In a 2022 interview with Toronto Life, architect Frank Gehry was asked what made the city special to him. “I was born in Toronto, and it was my home until I was in my late teens, so a lot of my feelings about place and space were formed there.”
Those feelings were evident in the only major project in his hometown that was completed during his lifetime, his revamp of the Art Gallery of Ontario. It connected Gehry, who died on December 5, to an institution that, as a child, opened his eyes to the artistic world. It was also a project that arrived amid a cultural revival in Toronto during the late 2000s.
Like Gehry, billionaire business mogul Ken Thomson was also inspired by his early visits to what was known as the Art Gallery of Toronto. Thomson developed a passion for collecting art, building one of Canada’s largest private collections. “When you’re younger, you’re consumed with the objective of building a collection and getting the best that you can get,” he observed in 2002. “And then when you get older of course, you wonder where the fruits of your life’s endeavours are going to end up after you leave.”
When Thomson agreed to give the AGO a long-term loan of European works in 1997, gallery director Matthew Teitelbaum asked him about his future plans for his collection. Discussions with gallery officials ensued over the next few years until Thomson, wanting to keep most of his holdings in one place, agreed to make a massive donation.
Expanding the gallery to provide space for Thomson’s holdings would be complicated. The AGO had wrapped up a three-stage, 20-year expansion process in 1993 that had started with the construction of the Henry Moore Sculpture Centre. Complaints from angry neighbours delayed construction for two years, culminating in an agreement that the gallery would not expand beyond the footprint it had in January 1989.
The complications surrounding the final stage, which also included funding issues, resulted in architect Barton Myers’ final vision never being fully implemented. The completed product included shifting the main entrance east along Dundas Street and adding the airy Joey and Toby Tanenbaum Sculpture Atrium next to the Grange.
By the end of 2000, rumours swirled around Thomson’s donation and Gehry’s potential involvement. At the time, he was basking in the glow of his design for the Guggenheim Museum in Bilbao, Spain, and working on projects that included the Experience Music Project in Seattle and Disney Hall in Los Angeles. Gehry had ties to the neighbourhood — his grandmother had lived south of the gallery on Beverley Street, and he had often played in Grange Park. He first visited the gallery with his mother when he was eight years old in the late 1930s and immediately fell in love with its centrepiece, Walker Court. While he had moved to the United States in his late teens, he had come back on occasion to lecture.
The model for the redesign of the Art Gallery of Ontario by world famous architect Frank Gehry. (CP/Aaron Harris)
Initially, Gehry was considered for the city’s new opera house (which would evolve into the Four Seasons Centre for the Performing Arts), but its backers balked when provided an estimate. In January 2001, Gehry told the Globe and Mail that he “had a nice meeting” with the AGO and wanted to work with them.
Gehry and Thomson formed an instant bond. They discussed their common interests which, according to Teitelbaum, were “living in northern Ontario, hockey, dogs, Toronto in the 1940s, and the joys of collecting.”
“Ken liked that Frank was not enamoured of ornament or excess; it mirrored his own sense of directness,” Teitelbaum observed. Thomson wanted to evoke a sense of home, feeling that the works were still part of his life.
In November 2002, it was officially announced that Thomson would donate $300 million worth of art and $70 million in cash to the AGO. The works included hundreds of pieces by Cornelius Krieghoff, David Milne, and the Group of Seven, along with Peter Paul Rubens’ Massacre of the Innocents, which Thomson had bought for $117 million earlier that year.
The announcement confirmed Gehry’s involvement in redesigning the AGO. He stressed his emotional connection to the neighbourhood and promised to respect the gallery’s surroundings. He assured the audience that the expanded AGO “is not going to look like Bilbao. It’s going to look like Toronto.”
“I spend a lot of time worrying about context,” he noted. “I know this neighbourhood. I know what has happened, what’s been built around, and I’m very interested in making a building that fits into it.”
Over the next two years, Gehry worked on designs, tossing aside at least 50 concepts. He worked slowly to ensure that any half-baked ideas didn’t create any false impressions for the public or the press, who grumbled about his glacial pace. The biggest mistake Myers made, Gehry felt, was shifting the main entrance east, which lost the straight line into the Walker Court. The Myers entrance was also difficult to navigate, involving flights of stairs and narrow spaces.
Gehry and the AGO worked in an environment where, thanks in part to the province’s SuperBuild fund established in 1999, there were many new cultural projects underway in Toronto. Some, like Daniel Libeskind’s “crystal” addition to the Royal Ontario Museum, were highly controversial. Some, like the opera house, were long-imagined dreams finally becoming reality. During the 2000s, work would begin on projects such as the National Ballet School, new performance spaces at the Royal Conservatory of Music, and upgrades to the Ontario College of Art and Design and the Gardiner Museum. Coupled with the birth of artistic festivals like Luminato and Nuit Blanche, there was a sense that Toronto was experiencing a cultural renaissance.
Designs were finally revealed to the public during the launch of the “Transformation AGO” campaign in January 2004. They included a glass and titanium canopy along Bloor Street. a tower facing Grange Park, and a spiral staircase rising from Walker Court leading to new galleries and an event space. Some were struck that it wasn’t as splashy as they predicted.
On hand for the reveal was Hockey Hall of Famer (and Gehry friend) Frank Mahovlich, who was among those who noticed the front façade’s similarity to a hockey rink. “You could picture yourself skating an end-to-end rush on it,” he told the National Post. During the unveiling, Gehry was excited to meet Maple Leafs captain Mats Sundin.
University of Toronto dean of architecture Larry Richards praised the design for its thoughtfulness. “It’s not a big, splashy thing that you can give a quick, drive-by reading of. It’s a building reaching out beyond itself.” Toronto Star architectural critic Christopher Hume felt Gehry’s restraint was “liberating,” allowing the design to be elegant and thoughtful. Local city councillor and AGO board member Olivia Chow believed its “spectacular element is the respect it has for the neighbourhood.”
One of the most negative reactions came from Canadian Architect editor Ian Chodikoff, who felt the building was “really illustrative as to the need for money and fundraising, because you imagine it as operating as a drop-off zone for an expensive wedding.” He didn’t have high hopes, feeling there were too many unfinished ideas.
Myers was unhappy seeing his work being replaced in a “wasteful and unthoughtful” manner. By this point, Gehry noted that Myers no longer spoke to him. Myers claimed he was angrier at the gallery, and that if Gehry thought they’d fallen out, “it must be his guilt or something.” Whenever Gehry tried to joke about it, Myers felt so much more bitter.
Joey Tanenbaum, who sculpture atrium would be divided up, was furious. He wrote an angry letter to the gallery’s officials, fellow board members, and premier Dalton McGuinty in early March 2004. He felt the renovation was “needless destruction” and “a blatant attempt to eradicate the recent history of the gallery.” Tanenbaum and his wife Toby had donated $93.5 million in works and cash, and several elements of the 1993 reno were named in their family’s honour.
He resigned from the board and vowed to withdraw future financial support.
Tanenbaum seethed during a phone interview with the Star, especially over the fate of the atrium he had paid for. “We can’t just sit by and watch while they destroy the most beautiful space in Toronto.” He also condemned “that terrible new staircase.” Peacemaking efforts initially failed, and Tanenbaum warned of future lawsuits and looming bankruptcy for the gallery.
Gehry adjusted his design to address concerns from Tanenbaum and others. To humanize the front canopy, most of the steel and titanium was replaced with large wooden timbers, creating an impression closer to a naval ship’s belly than a hockey rink. He also adjusted the back side to integrate better with the Grange and added glazed glass accents with wood stripping.
In late May, Tanenbaum agreed to rejoin the gallery board and renew his family’s support after Gehry made satisfying modifications to the sculpture atrium, including a higher ceiling for better lighting and muting the effect of new elevators. He was also pleased with the latest budget numbers. “Our relationship with the AGO is like a marriage,” he told the Star. “It’s about commitment and compromise. And now we’re in love again.”
The next group to satisfy was the neighbours, who were split on the project. Between April and June 2004, Chow chaired a working committee for people to work out their concerns. Opponents criticized the back tower, fearing the solid wall would overpower the Grange and Grange Park, and were upset over the disrespect they felt toward the anti-expansion agreement. They pushed for the changes to be moved to the northeast side of the gallery, or, like some critics, even preferred that a new building be built on Toronto’s waterfront.
But many residents supported the project, hoping it would revitalize the area and make the park safer. As John Burns, president of the Grange Park Residents Association, put it, the plan would “replace the crime, the sloth and decay with creativity, vibrancy and new growth.” He believed the project would benefit the community and the city and was sure the OMB would agree.
November 8, 2008 Globe and Mail
Gehry released more design changes in August, which saw blue titanium cladding on the backside, which would change colour depending on the natural lighting. The wall was broken up with windows providing views of the park, and an outside staircase mirroring the interior one was added. Feedback from the community was generally positive, and the project was approved by the Toronto and East York Community Council and Toronto City Council that fall. The gallery agreed to contribute $80,000 to upgrade the park.
Ceta Rankhalawansingh, whose Grange Park Preservation Group fought the previous expansion, complained it was still too tall, and believed any expansion would harm use of the park by nearby low-income residents. She believed that supporters of the project failed to realize that while their property values would rise, their overall quality of life would decline due to increased traffic and noise. Rejecting the views of the working committee, she and six others filed appeals with the Ontario Municipal Board.
A pact was reached in February 2005, brokered by CITY-TV reporter Adam Vaughan, which saw them stop their appeals. No major changes would be made to Gehry’s design. In exchange, the AGO agreed to: more consultations if the gallery ever expanded again; rezoning a small parking lot into parkland; allowing buses to only unload on Dundas Street; fully subsidizing 10 spots per year for local children in art programs over the next decade; and not to place ads or billboards facing the park.
Construction began in 2005, and the gallery fully shut down in November 2007. Highlights during the process included $10 million in donations from several prominent Italian-Canadian families to be used for the front glass and wood sculpture promenade, which was renamed the Galleria Italia. Reporters who toured the construction site were impressed by its functionality compared to the troubled ROM Crystal. Fundraising goals were met. Contemporary artists were assigned to create new works for the reopening, while donors were encouraged to provide more pieces from their collections.
The gallery officially reopened on November 14, 2008. Admission was free for the first three days, drawing lineups that snaked their way along McCaul Street into Grange Park. Attendees surveyed by the Star were pleased. One person enjoyed the spaciness of the Galleria Italia, noting “there’s a lot of people in here, but you don’t really feel like you’re crowded.” Another patron was pleased by the gallery’s decision to hand out bottles of water and chocolate to those waiting in line. Teitelbaum received an email from a major donor who was standing in line. When Teitelbaum asked if he wanted to jump the queue, the donor replied, “I absolutely want to stay in line. I want to be part of this moment.”
More than 68,000 people stood in line that weekend.
Torontonians lined up on opening day of the renovated AGO. (Jamie Bradburn)
“During those first opening days, there was a real excitement in part because there was a real sense that people were possessing this space. They felt it was theirs.”
One person who wasn’t at the opening was Ken Thomson, who passed away in June 2006. The family added $30 million to their gift. His son David spoke at the opening ceremony. “I think my father would have been so deeply moved and touched to believe that he played a part.”
Critics were pleased with what they saw. “The Art Gallery of Ontario may not be one of Frank Gehry’s biggest projects, but it is one of his best,” Hume observed. “It is the easiest, most effortless and relaxed architectural masterpiece this city has seen.” He thought it showed Gehry as an artist who was comfortable in their own skin, who had created a space that made Torontonians feel good about themselves. The Globe and Mail’s Sarah Milroy felt the gallery had taken itself off autopilot, “plunging us instead into a complex, mirrored space of contemporaneity in which history is present and so, too, is the possibility of a more progressive future. Toronto has taken a decisive step forward.”
The National Post’s Robert Fulford praised it as being “surprisingly intimate” and “agreeably relaxed.” Prior to its opening, he had observed that “we won’t know for years whether the people of Toronto and Ontario will make a long-term habit of visiting the AGO in the new form that’s about to be revealed to the public. My guess is that we will. It has certain qualities that will make us see it as not only a grand public statement but also as a good friend.”
Gehry’s AGO design still stands as a beautiful, comforting, relaxing space to appreciate the gallery’s collections.
Perhaps reflecting on what happened to Myers, Gehry noted that his projects had changed over time, and that “maybe 10 years from now some young architect will be messing with this and I intend to be a gentleman about it if I’m still around.”
Sources: Frank Gehry Toronto, edited by Dennis Reid, (Toronto: Art Gallery of Ontario, 2006); Frank Gehry in Toronto: Transforming the Art Gallery of Ontario (Toronto: Art Gallery of Ontario, 2009); Conversations with Frank Gehry by Barbara Isenberg (New York: Alfred A. Knopf, 2009); the January 25, 2001, November 20, 2002, March 26, 2003, January 29, 2004, May 13, 2004, June 19, 2004, August 6, 2004, February 5, 2005, November 14, 2008, and November 15, 2008 editions of the Globe and Mail; the November 20, 2002, January 29, 2004, May 27, 2004, November 8, 2008, and December 26, 2009 editions of the National Post, the July 13, 2022 online edition of Toronto Life, and the March 10, 2002, January 29, 2004, March 9, 2004, March 24, 2004, May 27, 2004, December 22, 2004, February 5, 2005, November 13, 2008, November 14, 2008, and November 15, 2008 editions of the Toronto Star.