Vancouver expects to be the focus of world attention in 2010, naturally, but there’s a good chance we’ll be upstaged by Shanghai – the host of a world’s fair that year. No doubt of that when it comes to architecture.
Here’s what we’ll be putting forth as a design statement – the Richmond speed-skating oval:
Here’s the UK pavilion for Shanghai:
[Designed by the Heatherwick Studio,] it is composed of 100,000 LED-tipped “cilia,” which the architect anticipates will be made of bamboo. Its facade not only lends the building an ethereal fuzziness, but also transforms it into a pixelated 3-D video billboard. Inside the cocoon-like interior, the rods’ tips will invert the facade to create a fully immersive, light-rich experience for the 40,000 visitors expected per day. …
The external “screen” will display morphing graphics related to Britain, designed by U.K. artists with real-time input from visitors. Despite all the movement, the building’s main job is to leave a fixed impression. After all, it will stand only for the expo’s six-month duration. Says Wood: “We have to create an image that can burn into people’s memory.”
There’s a big difference in architectural expectation between an Olympics and a World’s Fair. But will Vancouver have built anything that can ‘burn into people’s memory’?
I think the Olympics is about sport, not architecture.
Which building from Torino was memorable?
Hmmm – that was the historic bell tower in the heart of the City – not an Olympic venue.
The highlight will be the athletic achievements, not the architecture, and not the cultural events.
Yeah, but building a building, whether it houses sports or offices or homes or whatever, is all about architecture, so our sports venues should be strong buildings.
That said, I don’t like the UK pavilion as a permanent structure at least. It’s too flashy, draws way too much attention to itself, and it would look out of place in any environment. And that’s without the lights blaring out moving images.
I wonder if we can take a more critical approach: should we be constructing iconic buildings for the Olympics? Is “burning Vancouver into people’s memory,” through signature buildings or otherwise, a worthy goal? What do its residents stand to gain from doing so?
One possible sequence of outcomes for the city: more iconic buildings -> increased global recognition -> increased competition among transnational elites for very limited housing -> higher housing prices -> deepening inequality and homelessness.
That’s an extrapolation, of course, but not entirely unlikely. In this real estate market, there are some arguments to be made for building average-looking buildings. I want to advocate that we think carefully about the processes underlying high-profile development before we fall back on the old call for more world-class architecture.
Vancouver 2010 is about hopsting a successful sporting event, it is not about temporary and flashy design. The principles of the 2010 Olympics are centered around the idea of sustainability and developing usable and functional legacies. Clearly, the UK Pavillion is an example of an attempt to draw attention, however, Vancouver doesn’t need a flashy bit of architecture to do that, it’s got some pretty dramatic landscapes and natural features and some legacies that will serve their purpose. I am pleased Vancouver is developing functional and usable design, anything like the UK Pavillion would be a move away from the ideals of the Vancouver movement.
I agree with the assertion that, “Vancouver 2010 is about hosting a successful…event…not about temporary and flashy design.”
And I’d like to add that I think the successful incorporation of wood, as a structural and aesthetic element that people can relate to, within modern design (e.g. the richmond oval) will be a memorable achiement.
As a side note – what do people think about the impending demolition of an Expo 86 legacy building – Enterprise Hall – for the new art gallery? That’s an example of event-based iconic architecture in Vancouver. I think it should be retained and the art gallery should be built behind or near it (after all, art galleries are windowless spaces (all the windows are blocked off at the current art gallery), so why is it on the waterfront?)
The Plaza of Nations roof is gone and the west block has already been demolished (to provide expanded parking (in the short term) I hear). Despite what the newspapers say, the entire complex was meant to be “permanent”, not “temporary”. Just look at the amount of concrete and rebar in pictures of the west block demolition and you’ll see it was not meant to be temporary.
I don’t understand why the art gallery is on the waterfront either.