ultravires.ca
OPINIONS
November 28, 2018 | 5
Reconsidering the Jackman Building A response to “The Jackman Law Building Sucks” TOM COLLINS (2L) In 1478, members of the Pazzi family staged a gitimate and fundamentally human. coup d’état against the powerful Medici family. However, Quintilian, the Roman rhetoriDuring High Mass at Florence Cathedral, as cian, once mused that beauty is usefulness. Certhe bishop raised the Host into the air, two as- tainly, it is reasonable to expect buildings to do sassins lunged toward Giuliano de’ Medici, more than look good. Rather than measuring a stabbing him nineteen times. He died, but his building’s worth against arbitrary criteria, inbrother, Lorenzo, escaped. formed only by immediate, In the aftermath, the visceral responses to design Medici hunted down eighty choices that one does not Mohtadi’s article is suspected conspirators understand, one should remeant to be satirical, throughout Italy and execalibrate one’s aesthetics to cuted them all. However, reflect the nature of a but satire demands a as one author writes, it was studied appreciation of building. After all, one more than mere retribuwould not call a lemon a its subject. Without tion for the attempted as“bad orange,” simply bethat, it succumbs to its cause it failed to be sweet. sassinations; it was also punishment for their failThe Jackman building is own ridicule. ure. a work of architecture. My motivation for writWriting about Le Corbusiing this article is similar. In the October issue of er’s revolutionary “Maison Dom-ino,” Peter UV, Matthew Mohtadi (1L) penned a half-sar- Eisenman, the famed deconstructivist architect, donic, half-satirical critique of the Jackman observed that “architecture is both substance Law Building. His polemic’s irrationality struck and act”. In other words, architecture is more me more than its irreverence. The Jackman than mere geometric planes or structure. Archibuilding deserved better than Mohtadi’s clumsy tecture occurs when “use conditions” imbue indignities. With this article, I hope to set things those things with meaning. For example, a straight. staircase is only a series of recessions and elevaI disagree not only with Mohtadi’s conclu- tions into space until someone walks on it. The sion—that the building “sucks”—but also with act of walking up or down, to reach another the analysis that led him to that conclusion. Al- level, gives the formal substance of the staircase though I understand Mohtadi’s frustration with meaning. That act defines and justifies the subthe Jackman building’s restrained aesthetics, I stance of the staircase form. Thus, architects believe that a more sympathetic and purposive like Le Corbusier and Eisenman would, at least, evaluation of the building reveals its merits and agree that the most sensible criteria by which that those merits outweigh its flaws. Ultimately, architecture could be judged is functionality. In I do not position myself an apologist for an im- plain English, functionality describes how well perfect building; I simply take a more generous a thing does what it was intended to do. view of our home away from home. As I implied above, Mohtadi’s article adduces Before turning to my own assessment, it is no evidence that the Jackman building fails to useful to briefly review Mohtadi’s article, satisfy the only legitimate purpose that one wherein, he rails against the Jackman building’s could ascribe to it as a building. Mohtadi makes “blandness” and “monotony”. Mohtadi de- no substantive criticism of the building at all. claims the “rectangular columns” which adorn Indeed, it is ironic that, in his diatribe, he referthe outside of the building, finding them “bor- ences two of the building’s greatest functional ing and unimaginative.” Mohtadi also finds the successes: the carpets and the sun shades. interior simultaneously too white and too grey. Mohtadi may have hoped for livelier floor covIn his opinion, it is simultaneously dreary and ering, but he cannot deny the dampening qualstress-inducing. The lack of art also contributes ity of the library’s carpeted floors, which allow to the building’s dullness. Mohtadi takes to the students to come and go in relative silence. atrium’s fireplace for reasons other than its It is also clear that he gave little thought to drabness. Nevertheless, his dismissal of the fire- the practical implications of the sort of uninterplace fits in with the rest of his criticisms in that rupted glass expanse about which he fantasizes. it turns wholly on a question of aesthetics. Apart from the structural considerations of A close reading of Mohtadi’s article reveals bending forces and buckling, such a huge that its title is too bold for its scope. When he amount of glass would be very inefficient to heat says that the Jackman building sucks, what he in the winter, and it would cause a greenhouse really means is that it is ugly. Mohtadi’s disen- effect in the summer. Those consequences chantment is understandable. Despite the fact would undermine the LEED Gold rating that that the building engages all of our faculties, for the school sought during the design phase (the those of us who can see, vision can dominate building actually has a LEED Silver rating). our experience of space. Hence, we are willing Moreover, in all seasons, the glare from the to cut more slack to a building that appears sun would make reading in Torys most unpleasbeautiful, in spite of its other shortcomings. ant. In addition to all of those problems, the sort Take, for example, Ludwig Mies Van der Ro- of fenestration Mohtadi describes would be dethe’s Seagram building in New York. It is one of rimental to the local bird population. As the the most iconic, admired, and imitated build- ratio of glass to solid wall increases, so does the ings, even though it is also one of the least en- risk of bird collisions. It is estimated that 25 milergy efficient. Wanting to behold beauty is le- lion birds die each year from window collisions
in Canada (Machtans, Wedeles and Bayne, down, I appreciate the opportunity to cast my 2013). Many of those occur in Toronto, which is gaze upwards and absorb some sunlight. The not only heavily developed, but lies within a ma- interior’s light, neutral palette is calming and uplifting. It helps to create a space in which I jor migration route. Indeed, Mohtadi’s glass walls could be in con- feel comfortable stopping to chat with my travention of section 14 of the Environmental Pro- friends—an aspect of law school life which, I tection Act, which prohibits windows that reflect believe, may be as important as our academics. According to Canadian Architect, the Jackman light as a contaminant―partly as a means of protecting birds, who could be injured by the Law building was conceived as a means of uniglare. Mohtadi’s glass walls would also risk vio- fying a formerly fragmented faculty so as to betlating section 32 of the Species at Risk Act, if an ter foster a sense of community. It may be true endangered bird were to die from colliding with that some classes are still taught in Falconer the glass. The 183 “square columns” are not Hall, but Jackman remains the focal point of life merely ornamentation—they mitigate the above at the law school. Before I conclude, it is worth saying a word problems. The lines on the glass are also part of that scheme. The fact that their function eluded on the Jackman building’s aesthetics. Mohtadi is at pains to denounce the building’s formal Mohtadi may be evidence of their effectiveness. Yet, there were many legitimate criticisms qualities, but his insults betray his impatience. that Mohtadi could have made. The Jackman The Jackman building, much like the law, warbuilding is fraught with design choices that com- rants a careful and nuanced reading. For one promise its functionality. The uneven heating is thing, the building’s design is not haphazard. probably the most noticeable problem. While As Canadian Architect observed, the main pavilsome spaces are comfortable, rooms like the ion’s curvature and fenestration echo the FiMoot Court Room and the Torys Reading nance Building on the southeastern corner of Room are frigid year-round. Torys is also Queen’s Park. While Jackman is a unique explagued by the irritating whine of its HVAC sys- pression, it remains contextually sensitive. It is a tem. There is also the extreme weight of the mercifully humble addition to an architectural doors. Although the school should be commend- landscape that, I believe, could suffer at the ed for making its spaces accessible with auto- hands of ego and brand-driven design. Indeed, the law building is not unlike the best matic doors, the opening mechanisms make it challenging and slow to open a door manually. expressions of the common law, the study of And then there is the infernal fire door which which it fosters: it is an incremental change to its connects the atrium to Flavelle. Not only is that site’s character, respecting established princidoor too heavy, but it is absurdly narrow for ples while responding to novel circumstances. such a high-traffic portal. The reason for its ex- Again, the sun shades play a central role in that achievement. As one of the istence is unclear. Jackman building’s distincMohtadi could also have noted the obvious design The Jackman building, tive features, it is unfortunate that Mohtadi afforded flaw that study room P336, much like the law, them so little considerin the library, is not soundwarrants a careful and ation. proofed. Or, he could have Even in material terms, commented on the bathnuanced reading. the building’s exterior disrooms’ numerous shortplays a sensible use of local comings. I can only speak to my time in the too-small men’s rooms, which materials. Canadian Architect put it well: the crescent-shaped pavilion introduces an have too few urinals to accommodate the numelemental palette of oversized glass panes ber of visitors at peak times. The sinks, particupunctuated by vertical nickel fins which sit larly on the basement level, are too narrow, upon a stone base of dry-laid Wiarton limewhich leads to huge puddles around them. stone—a material whose softly figured, Furthermore, having only one hand-dryer for dove-grey patina works beautifully with the every three facilities also fails to accommodate gold-tinted silver hues of the nickel. The the number of visitors at peak times. Having glass panels of the reskinned library pavilhand-dryers at all is questionable, given their ion sandwich a layer of brass mesh, giving it tendency to whip up an unfortunate potpourri its own warm expression. of fecal spores. Finally, while I, unlike Mohtadi, generally appreciate the patina of a well-used For Mohtadi, the Jackman building’s exterior concrete floor, the use of concrete in the wash- begins and ends at its failure to match the forrooms is ill-conceived, given its porosity and its mal potency of Flavelle’s pastiche portico. Mohtadi’s article is meant to be satirical, but reactivity to acids. Despite the above criticisms, I find the Jack- satire demands a studied appreciation of its subman building serves its intended function well. ject. Without that, it succumbs to its own ridiThe classrooms have enough seating to comfort- cule. While purporting to show the poverty of ably accommodate the students they host. The the building’s design, Mohtadi forgoes any subrooms’ acoustics are decent. They have good stantive and informed criticism. Instead, he lighting and sufficient conveniently located out- runs through an arbitrary assessment of aeslets. I also appreciate the atrium’s lightness and thetics. I agree that the Jackman building is not openness. As someone who finds himself teth- perfect. Nevertheless, on the balance, I find that ered to his reading for most of the day, looking it serves its purpose well.
