519 replies to this topic

[aastra]

Question: is the plan to move the entire gallery?

What would happen to the Rockland site?

[G-Man]

No that is the problem they are planning on keeping the Rockland site because the new potential one will not be big enough.

Sorry but having two mediocre galleries is a big waste of money.

[gumgum]

There is a Crystal Court thread already btw...

[url=http://imageshack.us:1049b][/url:1049b]

[Rob Randall]

Sorry, I didn't see the other thread over on page 2.

The AGGV has been struggling for many years for a satellite gallery downtown. What I've been hearing is that this is probably the best deal the AGGV will likely get.

They are reluctant to give up the Spencer Mansion on Moss Street as it would be used for curatorial and storage--uses that might be too expensive downtown on more expensive real estate.

The AGGV would own their Crystal Court space and presumably could move to a consolidated location one day.

It will be an extraordinary effort to raise sufficient funds from the various levels of government to make the Crystal Court gallery a reality before 2010. The AGGV is determined to have the gallery open before this date.

[G-Man]

Lack of money is NOT the problem. It is lack of political will to push this through. If city hall got on board and said we are going to have an amazing downtown art gallery than we would have one.

The simple fact that a gallery is having to pair with a condo development to even get this meek proposal off the ground is a testament to the lack of political will to see a new gallery.

There are ways of doing this. But the city has to be on board and so far I have heard very little.

Moving to a consolidated location someday is crap and a big waste of money. If you build a 20 million dollar gallery today and a 80 million dollar one in 10 years then you basically just blew 20 million for nothing. Build a 50 million dollar gallery now that will last for the next 50 or 60 years and save me the taxpayer some money and on top of that you will get more visitors and bring in more money!!! Plus you can then sell the other site and bring in more money.

[Nparker]

I reiterate my thought of AGGV as part of a new Civic centre at Centennial Square. Started today could be ready for the Sesquicentennial in 2012. Of course this means getting the city AND province on board.

[Icebergalley]

No that is the problem they are planning on keeping the Rockland site because the new potential one will not be big enough.

Sorry but having two mediocre galleries is a big waste of money.

I never have considered the AGGV as a mediocre gallery... a community work in progress, but not mediocre..

[G-Man]

Perhaps 'mediocre' is a poor choice of words perhaps 'paltry' would be better.

Compared to galleries in cities of similar size in other places in the world it is indeed substandard.

Don't think of these comments as any reflection on what they have been able to achieve in that space, I am quite impressed by that.

I am not sure of the percentage but I believe that it is in the 15 to 20 percent range of gallery property that can actually be shown at one time. The rest must live in storage because there is just no room for it. That is a tragedy.

[m0nkyman]

I'd agree with G-Man here.

And this concept just lame.

Hmmm. Centennial Square needs to be livened up. We need a proper gallery space. We need a proper library. Why nobody at city hall can get three when they add 1+1+1 is beyond me.

[Nparker]

I think City Hall must be using a base2 math system.

[Ms. B. Havin]

Well, maybe for once Victoria is [url=http://www.nysun.com/article/51659?page_no=1:f4dd5]right up there (down there?) with Manhattan[/url:f4dd5]... :? Some critics are raking that city over the coals for failing to step up to the plate with a signature arts complex, too. Heck, performing arts centre, gallery, library? What do you think this is? Europe? :wink:

[Icebergalley]

Do the DRA or the JBEA forumers have more than a site plan that can be posted?

[Icebergalley]

Perhaps 'mediocre' is a poor choice of words perhaps 'paltry' would be better.

Compared to galleries in cities of similar size in other places in the world it is indeed substandard.

Don't think of these comments as any reflection on what they have been able to achieve in that space, I am quite impressed by that.

I am not sure of the percentage but I believe that it is in the 15 to 20 percent range of gallery property that can actually be shown at one time. The rest must live in storage because there is just no room for it. That is a tragedy.

There's been a lot of words used to say that the AGGV needs a larger and better located facility.

I can only conclude that many forumers disagree with the AGGV's current direction.

How much space do they need? What are the location requirements?

[Baro]

The project has been bumped up to around 4.28 now, or maybe it always was. I just hope they get rid of these silly surface parking spots.

[G-Man]

Iceberg - IMO they need about 40 000 sqft maybe a bit more. That way they have the exhibition space. They would be able to dispose of the Mosss Street facility and they could increase their display of their current holdings. There would also be some room for expansion in a facility this size.

I listened to Shirley Madill this morning on CBC and this current version will cost 14 million. So that would put a 40 000 sqft gallery in the 25 million range still seems cheap and we can have a world class gallery.

[gumgum]

Apparently the Vancouver Art Gallery is looking for another location. They only have 3% of their pieces on display.

[G-Man]

How big is the Vancouver Gallery? I guess about 70 - 90 000 sqft?

[gumgum]

According to Wikipedia, it has 41,000 sq feet of exhibition space.

[Holden West]

VAG eyes new location

I wonder what would be a good use for the present high-profile court house building.

[Rob Randall]

Tomorrow (April 11) is the JBNEA Land Use Committee meeting at the James Bay New Horizons, 234 Menzies St. at 6:30 pm regarding the proposal for the Crystal Court tower/AGGV.