I recently visited the Walt Disney Hall, and I found myself not that impressed. I've visited many of his bldgs and have felt the same way. When I'm there, I feel as though I must like the bldg. b/c of how well they are received and talked about, but I just don't seem to learn much from visiting them. I usually just oh and ah about the metal skin, but spatially on the inside, many of his bldgs. don't work IMO. What is it that makes it this way?
My beef w/Gehry has more to do with details than spatial experience. Sure Bilbao looks good in a Bond movie or an aerial picture but the details in the building are crap. Surprisingly, I think he actually improved his details with the Peter B. Lewis building at Case Western Reserve University.....that is, before it got shot up by a homicidal maniac. Haven't seen the interior since that happened.
In MY opinion....much of Gehry's newest work, i.e., the stuff that the public is aware of, brings about a debate: is it architecture or is it inhabitable sculpture? Is there a difference? If so, where is the line drawn? I've been having this debate with classmates for a while and would like to see what everyone here says about it.
I dont like the FOG buildings because of their extreme disconnect between the skin job and the nterior. I also am not that fascinated by his more recent repetitive work because it has become a self referential parody. teh details are also poor. The MIT strata Center has some poor window details that are waiting to get tore up in the boston winter.
I agree with Suture. Gehry's work is very much about the exterior. The skin has little or no structural relationship with the interior - the skin is effectively attached to a concrete membrane sitting on a steel structure - so that the interior spaces are just filled voids.
Having said that, most of Gehry's "known" work are intended for display so that the interior is almost the aesthetic inversion of the exterior and you can argue that this should be the case. I believe though, that the interiors are the under/afterthought aspects of the work.
They dont have the same interior complexity as H&deM, Koolhaas, or Ashton Raggatt McDougall.
I HAVE SPENT MANY DAYS AT MILLENIUM PARK AND I MUST SAY THAT I HAVE NEVER NOT EVEN ONCE TOOK THE TIME TO LOOK AT GEHRY'S THINGY. I THINK IT IS COOL LOOKING BUT BEYOND THAT I THINK ITS JUNK. MILLENIUM PARK ITSELF HOWEVER IS AWESOME BUT GHERY'S THINGS IS REDICULOUS. HES JUST NOT HTAT GREAT OF AN ARCHITECT AND I THINK HE KNOWS THIS. I WATCHED A VIDEO ON HIM AND HE DIDNT HAVE MUCH TO SAY AND HIS ATTITUTE WAS SORT OF LIKE WELL THEYRE ALL STUPID ENOUGH TO BUILD IT SO I DESIGN IT. HE SAID IN HIS VIDEO THAT HE DOES NOT LIKE ARCHITECTS WHO DESIGN THE SAME THING OVER AND OVER AGAIN... HA LOOK AT HIM NOW. BUT YEAH HIS STUFF ISNT THAT GREAT BUT I THINK HE KNOWS THAT... KINDA FUNNY
I think Gehry gets somewhat of a bad rap from architects, at the same time he's way, way overrated by the public. I think his work serves a purpose if only to bring architecture into public discussion (good or bad).
As for him not having anything to say...maybe recently he's become muted but if you look back to the 80's and early deconstructivism, he was actually very vocal. I've seen a few videos from that time period where Gehry seemed very firey and passionate.
Hi
There are nothing "wrong" with these structures, there are cirtain limitations with the whole concept that's the trouble. You must place the buildings in the time they was projected -- at that time 20 years ago the great trend among architects was the new computergenerated mesh structures , these was taken without the critic they shuld have recived from the start ,a critic that could have changed a lot and maby made it so that the vision about these structure could have been expanded, that the technikes develobed. But this did not happen --- instead of evaluating and finding out where these structures went wrong, what happened was that they develobed into a hightech lookalike, with very little use of the potential options.
It went wrong from the start, as soon as the building workers curved the steel rods chosen to represent the computer mesh strings the building allready turned out to be somthing else than in the drawings.
With skilled workers and a bit fiddeling everything is possible though , but look in detail and you will find that over time ,it went the wrong way, it didn't mind that the measures didn't hold as long as patching made the surfaces go together --- acturly there are more building art than building technike in these shell buildings.
Now you could question that any of this shuld be "wrong" , but over the past 20 years this technike have not yieled any real develobment, the measures are still troubled it is still dependant of skilled workers , things are still bend by hand rather then exactly fit in manufactoring.
Ontop you can question why four layers of various beams and stringers shuld be needed, as everything from what is tld, is allready calculated beforehand, then why seem the rodworks to act as plaster to smoothen the surfaces. All in all after 20 years architects would profit from evaluating and asking if this attitude , the attitude that survived 20 years of further develobment are the only technike to shape the future --- it is an expensive attitude ,the creative process are focused on the impression not the quality interiour , and in fact you build two houses for each one, one for the outher shell and one inside to hold the floors and walls. Ontop the technology havn't changed since the early day's of today's capasity computers.
Evaæluate them, evaluate the aproach, evaluate the cost and promises , when you done that you will ask if computers wasn't made to make things better than that, --- you proberly also end up asking for methods that can produce the cheap houses the strong houses ; from my point of view that's where this Icon thinking went most wrong, the buildings attitude are increadible increadible exiting ,but is this enough ?
Is it enough when you realise that the computer in that context did not bring any promising new leads, that this seem to be repeating and repeating over 20 years with no profit to further develobment, that the heavy beams are tortured out of shape at huge expenses, to bring the curves out of measure, that is provided much more sense with newer methods.
Please let me add that protecting the settled shuld not hinder the new to surface, --- it is a comic situation thoug as so many think that this represent cutting edge building technology ,acturly it don't it represent a thinking that shuld have been evaluated decades ago.
i think FOG's work is meant to make a visual statement rather than a spatial experience--much like the claus oldenburg sculptures.
i visited the building in paris he did, and was kind of surprised at how unaffected by the interior i was. i guess i was expecting some kind of baroque experience where the shape of the interior space has a visceral effect. instead it felt quite deadpannish, (if that's a word...)
I have never understood the thrill either, although I have never visited a Gehry structure, I guess I have neve wanted to or I am sure I would have. What are these buildings going to look like in 15 years if they don't even look good now?
Perhaps my most feared critisism of one of my buildings would be "It's a one-liner." Meaning I stopped too short and built it off a single idea that I didn't even explore past "it looks cool". And then to do it over and over again? This is the critism I give Gehry's buildings. I don't even think they look cool. I think its a joke, a gimmick and we are suckers if we put him on a pedastal. He's got us all duped, even Brad. I thought Brad was smarter than that.
Hi
cyn I guess this come from the atitude, --- it is not the quality interiours that carry the expression, the focus have been just what you say , --- then emagine if the interiours had been as exiting, but this don't work with the way the structure are envisioned, the polygon mesh tools simply don't work making a building structure , --- if you doubt this statement ask anyone with just a bit experience with mesh structures ,allready in their times they was most troubled delivering only an emty shell beside not giving any clue about how to manufactor , that's where the skilled workers come in, and if you look closet to pictures taken from Disney new concert hall, you will reconise intire walls that seem to be missing in the drawings ,still that is no problem when skilled building workers are around, ---- as long as there are 4 corners, you can easily fill out the spaces with standard strait profiles and universal fittings.
actually i don't have a problem with the deadpan interiors--i think they, along with the bombastic exteriors, makes his buildings very symbolic 'of their time'
---the architecture world would be pretty boring without gehry...they play to the media, but also have a low BS quotient IMO...they aren't sugar-coating anything or trying to be 'nice' architecture...
though i've been tempted to echo some of these criticisms in the past (e.g., when i lived in mpls and the weisman art museum was completed - a shed with a crazy hood ornament i thought at the time), i've changed my tune about gehry over the years.
1. he's selling architecture to the general public. anyone attempting and doing modern and having it treated as a trophy by the muckety-mucks deserves some respect and admiration.
2. if you look past the zippy forms, i thought the walking path up, over, and through the disney hall, from which you can get some amazing perspectives of downtown la, is a brilliant and unique public gesture - a very urban walking trail.
3. his proposal for the arena in brooklyn is a very nice urban intervention - a mixed use block which minimizes the impact of a large block of program on the streetscape and also integrates transit and housing. hope it gets built.
4. despite the daylighting issues, which i hear are a real problem, the vontz center at univ.cincinnati is a compelling project. the panelization of brick is beautifully resolved and the window detailing is very clever. it's siting, anchoring a park by hargreaves on one side and addressing streets on the other, is nicely done.
i have to look past the sculptural aspects at this point because, yeah, he's just riffing now. under and outside the swooping forms, though, there are some real architectural and urban issues being addressed. and not enough can be said about these buildings' power to make things happen around them. the 'bilbao effect' that other second-tier cities are clamoring for has been somewhat exaggerated but shouldn't be discredited.
Gehry's building is a giant sculpture. His stuff is important because it is unlike anything else...plus it shows off what technology and computers can do.
Sadly, his stuff becomes crap for me after looking and thinking about it for 10 minutes. His architecture is reminiscent of me taking a dump then magnifying my crap by 10000 times and casting it in titanium. Add some structure and we have a Gehry building.
On a theoretical and intellectual level...there really isn't much to talk about.
On a conceptual level...like the man has said himself...he gets his inspiration from fish skin. End of story.
First impressions are important and first impressions are probably the most important impressions. But seriously...Gehry's work is hollow.
I am not blob basher by any means...as a matter of fact I believe blobs have great potential BUT seldom have I seen an architect use "them" in an effective way.
Gehry's architecture is surely the talk about at my school, but no one seems to be impressed by the design. I, myself not understanding the whole point of putting pieces of trash papers and trash can together to make a building that only catch the attenteion for a new pedestrian who passes by.
But be peace in this topic, architects seem to have no problem criticizing other architects, words just fly out if they don't feel the same way as the others. Maybe I will become like that too? i don't know, or but right now, I respect others' works. Although I don't understand the points behind the concept, I still won't try to get my own point across without considering what was the real concept behind the design.
bilbao would have done it, gehry didn't had to insist on it.
the shapes are eyecandy (spectacular) for non-architects. everybody knows him for the form of his buildings as they are very ... 'unusual'(or used to be). the problem is many people think that is all about architecture... and gehry all about architects.
Hi
Architects are said to envision the great picture the engineer work in detail and systems, --- what Bilbao is said to be, after 20 years of refering the original context, is architecture and technology hand in hand. The architect throw a few sketches the engineer ask the computer specialist to make the 2D sketches into a 3D model. Then with the avaible tools, the 3D model that is zero thickness vectors in 3D must be measured and dimensioned on screen ---- have anyone ever seen any of these drawings or the process described, it would be interesting as computer meshes is a great challance to see if the original 3D drawings mirror the actural framework or rather the steel rods that 20 years ago was strait lines or vectors in a 3D drawing.
------- is any of these drawings and measures avaible ? Are they open source to profit any architect that would further develob the concept ?
Shuld they be ?
i've seen the original drawings and computer models for disney concert hall [which was designed before bilbao].
the engineer gave a lecture for one of my studios at sci-arc. we saw everything. it was spectacular.
sorry blaster, he doesn't know how to use a computer (or so he claims). He makes a big deal out of the fact he's been doing his own place using a drawing board and an old T-Square...
"Crumple up a piece of paper, throw it on the floor and there's your Frank Gehry building" -- Ferd.
i think the praise has simply to do with the fact that gehry's buildings offer instant aesthetic gratification. anyone can go "ahhhhhhh" when they first see it. my grandma went "ahhhh" when she first say disney, and she knows nothing about architecture. most everyday people that i know don't consider interiors. architecture to them is still about how it looks on the outside standing ten, twenty, thirty feet away. the judgement and intake is like as if they were looking at a painting or other piece of art. i know that was my perspective before i knew better.
but all critcism aside, at least they do act as some sort of catalyst for the built environment.
hey now cameron of afh who former advisory board includes frank himself. sounds like he's been doing his homework on your org...and perhaps you owe him a bit more time in understanding the validity and significance of his work...
People tend to think architects do the outside and interior designers/decorators do the inside. The architect's job is to make it look goodfrom the street, basically. They don't think the way humans inhabit the building, in material, function, view, are part of the architect's responsibility.
I think the two need to go hand in hand or you don't have a good building.
This seems to be one of the places Gehry's buildings don't hold up. I can't say because I've never been inside one of his buildings. I walked around the one in Cincinati and from the outside it was a beautiful object, and I thought very well sited and materially lovely. But I couldn't get in.
there is a distinction to be made. i think the interior spaces of the gehry buildings i've visited have been good spaces, spatially complex or not.
but, at the same time, they don't 'match' the exteriors - there is not a 1:1 relationship a lot of the time. seems like this is what some people on this thread are expecting.
i kind of appreciated that the lobby of disney was so divorced from the exterior form. the vontz in cincinnati has a multi-story chasm that runs up through the middle - nothing to do with the exterior. i think that this is ok.
we've gotten away from the transparency and simplicity of early modern. now the academics talk about envelope and skin and populating the interior with a diverse collection of characters. tschumi's rouen concert hall sheathes its concrete boxed in a steel snail, oma's seattle library shrink wraps its program. the interior/exterior relationship can be nil.
I allway's found it difficult to see the computer mesh in the steel profile framework of these structures. --- a computer mesh use to show much more ballanced, the squares distribuated equaly from side to side of the structure , I find it difficult to say that the above in any way look like being generated on a computer. A computer mesh are much more smooth
He may have done homework but he never handed it in.
Despite wanting to be on the board, he never once responded to a request or donated to the organization (even after the tsunami) and after hearing him talk at the 2004 Art Center Conference we removed him from the board. Quite frankly I was disgusted by his derogatory/sexist remarks at the conference...
Honestly I was a huge fan of his early work, experimentation of materials and form, but like Corbu the bigger the building the more disappointed I find the work.
In terms of the earlier criticism I just quoted someone who I teach with -- those from MSU will know 'Ferd'. The quote is the beginning of a rant that is priceless to see...
I myself was never a big Gehry fan UNTIL I visited his buildings. I was completely awestruck by Bilbao and spent about 13 hours wandering in and around the building and found the building to be completely fascinating.
To those who say he doesn't pay attention to the details, take a closer look at the cascading glass elevator tower on the interior of Bilbao or the exterior glass wall of Ginger of the building in Prague and then return and tell me there is no attention to detail.
All of these sinuous shapes and the merging of various materials and various angles required details! Do you think they just left these issues up to the contractor to solve?
Secondly, Gehry's buildings are EXTREMELY contextual. Granted, he has the luxury of tremendous sites to place them upon, but one can look to the American center in Paris, the Wexner center in MPLS and the Berlin building near the brandenburg gate to see how he treated the various sides of the building as they respond to the dialectic nature of the sites (urban vs. park/water). His efforts to break down the building's scale is usually directly tied to the site, and there is usually a more 'playful' side of his buildings that address nature, water, etc...
With regards to the interior, the interior of Bilbao is really quite amazing and carries through the language which you see on the exterior through to the interior. Sometimes even allowing exterior elements to penetrate into the interior, but he is very careful to ensure that these penetrations only occur at glass locations and where solids meet solids, the forms are very much contained to themselves.
The scale issue is a 'deconstruction' problem, that can't be pinned on Gehry alone. As the scale increases, the pieces increase in size to stay proportionate to each other. This has always been a problem with sculptural form-making, especially when placed next to a building with the traditional base/middle/top proportions.
Lastly, I'm not sure when the switch occurred, but Gehry does his CD's in house (now) so his office is not just a modelling studio that leaves it up to the engineers to solve their problems. They do the CD's, they do the details, and figure out how to keep water from entering the building.
If you think Gehry's work is shallow, then I would guess that the sweeping generalizations being made go hand in hand with sweeping analysis.
Humans used to live in caves which are non-descript, "soft" forms. Maybe this kind of geometry is appropriate for human habitation as it conforms with the surfaces of the human body. Gehry has been the only architect to build in this manner, at least with this much proliferation. Many architects have been trying to build in this manner and to find a way to effieciently build with free forms has been limited if not impossible. Gehry has found a way to do it. The proof is in the pudding.
Many published architects would deny it but they have been influenced by Gehrys work. Intellectual or not, I think his work is fascinating and touches a deep chord with me. He will be influencial in years to come and no one will deny that Gehry has made an indellible mark on architecture.
Hi
Sorry clamshell I don't think so. It was exiting when the computer screen could show 3D polymesh , but these was not develobed by porpus by Gehry, he did not develob anything.
Gehry did not put up a goal and found a way to solve it, the computer genereted meshes was allready there, the proof are in the design process no 3D computer drawing is a sketch. --- You say it yourself "Gehry found a way to do it" ; true he did not develob a new method it was allready there.
"Maybe this kind of geometry is appropriate for human habitation as it conforms with the surfaces of the human body"
clamshell, please show us/argue how it conforms to the human body. while his buildings have curves they have nothing to do with conforming to human bodies. they make the body no more comfortable than a simple rectangular box.
Per Corell, I beg to differ. First of all, nobody would argue that Gehry invented the Catia program, but he did refine it to such a degree, that even the software company itself found a new market in the building industry after working with FOG, I would call that development. Secondly, Gehry himself has stated that he needed a way to get the forms in his head translated to a buildable state, I would call that trying to meet a goal. Gehry "found a way...." to get his architecture built. True, he doesn't really design in the computer, but he couldn't build without it. I think that is part of my facination, the fact that he is still grounded in the analog. It has a kind of humbleness and tactillity.
"Maybe this kind of geometry is appropriate for human habitation as it conforms with the surfaces of the human body"
No most people want square rooms, strait rules and lots of control , they feel most comford with a meaning to creating beautifull architecture aswell. Creating your works within specific options only focus your design restricting yourself and providing on many levels are not supported in free forming inviroments.
Today you shuld rather provide some new jobs than throwing a sketch ,people want to pay but develobing digital tools is an important issue in architecture , still your freedom in creating , maby just aswell as total organics without a meaning, be square rooms in geometric shaped building structure, --- Why provide it in the most cramped way as polygon mesh with no use, just impossible without the everlasting fiddle. You want something that renew the architecture, add new options and develob beautifull buildings, Go ask Gehry how to share so the world profit from a new architecture --- as if these are something you invent, how the hell can it then be a beautifull thing ?
If it is a thing from hell , then what it will be as useless as ever. Comford are and can be provided as square rooms in wonderfull creations not limited by a single building method . I want beautyfull furniture and real values for my children, I want interiours in the high-tech wonder, and I do not want a lookalike. Just becaurse we can develob better thought structure to model in a form, proberly will mean that the master architects must start thinking , architecture need to provide the best ansver in the times and develob for further use, that mean sharing, ----- now there are other meanings doing design ,you could be serious just agreaing to your own works and what they are.
Still My works develobing from the picture of what would be avaible if the computer was acturly working, is still very different than that of living without directions, --- there are and just becaurse it is possible to build an emty metal structure, the method don't seem to bring the prospects and new jobs.
What's bad about Millenium Park in Chicago is that he left the back and sides exposed. It would look much more sophisticated and fully sculptural if the back were enclosed in the same materials and shapes as the front. Sure, it would be another X $million but it would be an improvement.
I've never been in one but saw his museum exhibit in D.C. last year and I am not impressed. After seeing the models, the feeling one would get inside those overbearing, goofy proportioned interior walls and spaces would make me want to run outside. Then blindfold myself so I would, not have to see the fog blob.
I AGREE WITH CLAMSHELL. OH CHECK OUT THIS CRAZY GUY THAT I USED TO WORK FOR WWW.TDRINC.COM DAMN THIS THREAD HAS MADE ME GO FROM NOT BEING SURE IF I LIKE GEHRY'S STRUCTURES TO LIKING THEM. I THINK WHAT HE IS DOING IS GREAT BECAUSE HE HAS OPENED UP A DOOR FOR OTHER ARCHITECTS TO BE MORE CREATIVE.
Eh that might be right , but it is rather the promises than the actural tool to get it that work. If you wanted anything but a museum or a concert hall, would tinworks then be your choice ?
It's allright to give the credit, the early works fully promise the bright future, but it don't help much as a flexible tool in various other materials it is known to be a risky experience as it is surfaces without structure when it come out of the computer, sure it revisit earlier promises in architecture, but I can't se anyhow but a very limited use.
"Secondly, Gehry's buildings are EXTREMELY contextual. Granted, he has the luxury of tremendous sites to place them upon, but one can look to the American center in Paris, the Wexner center in MPLS and the Berlin building near the brandenburg gate to see how he treated the various sides of the building as they respond to the dialectic nature of the sites (urban vs. park/water). His efforts to break down the building's scale is usually directly tied to the site, and there is usually a more 'playful' side of his buildings that address nature, water, etc..."
A few weeks ago I was delighted to visit the Weisman Art Museum at the University of Minnesota in Minneapolis. It was a georgeous Fall day when the sky was blue and the leaves were in full color. Not only was the collection delightful, but I enjoyed the placement of some of the pieces in a daylit space (I'm not sure how they will be protected from fading, but that's another issue). What struck me the most was the incredible views from the building, over the Mississippi River to downtown Minneapolis. I always smile when I discover that "the architect got it right," and this was no exception.
On a similarly complimentary note... a fantastic exhibit at the National Building Museum called Tools of the Imagination featured not only models from Gehry's office (which were about what I expected) but also AutoCAD drawings on mylar. The drawings initially fooled me because they looked like they were drawn in pencil. They had a soft quality about them and were rather exquisite.
Nov 21, 05 8:44 pm ·
·
Block this user
Are you sure you want to block this user and hide all related comments throughout the site?
Archinect
This is your first comment on Archinect. Your comment will be visible once approved.
What is it about Gehry's bldgs?
I recently visited the Walt Disney Hall, and I found myself not that impressed. I've visited many of his bldgs and have felt the same way. When I'm there, I feel as though I must like the bldg. b/c of how well they are received and talked about, but I just don't seem to learn much from visiting them. I usually just oh and ah about the metal skin, but spatially on the inside, many of his bldgs. don't work IMO. What is it that makes it this way?
You are not alone.
My beef w/Gehry has more to do with details than spatial experience. Sure Bilbao looks good in a Bond movie or an aerial picture but the details in the building are crap. Surprisingly, I think he actually improved his details with the Peter B. Lewis building at Case Western Reserve University.....that is, before it got shot up by a homicidal maniac. Haven't seen the interior since that happened.
In MY opinion....much of Gehry's newest work, i.e., the stuff that the public is aware of, brings about a debate: is it architecture or is it inhabitable sculpture? Is there a difference? If so, where is the line drawn? I've been having this debate with classmates for a while and would like to see what everyone here says about it.
millenium park in chicago? ho hum
I dont like the FOG buildings because of their extreme disconnect between the skin job and the nterior. I also am not that fascinated by his more recent repetitive work because it has become a self referential parody. teh details are also poor. The MIT strata Center has some poor window details that are waiting to get tore up in the boston winter.
I agree with Suture. Gehry's work is very much about the exterior. The skin has little or no structural relationship with the interior - the skin is effectively attached to a concrete membrane sitting on a steel structure - so that the interior spaces are just filled voids.
Having said that, most of Gehry's "known" work are intended for display so that the interior is almost the aesthetic inversion of the exterior and you can argue that this should be the case. I believe though, that the interiors are the under/afterthought aspects of the work.
They dont have the same interior complexity as H&deM, Koolhaas, or Ashton Raggatt McDougall.
I HAVE SPENT MANY DAYS AT MILLENIUM PARK AND I MUST SAY THAT I HAVE NEVER NOT EVEN ONCE TOOK THE TIME TO LOOK AT GEHRY'S THINGY. I THINK IT IS COOL LOOKING BUT BEYOND THAT I THINK ITS JUNK. MILLENIUM PARK ITSELF HOWEVER IS AWESOME BUT GHERY'S THINGS IS REDICULOUS. HES JUST NOT HTAT GREAT OF AN ARCHITECT AND I THINK HE KNOWS THIS. I WATCHED A VIDEO ON HIM AND HE DIDNT HAVE MUCH TO SAY AND HIS ATTITUTE WAS SORT OF LIKE WELL THEYRE ALL STUPID ENOUGH TO BUILD IT SO I DESIGN IT. HE SAID IN HIS VIDEO THAT HE DOES NOT LIKE ARCHITECTS WHO DESIGN THE SAME THING OVER AND OVER AGAIN... HA LOOK AT HIM NOW. BUT YEAH HIS STUFF ISNT THAT GREAT BUT I THINK HE KNOWS THAT... KINDA FUNNY
WHY ARE WE YELLING!?
I think Gehry gets somewhat of a bad rap from architects, at the same time he's way, way overrated by the public. I think his work serves a purpose if only to bring architecture into public discussion (good or bad).
As for him not having anything to say...maybe recently he's become muted but if you look back to the 80's and early deconstructivism, he was actually very vocal. I've seen a few videos from that time period where Gehry seemed very firey and passionate.
I AM YELLING BECAUSE I LIKE THE CAPS BUTTON.
Hi
There are nothing "wrong" with these structures, there are cirtain limitations with the whole concept that's the trouble. You must place the buildings in the time they was projected -- at that time 20 years ago the great trend among architects was the new computergenerated mesh structures , these was taken without the critic they shuld have recived from the start ,a critic that could have changed a lot and maby made it so that the vision about these structure could have been expanded, that the technikes develobed. But this did not happen --- instead of evaluating and finding out where these structures went wrong, what happened was that they develobed into a hightech lookalike, with very little use of the potential options.
It went wrong from the start, as soon as the building workers curved the steel rods chosen to represent the computer mesh strings the building allready turned out to be somthing else than in the drawings.
With skilled workers and a bit fiddeling everything is possible though , but look in detail and you will find that over time ,it went the wrong way, it didn't mind that the measures didn't hold as long as patching made the surfaces go together --- acturly there are more building art than building technike in these shell buildings.
Now you could question that any of this shuld be "wrong" , but over the past 20 years this technike have not yieled any real develobment, the measures are still troubled it is still dependant of skilled workers , things are still bend by hand rather then exactly fit in manufactoring.
Ontop you can question why four layers of various beams and stringers shuld be needed, as everything from what is tld, is allready calculated beforehand, then why seem the rodworks to act as plaster to smoothen the surfaces. All in all after 20 years architects would profit from evaluating and asking if this attitude , the attitude that survived 20 years of further develobment are the only technike to shape the future --- it is an expensive attitude ,the creative process are focused on the impression not the quality interiour , and in fact you build two houses for each one, one for the outher shell and one inside to hold the floors and walls. Ontop the technology havn't changed since the early day's of today's capasity computers.
Evaæluate them, evaluate the aproach, evaluate the cost and promises , when you done that you will ask if computers wasn't made to make things better than that, --- you proberly also end up asking for methods that can produce the cheap houses the strong houses ; from my point of view that's where this Icon thinking went most wrong, the buildings attitude are increadible increadible exiting ,but is this enough ?
Is it enough when you realise that the computer in that context did not bring any promising new leads, that this seem to be repeating and repeating over 20 years with no profit to further develobment, that the heavy beams are tortured out of shape at huge expenses, to bring the curves out of measure, that is provided much more sense with newer methods.
Please let me add that protecting the settled shuld not hinder the new to surface, --- it is a comic situation thoug as so many think that this represent cutting edge building technology ,acturly it don't it represent a thinking that shuld have been evaluated decades ago.
this will all be remedied when brad comes on board. go brad.
i think FOG's work is meant to make a visual statement rather than a spatial experience--much like the claus oldenburg sculptures.
i visited the building in paris he did, and was kind of surprised at how unaffected by the interior i was. i guess i was expecting some kind of baroque experience where the shape of the interior space has a visceral effect. instead it felt quite deadpannish, (if that's a word...)
I have never understood the thrill either, although I have never visited a Gehry structure, I guess I have neve wanted to or I am sure I would have. What are these buildings going to look like in 15 years if they don't even look good now?
Perhaps my most feared critisism of one of my buildings would be "It's a one-liner." Meaning I stopped too short and built it off a single idea that I didn't even explore past "it looks cool". And then to do it over and over again? This is the critism I give Gehry's buildings. I don't even think they look cool. I think its a joke, a gimmick and we are suckers if we put him on a pedastal. He's got us all duped, even Brad. I thought Brad was smarter than that.
Hi
cyn I guess this come from the atitude, --- it is not the quality interiours that carry the expression, the focus have been just what you say , --- then emagine if the interiours had been as exiting, but this don't work with the way the structure are envisioned, the polygon mesh tools simply don't work making a building structure , --- if you doubt this statement ask anyone with just a bit experience with mesh structures ,allready in their times they was most troubled delivering only an emty shell beside not giving any clue about how to manufactor , that's where the skilled workers come in, and if you look closet to pictures taken from Disney new concert hall, you will reconise intire walls that seem to be missing in the drawings ,still that is no problem when skilled building workers are around, ---- as long as there are 4 corners, you can easily fill out the spaces with standard strait profiles and universal fittings.
actually i don't have a problem with the deadpan interiors--i think they, along with the bombastic exteriors, makes his buildings very symbolic 'of their time'
---the architecture world would be pretty boring without gehry...they play to the media, but also have a low BS quotient IMO...they aren't sugar-coating anything or trying to be 'nice' architecture...
though i've been tempted to echo some of these criticisms in the past (e.g., when i lived in mpls and the weisman art museum was completed - a shed with a crazy hood ornament i thought at the time), i've changed my tune about gehry over the years.
1. he's selling architecture to the general public. anyone attempting and doing modern and having it treated as a trophy by the muckety-mucks deserves some respect and admiration.
2. if you look past the zippy forms, i thought the walking path up, over, and through the disney hall, from which you can get some amazing perspectives of downtown la, is a brilliant and unique public gesture - a very urban walking trail.
3. his proposal for the arena in brooklyn is a very nice urban intervention - a mixed use block which minimizes the impact of a large block of program on the streetscape and also integrates transit and housing. hope it gets built.
4. despite the daylighting issues, which i hear are a real problem, the vontz center at univ.cincinnati is a compelling project. the panelization of brick is beautifully resolved and the window detailing is very clever. it's siting, anchoring a park by hargreaves on one side and addressing streets on the other, is nicely done.
i have to look past the sculptural aspects at this point because, yeah, he's just riffing now. under and outside the swooping forms, though, there are some real architectural and urban issues being addressed. and not enough can be said about these buildings' power to make things happen around them. the 'bilbao effect' that other second-tier cities are clamoring for has been somewhat exaggerated but shouldn't be discredited.
Gehry's building is a giant sculpture. His stuff is important because it is unlike anything else...plus it shows off what technology and computers can do.
Sadly, his stuff becomes crap for me after looking and thinking about it for 10 minutes. His architecture is reminiscent of me taking a dump then magnifying my crap by 10000 times and casting it in titanium. Add some structure and we have a Gehry building.
On a theoretical and intellectual level...there really isn't much to talk about.
On a conceptual level...like the man has said himself...he gets his inspiration from fish skin. End of story.
First impressions are important and first impressions are probably the most important impressions. But seriously...Gehry's work is hollow.
I am not blob basher by any means...as a matter of fact I believe blobs have great potential BUT seldom have I seen an architect use "them" in an effective way.
Gehry's architecture is surely the talk about at my school, but no one seems to be impressed by the design. I, myself not understanding the whole point of putting pieces of trash papers and trash can together to make a building that only catch the attenteion for a new pedestrian who passes by.
But be peace in this topic, architects seem to have no problem criticizing other architects, words just fly out if they don't feel the same way as the others. Maybe I will become like that too? i don't know, or but right now, I respect others' works. Although I don't understand the points behind the concept, I still won't try to get my own point across without considering what was the real concept behind the design.
bilbao would have done it, gehry didn't had to insist on it.
the shapes are eyecandy (spectacular) for non-architects. everybody knows him for the form of his buildings as they are very ... 'unusual'(or used to be). the problem is many people think that is all about architecture... and gehry all about architects.
architecture is ultimately about results.
architects [much more so than any other type of professional] are full of shit.
Hi
Architects are said to envision the great picture the engineer work in detail and systems, --- what Bilbao is said to be, after 20 years of refering the original context, is architecture and technology hand in hand. The architect throw a few sketches the engineer ask the computer specialist to make the 2D sketches into a 3D model. Then with the avaible tools, the 3D model that is zero thickness vectors in 3D must be measured and dimensioned on screen ---- have anyone ever seen any of these drawings or the process described, it would be interesting as computer meshes is a great challance to see if the original 3D drawings mirror the actural framework or rather the steel rods that 20 years ago was strait lines or vectors in a 3D drawing.
------- is any of these drawings and measures avaible ? Are they open source to profit any architect that would further develob the concept ?
Shuld they be ?
i've seen the original drawings and computer models for disney concert hall [which was designed before bilbao].
the engineer gave a lecture for one of my studios at sci-arc. we saw everything. it was spectacular.
Hi
I love Gehry because he uses the computer.
Hi
I love Gehry because he uses the computer.
sorry blaster, he doesn't know how to use a computer (or so he claims). He makes a big deal out of the fact he's been doing his own place using a drawing board and an old T-Square...
"Crumple up a piece of paper, throw it on the floor and there's your Frank Gehry building" -- Ferd.
i think the praise has simply to do with the fact that gehry's buildings offer instant aesthetic gratification. anyone can go "ahhhhhhh" when they first see it. my grandma went "ahhhh" when she first say disney, and she knows nothing about architecture. most everyday people that i know don't consider interiors. architecture to them is still about how it looks on the outside standing ten, twenty, thirty feet away. the judgement and intake is like as if they were looking at a painting or other piece of art. i know that was my perspective before i knew better.
but all critcism aside, at least they do act as some sort of catalyst for the built environment.
hey now cameron of afh who former advisory board includes frank himself. sounds like he's been doing his homework on your org...and perhaps you owe him a bit more time in understanding the validity and significance of his work...
Good comment, morningbell.
People tend to think architects do the outside and interior designers/decorators do the inside. The architect's job is to make it look goodfrom the street, basically. They don't think the way humans inhabit the building, in material, function, view, are part of the architect's responsibility.
I think the two need to go hand in hand or you don't have a good building.
This seems to be one of the places Gehry's buildings don't hold up. I can't say because I've never been inside one of his buildings. I walked around the one in Cincinati and from the outside it was a beautiful object, and I thought very well sited and materially lovely. But I couldn't get in.
there is a distinction to be made. i think the interior spaces of the gehry buildings i've visited have been good spaces, spatially complex or not.
but, at the same time, they don't 'match' the exteriors - there is not a 1:1 relationship a lot of the time. seems like this is what some people on this thread are expecting.
i kind of appreciated that the lobby of disney was so divorced from the exterior form. the vontz in cincinnati has a multi-story chasm that runs up through the middle - nothing to do with the exterior. i think that this is ok.
we've gotten away from the transparency and simplicity of early modern. now the academics talk about envelope and skin and populating the interior with a diverse collection of characters. tschumi's rouen concert hall sheathes its concrete boxed in a steel snail, oma's seattle library shrink wraps its program. the interior/exterior relationship can be nil.
Hi
I allway's found it difficult to see the computer mesh in the steel profile framework of these structures. --- a computer mesh use to show much more ballanced, the squares distribuated equaly from side to side of the structure , I find it difficult to say that the above in any way look like being generated on a computer. A computer mesh are much more smooth
Sorry forgot to say that this is from Disney new concert hall
He may have done homework but he never handed it in.
Despite wanting to be on the board, he never once responded to a request or donated to the organization (even after the tsunami) and after hearing him talk at the 2004 Art Center Conference we removed him from the board. Quite frankly I was disgusted by his derogatory/sexist remarks at the conference...
Honestly I was a huge fan of his early work, experimentation of materials and form, but like Corbu the bigger the building the more disappointed I find the work.
In terms of the earlier criticism I just quoted someone who I teach with -- those from MSU will know 'Ferd'. The quote is the beginning of a rant that is priceless to see...
the gehry hate continues on archinect....
I myself was never a big Gehry fan UNTIL I visited his buildings. I was completely awestruck by Bilbao and spent about 13 hours wandering in and around the building and found the building to be completely fascinating.
To those who say he doesn't pay attention to the details, take a closer look at the cascading glass elevator tower on the interior of Bilbao or the exterior glass wall of Ginger of the building in Prague and then return and tell me there is no attention to detail.
All of these sinuous shapes and the merging of various materials and various angles required details! Do you think they just left these issues up to the contractor to solve?
Secondly, Gehry's buildings are EXTREMELY contextual. Granted, he has the luxury of tremendous sites to place them upon, but one can look to the American center in Paris, the Wexner center in MPLS and the Berlin building near the brandenburg gate to see how he treated the various sides of the building as they respond to the dialectic nature of the sites (urban vs. park/water). His efforts to break down the building's scale is usually directly tied to the site, and there is usually a more 'playful' side of his buildings that address nature, water, etc...
With regards to the interior, the interior of Bilbao is really quite amazing and carries through the language which you see on the exterior through to the interior. Sometimes even allowing exterior elements to penetrate into the interior, but he is very careful to ensure that these penetrations only occur at glass locations and where solids meet solids, the forms are very much contained to themselves.
The scale issue is a 'deconstruction' problem, that can't be pinned on Gehry alone. As the scale increases, the pieces increase in size to stay proportionate to each other. This has always been a problem with sculptural form-making, especially when placed next to a building with the traditional base/middle/top proportions.
Lastly, I'm not sure when the switch occurred, but Gehry does his CD's in house (now) so his office is not just a modelling studio that leaves it up to the engineers to solve their problems. They do the CD's, they do the details, and figure out how to keep water from entering the building.
If you think Gehry's work is shallow, then I would guess that the sweeping generalizations being made go hand in hand with sweeping analysis.
Shape annealing can be fun:
here is a sculpture from a 1991 design.
http://www.users.bigpond.com/pierrestokx/alt/
Humans used to live in caves which are non-descript, "soft" forms. Maybe this kind of geometry is appropriate for human habitation as it conforms with the surfaces of the human body. Gehry has been the only architect to build in this manner, at least with this much proliferation. Many architects have been trying to build in this manner and to find a way to effieciently build with free forms has been limited if not impossible. Gehry has found a way to do it. The proof is in the pudding.
Many published architects would deny it but they have been influenced by Gehrys work. Intellectual or not, I think his work is fascinating and touches a deep chord with me. He will be influencial in years to come and no one will deny that Gehry has made an indellible mark on architecture.
Hi
Sorry clamshell I don't think so. It was exiting when the computer screen could show 3D polymesh , but these was not develobed by porpus by Gehry, he did not develob anything.
Gehry did not put up a goal and found a way to solve it, the computer genereted meshes was allready there, the proof are in the design process no 3D computer drawing is a sketch. --- You say it yourself "Gehry found a way to do it" ; true he did not develob a new method it was allready there.
"Maybe this kind of geometry is appropriate for human habitation as it conforms with the surfaces of the human body"
clamshell, please show us/argue how it conforms to the human body. while his buildings have curves they have nothing to do with conforming to human bodies. they make the body no more comfortable than a simple rectangular box.
It isn't literal, it's a perception, a relationship with a wall, a ceiling, an object, or space.
Per Corell, I beg to differ. First of all, nobody would argue that Gehry invented the Catia program, but he did refine it to such a degree, that even the software company itself found a new market in the building industry after working with FOG, I would call that development. Secondly, Gehry himself has stated that he needed a way to get the forms in his head translated to a buildable state, I would call that trying to meet a goal. Gehry "found a way...." to get his architecture built. True, he doesn't really design in the computer, but he couldn't build without it. I think that is part of my facination, the fact that he is still grounded in the analog. It has a kind of humbleness and tactillity.
Hi.
"Maybe this kind of geometry is appropriate for human habitation as it conforms with the surfaces of the human body"
No most people want square rooms, strait rules and lots of control , they feel most comford with a meaning to creating beautifull architecture aswell. Creating your works within specific options only focus your design restricting yourself and providing on many levels are not supported in free forming inviroments.
Today you shuld rather provide some new jobs than throwing a sketch ,people want to pay but develobing digital tools is an important issue in architecture , still your freedom in creating , maby just aswell as total organics without a meaning, be square rooms in geometric shaped building structure, --- Why provide it in the most cramped way as polygon mesh with no use, just impossible without the everlasting fiddle. You want something that renew the architecture, add new options and develob beautifull buildings, Go ask Gehry how to share so the world profit from a new architecture --- as if these are something you invent, how the hell can it then be a beautifull thing ?
If it is a thing from hell , then what it will be as useless as ever. Comford are and can be provided as square rooms in wonderfull creations not limited by a single building method . I want beautyfull furniture and real values for my children, I want interiours in the high-tech wonder, and I do not want a lookalike. Just becaurse we can develob better thought structure to model in a form, proberly will mean that the master architects must start thinking , architecture need to provide the best ansver in the times and develob for further use, that mean sharing, ----- now there are other meanings doing design ,you could be serious just agreaing to your own works and what they are.
Still My works develobing from the picture of what would be avaible if the computer was acturly working, is still very different than that of living without directions, --- there are and just becaurse it is possible to build an emty metal structure, the method don't seem to bring the prospects and new jobs.
ladies and gentlemen, Per Corell.
What's bad about Millenium Park in Chicago is that he left the back and sides exposed. It would look much more sophisticated and fully sculptural if the back were enclosed in the same materials and shapes as the front. Sure, it would be another X $million but it would be an improvement.
If anything, Gehry has brought about an explosion in the specification of titanium.
I've never been in one but saw his museum exhibit in D.C. last year and I am not impressed. After seeing the models, the feeling one would get inside those overbearing, goofy proportioned interior walls and spaces would make me want to run outside. Then blindfold myself so I would, not have to see the fog blob.
titanium? great. blinding buildings that are extremely expensive to build and look like crap after a few years. we need more of them.
like cameron, i am a huge fan of his early work for the same reasons.
I AGREE WITH CLAMSHELL. OH CHECK OUT THIS CRAZY GUY THAT I USED TO WORK FOR WWW.TDRINC.COM DAMN THIS THREAD HAS MADE ME GO FROM NOT BEING SURE IF I LIKE GEHRY'S STRUCTURES TO LIKING THEM. I THINK WHAT HE IS DOING IS GREAT BECAUSE HE HAS OPENED UP A DOOR FOR OTHER ARCHITECTS TO BE MORE CREATIVE.
Eh that might be right , but it is rather the promises than the actural tool to get it that work. If you wanted anything but a museum or a concert hall, would tinworks then be your choice ?
It's allright to give the credit, the early works fully promise the bright future, but it don't help much as a flexible tool in various other materials it is known to be a risky experience as it is surfaces without structure when it come out of the computer, sure it revisit earlier promises in architecture, but I can't se anyhow but a very limited use.
down at Hove , Brighton (UK) ..........some important aspects of the proposal need further work.
CABE review
(CABE is the UK government's advisor on architecture, urban design and public space.)
Back to Gehry...
To respond to this statement from curtclay:
"Secondly, Gehry's buildings are EXTREMELY contextual. Granted, he has the luxury of tremendous sites to place them upon, but one can look to the American center in Paris, the Wexner center in MPLS and the Berlin building near the brandenburg gate to see how he treated the various sides of the building as they respond to the dialectic nature of the sites (urban vs. park/water). His efforts to break down the building's scale is usually directly tied to the site, and there is usually a more 'playful' side of his buildings that address nature, water, etc..."
A few weeks ago I was delighted to visit the Weisman Art Museum at the University of Minnesota in Minneapolis. It was a georgeous Fall day when the sky was blue and the leaves were in full color. Not only was the collection delightful, but I enjoyed the placement of some of the pieces in a daylit space (I'm not sure how they will be protected from fading, but that's another issue). What struck me the most was the incredible views from the building, over the Mississippi River to downtown Minneapolis. I always smile when I discover that "the architect got it right," and this was no exception.
On a similarly complimentary note... a fantastic exhibit at the National Building Museum called Tools of the Imagination featured not only models from Gehry's office (which were about what I expected) but also AutoCAD drawings on mylar. The drawings initially fooled me because they looked like they were drawn in pencil. They had a soft quality about them and were rather exquisite.
Block this user
Are you sure you want to block this user and hide all related comments throughout the site?
Archinect
This is your first comment on Archinect. Your comment will be visible once approved.