The WSJ article is behind a paywall, so I wasn't able to read it.
1. Is the project a go?
2. How much money do they have in hand (not pledged or projected) to finish it?
FLW's Banff Pavilion to be rebuilt
-
Roderick Grant
- Posts: 11815
- Joined: Wed Mar 29, 2006 7:48 am
-
KayFrancis
- Posts: 33
- Joined: Fri Sep 02, 2016 4:21 pm
-
Roderick Grant
- Posts: 11815
- Joined: Wed Mar 29, 2006 7:48 am
Perhaps silence is the natural response of some, at least, to what's been presented so far on this project ?
How about this: the image appearing in the most recently-linked article is captioned "An architectural rendering of Frank Lloyd Wright's Banff Pavilion
created by Ryerson University researchers."
In fact it is no such thing; rather, the drawing partially reproduced is the work of Frank Lloyd Wright and/or his appointed illustrator, dating to the
time of the original commission. Such work is properly credited to the Frank Lloyd Wright Foundation, with indication of copyright.
Other illustrations of the proposed reconstruction that have been published leave something to be desired, as well, in my opinion. One has difficulty
working up great enthusiasm for the project, given what's been written and shown so far -- I'm sorry to say.
Getting such a project off the ground -- acquiring funding, arranging for sponsors, publicizing the existence of the effort -- are difficult and
challenging; few such efforts have been successful, though (many) Wright enthusiasts hold out hope that successful recreations will occur.
But they also worry that, once completed, a project might fall short of success: failure would consist of a less-than-faithful realization of a Wright
design, poorly sited or inadequately crafted, for instance. The same standards that are applied to restoration and conservation of existing historic
fabric should, presumably, apply to recreation of lost or unbuilt architecture.
So, it is disappointing, if not troubling, to see in the early stages of a pending project those standards failing in any way to be adhered to. Silence
might be indicative of doubts in the minds of Wright enthusiasts, here; I can speak only for myself. If others have questions, perhaps they can be aired;
that's what we're here for. But I couldn't blame those readers and members who have nothing to say about the matter, for remaining out of the picture;
few good men and women take pleasure in pouring cold water on the hopeful sparks of an idea.
SDR
How about this: the image appearing in the most recently-linked article is captioned "An architectural rendering of Frank Lloyd Wright's Banff Pavilion
created by Ryerson University researchers."
In fact it is no such thing; rather, the drawing partially reproduced is the work of Frank Lloyd Wright and/or his appointed illustrator, dating to the
time of the original commission. Such work is properly credited to the Frank Lloyd Wright Foundation, with indication of copyright.
Other illustrations of the proposed reconstruction that have been published leave something to be desired, as well, in my opinion. One has difficulty
working up great enthusiasm for the project, given what's been written and shown so far -- I'm sorry to say.
Getting such a project off the ground -- acquiring funding, arranging for sponsors, publicizing the existence of the effort -- are difficult and
challenging; few such efforts have been successful, though (many) Wright enthusiasts hold out hope that successful recreations will occur.
But they also worry that, once completed, a project might fall short of success: failure would consist of a less-than-faithful realization of a Wright
design, poorly sited or inadequately crafted, for instance. The same standards that are applied to restoration and conservation of existing historic
fabric should, presumably, apply to recreation of lost or unbuilt architecture.
So, it is disappointing, if not troubling, to see in the early stages of a pending project those standards failing in any way to be adhered to. Silence
might be indicative of doubts in the minds of Wright enthusiasts, here; I can speak only for myself. If others have questions, perhaps they can be aired;
that's what we're here for. But I couldn't blame those readers and members who have nothing to say about the matter, for remaining out of the picture;
few good men and women take pleasure in pouring cold water on the hopeful sparks of an idea.
SDR
Having read only what is visible in the WSJ link I'm left with these questions:
-Are there new developments to this story from those published in late 2017?
-Is the Banff property holder prepared to authorize archeological excavation of a baseball diamond in the middle of baseball season to search for the foundation remnants of a 200' long demolished building?
-Is the proposed recreation to be constructed on its original flood prone site?
-Is the proposed recreation to be constructed on the same site, but raised above a documented flood elevation?
-Is the proposed recreation to be constructed on another nearby site?
-What changes are to be made to the original design to incorporate modern technology, address present day energy codes, and provide for universal access by those with disabilities?
-Has an architect been found who is willing to work pro-bono on what is a complicated and historically sensitive undertaking? Or, are the organizers of this project now considering compensating professionals for their efforts and expertise?
-Are there new developments to this story from those published in late 2017?
-Is the Banff property holder prepared to authorize archeological excavation of a baseball diamond in the middle of baseball season to search for the foundation remnants of a 200' long demolished building?
-Is the proposed recreation to be constructed on its original flood prone site?
-Is the proposed recreation to be constructed on the same site, but raised above a documented flood elevation?
-Is the proposed recreation to be constructed on another nearby site?
-What changes are to be made to the original design to incorporate modern technology, address present day energy codes, and provide for universal access by those with disabilities?
-Has an architect been found who is willing to work pro-bono on what is a complicated and historically sensitive undertaking? Or, are the organizers of this project now considering compensating professionals for their efforts and expertise?
-
KayFrancis
- Posts: 33
- Joined: Fri Sep 02, 2016 4:21 pm
Let me answer DRN's last question first. If you had read the Calgary newspaper's link above, you would discover that no, an architect who is willing to work pro bono on this complicated project has not been found. SEVEN architects apparently willing to work pro bono on this project have been found. From an institution which I have heard referred to as "The Harvard of Canada". And I'm not privy to information to answer any of the other questions. Ask the people working on it.
Now referring to silence, gee, I thought maybe the silence had something to do with the fact that with these positive developments, all of the nonsense and dire predictions made in the earlier part of this thread have been proven completely wrong, and because all of have nothing to say except that you have been completely full of s***. I'm especially perturbed by you SDR (in all of your posts and replies), as someone who has proclaimed himself the go to, bona-fide expert on Wright, who sits back and proclaims how everyone else should go about doing their Wright related business, while you sit on your thumb and do nothing. Though you state "Wright enthusiasts hold out hope that successful recreations will occur", what the hell are you doing about it? Get off the internet, stop playing Candy Crush, and move out of your parent's basement. There's an an actual, beautiful world out there, an "Organic" world, as Mr. Wright might say.
Now referring to silence, gee, I thought maybe the silence had something to do with the fact that with these positive developments, all of the nonsense and dire predictions made in the earlier part of this thread have been proven completely wrong, and because all of have nothing to say except that you have been completely full of s***. I'm especially perturbed by you SDR (in all of your posts and replies), as someone who has proclaimed himself the go to, bona-fide expert on Wright, who sits back and proclaims how everyone else should go about doing their Wright related business, while you sit on your thumb and do nothing. Though you state "Wright enthusiasts hold out hope that successful recreations will occur", what the hell are you doing about it? Get off the internet, stop playing Candy Crush, and move out of your parent's basement. There's an an actual, beautiful world out there, an "Organic" world, as Mr. Wright might say.
Oh, good -- a troll appears on Wright Chat. We haven't had one of those in, what, eight years now ?
The last one was eventually banned for uncivil behavior, namely ad hominem attacks on other readers. Let's not entertain more of that . . .
Dan's questions are the pertinent ones, and they need to be asked no matter who has signed on to this project. I doubt that anyone would be happy with a
"Pavilion-on-the-Mound" solution to the flooding problem, for instance; no one can wave a wand and make a flood-prone site into a permanently dry one. I
for one would prefer an alternate site; I assume that's been explored. Is it out of the question, now ? There's no point in reviving a Wright building that pokes
a stick in the designer's proverbial eye. Wright drew a long low structure on an essentially flat site, with the mountains as a backdrop. Nothing less would do
as a recreation of that design -- would it ? Those answering in the negative might be suspect, as carriers of the torch -- it seems to me.
What is the rush to proceed with this effort ? Without suggesting anything sinister, I could point out that those promoting civic works are sometimes found to
be in a position to profit from the result. I hope that isn't the case here, but it's one possible ingredient.
SDR
The last one was eventually banned for uncivil behavior, namely ad hominem attacks on other readers. Let's not entertain more of that . . .
Dan's questions are the pertinent ones, and they need to be asked no matter who has signed on to this project. I doubt that anyone would be happy with a
"Pavilion-on-the-Mound" solution to the flooding problem, for instance; no one can wave a wand and make a flood-prone site into a permanently dry one. I
for one would prefer an alternate site; I assume that's been explored. Is it out of the question, now ? There's no point in reviving a Wright building that pokes
a stick in the designer's proverbial eye. Wright drew a long low structure on an essentially flat site, with the mountains as a backdrop. Nothing less would do
as a recreation of that design -- would it ? Those answering in the negative might be suspect, as carriers of the torch -- it seems to me.
What is the rush to proceed with this effort ? Without suggesting anything sinister, I could point out that those promoting civic works are sometimes found to
be in a position to profit from the result. I hope that isn't the case here, but it's one possible ingredient.
SDR
Last edited by SDR on Fri Jun 01, 2018 7:55 pm, edited 1 time in total.
-
flwromanza
- Posts: 96
- Joined: Tue Nov 15, 2011 2:41 pm
Hi guys, I heard there was a little brouhaha about the Pavilion going on, so I came back for one post only. I ask here and now, Kay Francis, will you marry me? I checked with my wife, and it’s okay with her. Seriously, though, I look forward to meeting you when I come to Whitefish in a few weeks. To everyone else, ta-ta.
http://ryersonian.ca/team-of-ryerson-pr ... -pavilion/
From what I can understand, Ryerson is a school of journalism based in Toronto. It seems they have an architectural science department. Yew-Thong
Leong would be leading the project.
From the article:
[...�We cannot use modern construction technology because the materials to suit modern processes are very different,� Leong said. “Back in the day, the construction techniques were restricted. We are going back in time.�
A budget has not been finalized for the re-build. An estimate made in the 1980s puts the cost of the building at $2 million, according to the Frank Lloyd Wright Revival Initiative’s project brief. The Town of Banff made another estimate of $8 million in 2016.
Construction is set to begin in spring 2019, if all goes as planned.
Eshpeter says getting this building back is long overdue.
“We’re trying to correct an historical wrong and put back something that should never have come down.�... ]
http://www.arch.ryerson.ca/programs/m-arch/
https://www.ryerson.ca/graduate/architecture/
Faculty:
http://www.arch.ryerson.ca/people/full-time-faculty/
From what I can understand, Ryerson is a school of journalism based in Toronto. It seems they have an architectural science department. Yew-Thong
Leong would be leading the project.
From the article:
[...�We cannot use modern construction technology because the materials to suit modern processes are very different,� Leong said. “Back in the day, the construction techniques were restricted. We are going back in time.�
A budget has not been finalized for the re-build. An estimate made in the 1980s puts the cost of the building at $2 million, according to the Frank Lloyd Wright Revival Initiative’s project brief. The Town of Banff made another estimate of $8 million in 2016.
Construction is set to begin in spring 2019, if all goes as planned.
Eshpeter says getting this building back is long overdue.
“We’re trying to correct an historical wrong and put back something that should never have come down.�... ]
http://www.arch.ryerson.ca/programs/m-arch/
https://www.ryerson.ca/graduate/architecture/
Faculty:
http://www.arch.ryerson.ca/people/full-time-faculty/
A group of seven professors in different facets of the architectural, engineering, and project management sphere, working with their graduate students. I’m assuming at least one of them has a current professional license. That is an ingenious work around to the issue of the many effort hours required to complete the design and engineering work and the need for those doing the work to eat and have shelter from rain and snow as they do it.... the participants, the professors at least, will be paid under their existing salaries and research grants at the university; the grad students will pay their tuitions and work on an interesting effort.
This model has worked for some smaller projects, the Solar Decathlon Exhibition Houses, and college design/build studios such as the Rural Studio. But these are relatively small projects, some of them temporary. An $8 million development of a facility open to the public, involving a publicly owned site, and presumably some amount of taxpayer funding is far more complicated. The building will need to be designed to meet the present day requirements I outlined above, while still maintaining a high level of integrity to the original design, AND have a level of durability that can be maintained in the long term with a reasonable level of effort and cost.
Is the Ryerson team responsible for just the building, or the building and its site? In 1911-14, cars were not as prevalent, nor was the need for managing stormwater run off from impervious land cover. Design of the proposed site will be just as important as the building itself.
I wish the team well.
This model has worked for some smaller projects, the Solar Decathlon Exhibition Houses, and college design/build studios such as the Rural Studio. But these are relatively small projects, some of them temporary. An $8 million development of a facility open to the public, involving a publicly owned site, and presumably some amount of taxpayer funding is far more complicated. The building will need to be designed to meet the present day requirements I outlined above, while still maintaining a high level of integrity to the original design, AND have a level of durability that can be maintained in the long term with a reasonable level of effort and cost.
Is the Ryerson team responsible for just the building, or the building and its site? In 1911-14, cars were not as prevalent, nor was the need for managing stormwater run off from impervious land cover. Design of the proposed site will be just as important as the building itself.
I wish the team well.
-
Roderick Grant
- Posts: 11815
- Joined: Wed Mar 29, 2006 7:48 am
-
KayFrancis
- Posts: 33
- Joined: Fri Sep 02, 2016 4:21 pm
Being fairly new to the internet, I don't know what a troll is. If it is a person who levels accurate assessments of extraordinarily flawed individuals, then I'm a troll. I believe in this project, and I don't like people whose criticisms are proven completely wrong who not only won't admit it, but then come back with more criticisms. And maybe I'm missing something, but I'm not aware of anyone asking for your opinions OR criticisms, constructive or otherwise, in the first place.
FLW Romanza, I look forward to meeting you and your wife too. Please in future contact me by that Messenger thing on Facebook.
FLW Romanza, I look forward to meeting you and your wife too. Please in future contact me by that Messenger thing on Facebook.