ville-marie MBAM - Pavillon pour la Paix Michal et Renata Hornstein

[yarabundi]

Je vais faire un commentaire discordant mais je n'en suis pas à mon premier n'est-ce pas ? Le fait que j'aime ou pas le nouveau projet n'a pas beaucoup d'importance. La disparition des maisons victoriennes je l'ai en travers de la gorge. Je ne croyais pas qu'on pouvait encore sacrifier le patrimoine architectural à Montréal en 2013 -même et surtout au nom de la culture !!!

 

Montréal, ville du design ? Mon cul !!! Le design c'est également la protection de ce que les générations précédentes nous ont légués et là, avec ce nouveau pavillon du MBAM, nous ratons une belle occasion d'être créatifs et d'oser. Plutôt, on a choisi la facilité. Au liue de préserver les maisons et construire quelque chose d'innovateur voire même de précurseur on a préféré la solution bulldozer. Jean Drapeau serait fier de nous !!

Modifié 4 mai 2013 par yarabundi

[Robert Keaghan Jennings]

Je vais faire un commentaire discordant mais je n'en suis pas à mon premier n'est-ce pas ? Le fait que j'aime ou pas le nouveau projet n'a pas beaucoup d'importance. La disparition des maisons victoriennes je l'ai en travers de la gorge. Je ne croyais pas qu'on pouvait encore sacrifier le patrimoine architectural à Montréal en 2013 -même et surtout au nom de la culture !!!

 

Montréal, ville du design ? Mon cul !!! Le design c'est également la protection de ce que les générations précédentes nous ont légués et là, avec ce nouveau pavillon du MBAM, nous ratons une belle occasion d'être créatifs et d'oser. Plutôt, on a choisi la facilité. Au liue de préserver les maisons et construire quelque chose d'innovateur voire même de précurseur on a préféré la solution bulldozer. Jean Drapeau serait fier de nous !!

 

Il faut sérieusement que tous ceux qui s'opposent à ce projet se rallient pour le bloquer. Il faudrait peut-être impliquer la famille qui a fait le don d'oeuvre.

[gars du new jersey]

I really don't mean to be a party-pooper, but it's disheartening to see the MBAM go from the wonderful Claire and Marc Bougie Pavilion (with the Erskine and American Church integrated beautifully) to this mediocrity - all the while destroying two greystones, both seemingly with perfectly good bones, and which offset the drab modernity of the Hall Building across the street. I don't know if it's because the province is footing the bill, but it's discouraging.

[denpanosekai]

Not a party pooper. I'm not impressed with the new building AND getting rid of our beauties.

 

I'm a terrible leader and I wouldn't even know where to start. If anyone's organizing anything, anywhere, I'll be there. Just make sure to call the cops first because I don't want a P6 ticket on my ass.

[MtlMan]

Vous poussez un peu fort. Rangez vos pics et vos pioches svp. Une médiocrité? La Tour des Canadiens c'est quoi alors? Ou la plupart des projets de Griffintown? Bon, je comprends que le principal hic c'est qu'il faille détruire les maisons victoriennes. Mais ce genre de bâtiment, il n'y en a pas à Montréal. Si ça remplaçait un terrain vague, on serait contents en maudit.

 

C'est choquant pour le petites maisons. Je vous l'accorde.

[ProposMontréal]

Je crois que certain d'entre vous y aller un peu rude. Personnellement, je n'haïs pas ce type de design. Ça sort de l'ordinaire et des boîtes carré.

Ce design sera rendu dans la qualité des matériaux choisis et si le produit est de qualité, ça se présentera beaucoup mieux.

 

N'oubliez cher collègues forumeurs que tous les goûts sont dans la nature, ce n'est pas parce que VOUS trouvez ça affreux qu'automatiquement, ce l'est.

 

La où je suis d'accord avec vous est qu'il sera triste de détruire les deux premiers petits bâtiments au sud du musée sur Bishop. Pendant ce temps, on discute encore des bâtiements rue Ste-Catherine coin Jeanne-Mance qui pourrait faire place à la tour du QDS.

 

[gars du new jersey]

Une médiocrité? La Tour des Canadiens c'est quoi alors? Ou la plupart des projets de Griffintown?

 

C'est plusieurs milliers de nouveaux résidents qui vont soutenir des dizaines de nouveaux commerces et qui vont animer des quartiers entiers (tout financé par le privé)?

 

Si ça remplaçait un terrain vague, on serait contents en maudit.

 

True. But it's not an empty lot. It's a cultural institution tearing down the city's built heritage for what is (in my opinion) a somewhat generic building - if you saw it in New York, or Rotterdam, or anywhere in the western world, would you look twice? - on a street that's already lost half of its historic charm and half its streetlife thanks to the hulking, windowless Hall Building across the street. I just don't think that some forms that have been torqued around on Autocad with haphazard glazing (Je pense à la tôle ondulée du CRCHUM) are inherently great replacements for two quintessential golden square mile victorians. Maybe I'm cranky, but that's my two cents.

Modifié 4 mai 2013 par gars du new jersey

[denpanosekai]

I share your two cents. I would have been happy with preserved facades. Completely torn down is a huge shame.

 

.... speaking of Hall building, any chance for a recladding?

[internationalx]

Hmmm... they are lovely little greystones, but are they worthy of landmark status? The two farther south are of much better quality, one of them much more interesting. Don't get me wrong, I deplore the demolition of heritage buildings but there is so little of the original Victorian street-scape left here on Bishop, what with the Safdie building and the Hall Building on the other end, that it could be convincingly argued that keeping a couple of houses doesn't add up to much here contextually, especially when it's being replaced by an expansion of the MMFA.

 

So on topic is this debate going on in NYC right now about MOMA's expansion. It seems museums get a pass when it comes to historic preservation:

 

http://www.nytimes.com/2013/05/05/realestate/momas-history-of-demolishing-potential-landmarks.html?ref=realestate&_r=1&

 

Back to Montreal, I actually like the proposed pavilion's design on its own merit, what is making me cringe somewhat is that we are adding on the incoherent hodgepodge of buildings that make-up the museum. I would rather have gone to Moshe Safdie and had him design what is a natural expansion of the Desmarais Pavilion.

[Robert Keaghan Jennings]

I often see people debating on this forum about what buildings are worth preserving based on aesthetic criteria. Some people think that only the most ornate manors or the most stately office buildings merit preservation. Others point to particular styles they feel are most worthy. Some people seem to want the entire city to be uniformly modern. Ultimately these kind of criteria can only be subjective. To escape this I think we need broader criteria for designating historical properties rather than narrower.

For example, we could make an overarching rule that protects buildings by their age, rather than their style. For instance all structurally sound buildings over 30 years old could be protected from demolition or major modification of facades. Many European cities have such rules. This settles the subjective question of taste while favouring a diversity of styles, a pluralistic, constructive approach. The goal should be to preserve the overall character of the city's past, the collective memory. This means preserving the humble residences of the working class of the early 20th century, or perhaps the social housing projects that so many people built their lives around from the 50s to the 80s.

Why do we feel entitled to point to certain styles as successful (mostly the buildings of those with means), and others as failures (mostly the buildings of the poor)?

Hmmm... they are lovely little greystones, but are they worthy of landmark status? The two farther south are of much better quality, one of them much more interesting. Don't get me wrong, I deplore the demolition of heritage buildings but there is so little of the original Victorian street-scape left here on Bishop, what with the Safdie building and the Hall Building on the other end, that it could be convincingly argued that keeping a couple of houses doesn't add up to much here contextually, especially when it's being replaced by an expansion of the MMFA.

 

So on topic is this debate going on in NYC right now about MOMA's expansion. It seems museums get a pass when it comes to historic preservation:

 

http://www.nytimes.com/2013/05/05/realestate/momas-history-of-demolishing-potential-landmarks.html?ref=realestate&_r=1&

 

Back to Montreal, I actually like the proposed pavilion's design on its own merit, what is making me cringe somewhat is that we are adding on the incoherent hodgepodge of buildings that make-up the museum. I would rather have gone to Moshe Safdie and had him design what is a natural expansion of the Desmarais Pavilion.