there are lots of strong thoughts in this one.

The heartland responses art very thoughtful. if it is offensive - why is it offensive? Can Libeskind's work hold value??

From reading many of the posts, I dont belive that architects take Libeskind's work seriously. I dont. He is a world class salesman and can wax poetic about his work, so non architects like him. Although has made a great living for himself doing this. His work is dramatic but easy.

I ve been to one of his presentations and although very entertaining,
there is no meat to his concepts. he is a simpleton.He also talks condensedingly about other architects which is why I am feel ok about trashing him.

In my opionion, Frank gehry has already been there and done that, except much better. How many titanium clad museums need to be built before they are not original. Even his condominium project in Sacramento is a clear rip off from one of his WTC buildings.

I think he suffers from from the star architects syndrome. Which is lack of construction follow through. I had a chance to walk though the denver art museum and although it is challanging to build, the detailing is poor and drywall everywhere. A world class piece should architecture should have a limited amout of gyp board. To ubiquitous.

Of cousre mabye I am jeleous since he gets to autograph women's breast. As mentioned in the article about him in the News section.

The Denver Museum of Art is superb. Currently my favorite building in the world, and I've seen a decent amount.

#1 - it's beautiful
#2 - the fact that he got the city to let him cantilever over a road, then at least 20' more over the older musuem (that it connects to) is a lesson to everyone out there that says something can't be done or is impractical
#3 - when pedestrians stop, walk around, take pictures of it and talk about it

Those are good reasons for me. Personally, I love the aesthetics of it, but the simple fact that it is getting built with little compromise (that I can see) is wonderful.

There are areas that the detailing isn't stellar, but we don't know if that was his fault, the arch firm running things here, or the contractors.
As for "A world class piece should architecture should have a limited amout of gyp board." That's just silly. Have you been in many of Gehry's buildings? How about Meier's? You put the money where it matters, and in my opinion formal/spatial design means billions more than slapping on marble everywhere (we've got Graves atrocious library across the street for that crap!).


I am jealous, no question. I am jealous of all architects that push the envelope, that design something as they believe it should be, win the competition (which he beat out the others, Mayne being 2nd), and then go onto to get it built.
It looks nothing like Gehry's, it's just the most progressive, at least at this scale, design that's been built in the US after mr. G. The similarities end at the program and titanium.
I love it and want to design more because of it.

i wonder whether he will be proposing turning new orleans into network of shard-like ponds. a strange combination of talent, necrophilia, and business savy.

Above photos are the Denver Art building. I will see if I can take a detail photo of how atrodious the cladding looks and post it.
I don't care if it's not his fault that the detailing is poor, he is still responsibile. You can't just give a grandiose vision of shardiness and expect someone to carry it out.

OH, and what is in all those nooks and crannies of this shard building? I know nothing of the building besides what I can see from the outside.

What's wrong with gyp board again? gyp bd rules.

losdogedog- how did you get a tour?

photos are from june by the way.

did anybody see that utah's 18 game winning streak was snapped last night? an overtime with tcu, it must have been exciting, right?

danny is just a one trick wonder.

libeskind's jewish museum in berlin is still one of the strongest buildings i've experienced.
i think libeskind is an immensely talented designer but also superb in marketing his buildings to "the masses"; but as with anything relating to the "freedom tower", he has dissappointed me, but then again, that's childs' project.

I certainly agree much of what he's done isn't completely unique, but I am still a fan.

I've chosen to forget the WTC, at least as far as design goes. Not one of the entries were really good designs, imo, although I still liked his better than the others (although after seeing Foster's monster building, it would have at least been a billion times better than the current crap). It was doomed from day 1, with or without L.
Someone should have made a big fuss when SOM dropped out of the competition and signed an agreement with Childs, before anything had even been proposed (now they are some savvy business punks!).

His arguement is that his buildings are like music....

In a tour of the place (back when all the steel was still exposed)-I noticed a a 4 foot tall piece of solid steel about 1 foot thick used only for temporary support of "the prow". I hope they re-used it.
Even the shitter pipes are canted in two axes. The gyp. board is almost done. Some new photos should be up soon.

DAM that is.....

I would agree that Libeskind Museum in berlin is incredible.
The point I was trying to make as to why I belive he is not taken seriously in architectural circles is because his work is mostly monumental kitsch and Trace proves my point. Libeskind is a crowd pleaser, but thats it. Trace sound like a giddy little school girl when describing the DAM. This is the reaction of most people have when they first see the building. Libeskind plays off of people's emotions. His architecture is like a pretty women super model, nice to look at but no substance. Peter Eisenmans says about star architects and the media " They want the stars, they do want the good architecture, they want the good stars"

Trace I would suggest you go see a decent musem like the Kimble, East Wing or the Bilabo

My reasons, as silly as they may be, for not liking drywall is this. As master builders architects should understand materials and detail them thoughtfully. Any Joe Shmoe can screw gyp board to wall, texture it, paint it and call it a day. It takes a real master to understand the complex properties of concrete, for example.

Strawbery,
I hooked up with tour of construction students from csu. You should go to the job and talk to the super, maybe you could piggy back on a tour. Nice guy and smart. Dont want to mention his name. In fact he developed a 4 dimensioal scheduling program for the museum project which save many millions of dollars and alot if time.

i don't think i am super critical when i say this cladding is a mess.

that does not look pretty.

I find this quite good, build real high and same turnaway attitude, by combining a few optic tricks to a CAD drawing and then turning it back into real cooerdinates without changing twisted shape ,make a huge impression.
Sad but my personal impression of the jewish museum in copenhagen, bring nothing but a dizzie feeling ,caused by all the angled walls and leaning floors , no feel for the structure and to much vaste volume for what use ,nothing. Sorry ,but now you know why I would never make it as architecture critic, but then I agrea that I am bound to say like this, as this is how I feel. I feel better in houses made for people and I to agrea ,that I never understood why you need to fight the materials to make them follow your mind, why modern houses need such arogant aproach.
Guess what I don't like are the fact that you never are shown the core structure, the thing that make it stay in the air , the thing that matter ; as if everything is just covered up, who can tell if it's just a hightech-lookalike, not the real thing, but something that shuld look like the real thing, whatever that might be.

losdogedog....obviously you are not an architect. you talk as if you know nothing about construction. "Any Joe Shmoe can screw gyp board to wall". it seems as if care more about materials than space.

that's fine, but Libeskind as about sculpting space. Libeskind is using concrete at the museum residences condo project across from the museum.

what's this?

what's wrong with the cladding???

what did everyone expect.....some 80's corporate granite and glass cladding? maybe some nice vinyl siding or wood shingles.

the cladding is reminescent of Ponti's glass tiles...very elegant.

anyone have any images of the condos across from the DAM?

that is daniel walking down

The only good thing about the titanium cladding is the way it mimics & reflects the light, depending upon the climate & sky that day. It may look a mess, but the material is quite nice. Visit the site right at dusk when there are a few clouds over the mountains. There's a a pub nearby, so if you aren't impressed, then the trip won't be a total waste.

i've been to this building (jewis museum) and the cladding is incredible.

what does losdogedog think about it? there's drywall in this museum also...it must suck then. but then again, the structure and walls are concrete. libeskind must be considered a master of materials, right?

i do like the way it just sits there, no shadow gap or base.

however, there is a riveted baseline

does anyone know how to post an image?

thats ok, nothing to get too excited about. quite cute actually.

aje, the code for posting an image is below the "post a response..." area.

thanks. i see it but it's ghosted out! i'm an idiot.

i found the inside of the building very worthy of its promise (it was completely empty). it does manage to take you through a chilling story of holocust. and thats is really dificult task to convey, for that, their work has strength and emotional layer.
i talk to some germans about it and they viewed it as another dagger to their bruised heart, perhaps of the sharp angles and knive edges..(?)

Everyone’s a critic. And everyone has their own opinion and say in our crappy profession. I’m not defending his buildings per se but compared to 99% of all construction in the U.S., his is more progressive and more challenging than the rest. That in itself is an accomplishment. Maybe he has exhausted his 15 minutes of fame, as can be seen by the utter un-attractiveness of the building in Ohio. But he has contributed to the profession and influenced many architects and architecture students with his jagged building forms.

As for the detailing question – most of that is due to budget. There are some extremely talented architects in his office. Most likely the oil-canning on the DAM was a cost saving measure by reducing the gage of the metal panels. If you’ve got to cut 2-3 million it’s a bit easier to cut a material cost rather than a geometrical form. Ghery did the same thing with Bilbao – and that’s why he switched to titanium, rather than stainless (at the time he got a good deal on titanium). Eisenman did the same at the Cincinnati architecture school and talked about it at various lectures. He would rather cut cost on materials (gyp board in lieu of marble wall panels) than eliminate geometry. I agree with him in theory but after visiting the school after a few years it has not weathered well.

Libeskinds problem is his work is supposed to mystifying and mysterious but when you become famous and every aspect of you and your work gets put on display in a superficial context you yourself become apart of the context. So by becoming famous and wanting to do what he wants to do on the scale he wants to do it he has reflexively or unintentionally negated his own mystifying intentions.

So personally for me Libeskind has no mystery. I think his work is exciting to see but thats the extent of it, its just ooohs and aaawwwws and cools for me

DEtroit is absolutely right. Libeskind is about sculpting space rather than worrying about using drywall or plaster.

All the comments about metal are amusing. i wonder if anyone who has made these comments has actually used any metals before? has anyone ever thought that Libeskind wanted the titanium to "oil can?" It wasn't a cost-saving measure at all! It gives the DAM a soft, hand-made quality....unlike, say, an SOM building with taught metal panels that are way too perfect. Oil Canning is not a bad thing. Look at Ando's concrete....it has imperfections. The Guggenheim has oil canning and is beautiful.

The beauty of Libeskind is that he is not afraid to use any material. He used stucco on the Imperial War Museum, wood on the Felix Nussbaum Museum, concrete on Studio Weil.

I dont know I think his problem is that he is slowly forgetting micromegas, and he is becoming a cartoon of himself.
Some of his last works look like they've all been butchered by Childs.

I think that the very cohesive 3-d things that he was doing are slowly becoming facade treatments.

Micromegas were at a certain point in his life. Now, he's moved on...as we all do.

I do like the handcrafted titanium panel look

looks good to me.

aje1971 do you work for him?

You can move on, but you should l;earn from what you've done on the past. That, I think, is the mark of a true master....

do you melquiades?

there aren't too many architects that have truly learned from the past. it's hard to do in this profession because it takes so long to get anything built....much less something really significant.

you have to remember that libeskind is in his infancy when it comes to building buildings. he's been at it for about 10 years. not bad for an intern architect.

gehry is a prime example of an architect truly learning and growing from past work. you can see hints in his early work. Wright is probably one of the only architects that completely reinvented himself...and he did more than once in his career.

[ ]http://www.image.com/image.jpg[/img]

I saw him lecture and read his book. I got from his lecture that he is a great person who if not for his wife, would not be where he is today and also acknowledges that. I have not seen his buildings in person, but the Berlin museum to me looks borderline perfect. I thought his original WTC design was far better than the others, but the Denver museum, even before I saw those awful photos by Strawbeary, is downright offensive. I mean c'mon what is up with those forms?!