; why would you spend a bunch of time showing renders of a design you haven't done? That makes no sense whatsoever. I thought they were going 1 for 3. (On the chance that this is a proposed design for the plaza or the reclad; if your design is indistinguishable from a placeholder, you're bad at design.)
The expansion? I like it, some. The exterior looks great; innovative and contemporary without looking stupid. I think it'll frame the plaza well.
The theatre? I'm a little worried from these renders. It looks like it's trying to be all things to all people -- thrust, in-the-round, proscenium, etc. -- without being good at any of them. In a standard proscenium layout, there are three areas, it seems:
The area on the floor near the stage is flat, so sightlines aren't great and you have to hope that the person in front of you has a small head and doesn't like to take pictures with their phone. It also likely means uncomfortable movable seating. This is a good configuration for (as shown here) a band where people might get up and dance, but not as good for theatre, classical music, dance, National Geographic presentations -- you know, the stuff that's in Arts Commons. The balcony is raked (ie slanted), so the sightlines are better, but you're a long ways, maybe 20 rows or so, from the stage. The side balconies mean you're likely to be turned in your seat for the whole show; they really remind me of the boxes in an old opera house -- and the point of sitting in the boxes was not to see, but to be seen.
The other rendering shows an in-the-round configuration with the performance in the middle, which would be really good with this design. But the problem is that this layout is rarely used. For one thing, any touring production will assume a standard (proscenium) stage configuration since that's the most common layout available and you need to do the same show in Boise last week, Calgary tonight and Edmonton tomorrow. And for another, in-the-round is just tough for a lot of shows; you can't really have scenery since it'll block somebody's sightline, costume changes are hard since you can't duck into the wings; it's hard to block action so it's interesting to look at from all angles. It can be done -- the Shakespeare Company did a fantastic Macbeth in-the-round a few years ago -- but it's just tough.
Just as a reference check for folks about theatre sizes; 1000 seats is large, it's bigger than the Max Bell (Theatre Calgary) which is ~800. It's smaller than the Jack Singer (CPO concerts) at 1700 and the Jube at 2500; about the same capacity as the Mac Hall Ballroom*, although this multilevel structure will be better for shows than the big-barn approach. The 200 seat studio theatre is about the size of the Big Secret (OYR) or the Engineered Air theatre; Vertigo also has a ~200 seat black box studio, and Folk Fest's Festival Hall in Inglewood is 200 or so as well. Vertigo's main theatre and the Martha Cohen (ATP) are in the 400 seat range.
*the large concert venue on the lower level, not the old ballroom on the 3rd floor. I wanted to call it 'new' and realized it's now about 25 years old.
The expansion? I like it, some. The exterior looks great; innovative and contemporary without looking stupid. I think it'll frame the plaza well.
The theatre? I'm a little worried from these renders. It looks like it's trying to be all things to all people -- thrust, in-the-round, proscenium, etc. -- without being good at any of them. In a standard proscenium layout, there are three areas, it seems:
The area on the floor near the stage is flat, so sightlines aren't great and you have to hope that the person in front of you has a small head and doesn't like to take pictures with their phone. It also likely means uncomfortable movable seating. This is a good configuration for (as shown here) a band where people might get up and dance, but not as good for theatre, classical music, dance, National Geographic presentations -- you know, the stuff that's in Arts Commons. The balcony is raked (ie slanted), so the sightlines are better, but you're a long ways, maybe 20 rows or so, from the stage. The side balconies mean you're likely to be turned in your seat for the whole show; they really remind me of the boxes in an old opera house -- and the point of sitting in the boxes was not to see, but to be seen.
The other rendering shows an in-the-round configuration with the performance in the middle, which would be really good with this design. But the problem is that this layout is rarely used. For one thing, any touring production will assume a standard (proscenium) stage configuration since that's the most common layout available and you need to do the same show in Boise last week, Calgary tonight and Edmonton tomorrow. And for another, in-the-round is just tough for a lot of shows; you can't really have scenery since it'll block somebody's sightline, costume changes are hard since you can't duck into the wings; it's hard to block action so it's interesting to look at from all angles. It can be done -- the Shakespeare Company did a fantastic Macbeth in-the-round a few years ago -- but it's just tough.
Just as a reference check for folks about theatre sizes; 1000 seats is large, it's bigger than the Max Bell (Theatre Calgary) which is ~800. It's smaller than the Jack Singer (CPO concerts) at 1700 and the Jube at 2500; about the same capacity as the Mac Hall Ballroom*, although this multilevel structure will be better for shows than the big-barn approach. The 200 seat studio theatre is about the size of the Big Secret (OYR) or the Engineered Air theatre; Vertigo also has a ~200 seat black box studio, and Folk Fest's Festival Hall in Inglewood is 200 or so as well. Vertigo's main theatre and the Martha Cohen (ATP) are in the 400 seat range.
*the large concert venue on the lower level, not the old ballroom on the 3rd floor. I wanted to call it 'new' and realized it's now about 25 years old.
DougB
Active Member
not a renewable energy powered, inclusive co-working incubator with EV charging?
trtcttc
Active Member
Design reveal and video. The new building looks a bit bland and generic and a bit too modern considering the Jack Singer entrance next door, a design more integrated with the other facilities would've been nice. Although I do like how we have all these different materials and styles (BMO Centre's new copper, Central library white panels with soft wood interior, and now a timber theme for ACT) for our new facilities instead of a bunch of glass buildings. The video had sections for the Olympic Plaza "redesign" which was confusing, wasn't sure if those are just sample uses or the actual design. I thought phase 1 includes the new building + Olympic Plaza so it was odd to not have a design reveal for that.
trtcttc
Active Member
Isn't the plaza part of phase 1? Odd they don't have designs ready for that. The placeholder showed it converting to an urban park? And never showed any skating uses which I hope isn't the case.
outoftheice
Active Member
@Surrealplaces are we able to get the two active Arts Commons threads merged together?
Colinfill
Active Member
Hard to see but is there green tiles between some of the wood slats? Nice touch if it is because they carry it through into the interior design.
outoftheice
Active Member
This is from the CMLC's website on the project and you are right, it does seem to preserve some of the park's maintenance space on the NW corner for some reason. Seems like an odd missed opportunity unless that is somehow loading docks or something?