Ghery learned?!?!?!!?, I mean I've been to some of his pre-acid buildings and can truly say that they sucked even worsethan his many fish stylings.

i always like the pillowy, soft look of oilcanned metal. adds visual relief to what would otherwise be flat, boring surfaces.

gotta take issue, though, with the reference to perfect SOM metal panels. take a look at inland steel. looks like you could take a nice comfy nap on one of those panels.

taste is all subjective, but the difference between this and a first-year architecture student's project is that this is being built. but that's just from an image of the exterior.

the jewish museum is incredible, i have never been so enraged and horrified by space in my life. all certainly was stripped from me as i could not determine what was level, what was straight, what was right. and i had no idea where i was being led. my whole world had been ripped from me and i was in the bowels of a reality terrible and dark.

it's a powerful metaphor for the holocaust and one of the very very few times i've been affected by pure space alone.

anyone who can do that is still worth talking about.

I did see the Berlin Jewish Museum, and I still think is perfect. I think he is cheesy as hell in his talk, but thats neither her nor there.

I think he has forgotten the many lessons he has learned Im saddened, I thought he was one of the few silver linings in the dark clouds of starchitecture.

this one looks like a student's bad first year project.

at least the man has grown in his career. you gotta give him that! wether you like gehry's buildings or not...he's pushing limits which most of aren't even close to doing.

if the DAM is so bad, we could start talking about all the other great architecture Denver has to offer...

architecture is a visceral experience...you need to experience these buildings in person. judging architecture from a photo is impossible. how can one building look perfect and another look crazy?

i think my problem with both his denver and san francisco projects are that they do not survive value engineering well. they look clumsy especially when comparing them to his inital sketches and when you consider what you know ol danny boy is capable of as seen by the photos that abra posted.

part of being a good architect is to understand the financial implications of what you draw is going to be. i'm not saying that these two projects are danny's fault, but if he knew that the budgets could not come anywhere near achieving the spirit seen in his initial sketches, he should have gone about designing them differently because in my opinion, in the end, they do not live up to the hype that he wanted us to believe in.

All of the exterior walls of the Jewish Museum were originally sloping. Libeskind had to "value engineer" to cut $10m. The Imperial War Museum's budget was cut in half in the middle of the project. Denver is being built on a shoe-string budget.

it appears that Libeskind doesn't need carte blanche to design a great building. unlike some "star" architects.

i would say that too many architects think they understand the cost of what they are drawing and sell themselves short long before they show the idea to the client. part of being a good architect is showing people possibilities. any architect can draw 4 walls and a roof.

people should reserve judgement on SF and Denver until they can actually experience the buildings. why is it so easy for so many people in this profession to judge buildings before they are built? i guess the profession is shitting out a bunch of drones that only used 45/45 triangles in school....and maybe a french curve.

Materials hold cultural memory. I've seen dozens upon dozens of cheap office and warehouse buildings that have oilcanned metal cladding panels. When I look at DAM and see oilcanning, I see a cheap metal building, and no amount of writing or lecturing about intent is going to change that image in my mind.

Liberty Bell, you're absolutely right... to a point. Materials do hold certain "preconceptions". I would hope to never equate "culture" and "memory", however, to such a personal preconception as it has allowed 99% of U.S. architecture to be deemed acceptable. Case in point, I work within an architecture firm, based out of Denver, that unfortunately is guided by the hand of owner ideals. These projects, though functional, are neither inspired (conceptual) or inspirational (indifferent) but are often treated in what is often considered long-standing affirmations of quality materials. I think everyone understands, however, that a "shit-box", whether covered in brick, granite, marble or even gold, is still a "shit-box". Now, I know what your thinking..., "but my argument is about the oilcanning, the actual detailing, and not the material..." Of course, but consider the material and its application. These Titanium panels are being applied to a structure that is inherently sharp, crisp, and angular. I for one, welcome the hand-made quality that creates the "pillowy" [ochona] effect that allows these Titanium panels to shimmer and refract the light of Denver. Especially with all of the computer technology to guarantee undefinable tolerances, the nature of the Titanium is only heightened by the minimal amounts of oilcanning which is often difficult to capture in the above photographs.

"Art, in truth," wrote Eugene Veron,"addressess all the feelings without exception; ope or fear, joy or grief, love or hatre. It interprets every emotion that agitates the human heart, and never troubles itself with its relation to visible or ideal perfection. It even expresses what is ugly or horrible without ceasing to be art and worthy of admiration."

losdogedog "His architecture is like a pretty women super model"

Yup, I am a sucker for super models. Give me beauty and form over nice clothes any day. Nice analogy, I think I'll keep that one ;-)

e, agree wholeheartedly on that last image.

all in all his work is getting a bit tired. One would expect that after so many years his work would develop and steer away from stupid literal gestures like sharp angles, shards, etc and would search for deeper meanings than some crappy poetry about geometry.

Actually it is the poetic justifications he offers for his buildings that make me dislike them even more.

And trace, while i agree with you for most parts, i think architecture could be able to achieve more than (loud) formal statements

The following is how Mark Kingwell describes Libeskind's work.
This could also be said about DAM.

The design is neither revolutionary nor witty. It sits oddly in the current urban fabric but without really challenging or recasting the surrounding skyline. It’s just there, already something of a mere novelty, whose value will wear off more quickly than its remaining windows will be scored by winter salt and acid snow. There is nothing truly shocking here, none of the invigorating disdain of a theorist such as Eisenman, say, who refused to alter dangerous, ankle-breaking staircases in one building so that people “would never take stairs for granted again.”(6) In a familiar paradox of recent monumental-conceptual architecture, like Gehry’s “Bilbao-Lite” projects in Seattle and Cleveland, the building is difficult without being interesting.

my lawyer wont take those stairs for granted either petey...

Au Contrare Mr. Kingwell! His comments are shallow and narrow-minded...just like most critics. Gehry, Libeskind, and Eisenmann's designs are all revolutionary. They challenge the mere norm of Architecture and construction. Gehry and Libeskind are pushing limits with form and structure and even computer modeling.

The DAM does sit oddly in its surroundings and it does challenge and recast the surroundings. The Ponti and Graves buildings never looked better. It allows you to experience all the buildings around it in a new way. The DAM responds to the larger urban fabric...the city, not just its immediate surroundings.

How is refusing to alter an "ankle-breaking" stair invigorating disdain? This guy is nuts!

would the DAM look better if it were brick or stone? or maybe vinyl siding or stucco?

E:\images

I agree that architecture can be more than sexy, provacative forms, but that's what this program calls for and that's what this downtown needs. Do I want another one here? Hell no! But as a stimulating sculptural building, I love it. It makes people think, it opens their minds to the limitless possibilities, and the fact that the lofts are sold (and they weren't cheap) is testament to that ('cause God knows I wouldn't want to live right there without that museum! Not the best part of town, especially for $750k+ lofts).

It brings the entire area to life, and that is something special that could not be achieved with a 'standard' building. I am just happy that it's opened up a discusion about architecture with regular citizens. Everyone I know loves it, even if they don't understand it. The simple fact that they are now aware of the vast diversity that architecture can offer is quite a success.

the problem with danny is all of his inhabitable interiors fall on their face (the jewish museum doesn't count, it's a 'tomb' typology anyways)
, they're incoherent remnant spaces left over from the over-fetishised exterior articulation. it's as if a fashion designer created a 'brilliant' outfit, and the body had to strangely contort itself to fit into it...there's some value in that in the conceptual sense (a la wrights guggenheim), but where wright was concerned with the 'beautiful woman' as well as the 'beautiful outfit', mr. lieb seems to not be able to un-fixate on the wrappers. There's a freudian component to this too, but it's not currently worth talking about....
..oh, and to answer the initial question. yes, he is worth talking about, you learn as much discussing 'bad' buildings as you do the 'good' ones.

Hi
I find it most vorrying when a house are not outfit for humans, ofcaurse the jewish museum count, but maby you don't know what Im'e talking about ; I say the one in copenhagen show exactly how broken apart, the interiours volumes, silli angled floors , well if you guy's takl about the berliin one please know there are more jewish museums than that -- and in particular the one in copenhagen, show little faviour to the fine old building it is "installed in.
Agrea that I value the structures more than a distant attitude ,I find it most important that architecture profit from CAD but acturly there are very little CAD it seem , ---- or did any of you ever make your oppinion about the innovative core of these structures, did anyone judge deeper than the surface the forms the trend if that is good or bad. Did you find a clever way ,a way to produce cheap capasity housing , did you find beauty ;))

[trace] is right on the money and is obviously from Denver. It has done wonders for this area....as will the Condos...and the future tower and hotel on Broadway (also being designed by Libeskind).

I've also had a chance to walk through the DAM on a tour and the interiors are calm and serene...even with all the guts exposed. You actually get a sense for how dynamic the spaces will be. The atrium is amazing. I guess the building can be seen as over-articulated if you're used to designing and living and working in buildings where everything is 90 degrees. But that articulation is what makes the building interesting....on the exterior and interior...no matter if the angles are 90, 45, or any other angle.

Aren't all buildings interiors' left over spaces from the articulation of exterior forms? Gehry's Guggenheim, Zumthor's Kunsthaus, Bruder's library, Gaudi, Palladio, the Pyramids, an outhouse, your house....?

[Per Corell] It seems as if most comments are only skin deep...which is odd coming from a supposed bunch of architects and designers. why is it so easy for architects to judge a book by its cover? try opening it first and then comment.

one of the problems i have with libeskinds recent work is that it appears not continue the precedent set by the jewish museum. i dont mean this in a simplistic sense in that the museum was a masterpiece and invevitably the others havent measured up, but more from the point of view that the jewish museum is possibly the strongest example of the museum architecture as being completely and inseperably involved in not only housing, but also literaly and abstractly telling the story of the exhibition.

think about the tate modern's nonspecific white spaces, or even gehry's galleries where the amazing exterior forms conceal almost mute spaces. compare that to the jewish museum where every aspect of the architecture is assigned meaning, from the forms to the planning to the details. and its fantastic.

but the problems or atleast the criticisms arise because it seems that the recent buildings are nowhere near as rigorus in their conception or realisation, yet they use the same architectural language. now im aware that all architects have a certain continuity of form and language, hell gehry could do a guggenheim in every city in the world, but then he never claimed that one of his titanium forms represented something with as much gravity as the holocaust.

aje1971 ;

"[Per Corell] It seems as if most comments are only skin deep...which is odd coming from a supposed bunch of architects and designers. why is it so easy for architects to judge a book by its cover? try opening it first and then comment."

Sorry it is proberly becaurse my expertations are to high -- expecting real visionary architecture to bring more than a distant attitude ,expecting today's architecture to carry an innovative edge , cutting out not just the expected geometrics but the core structure, the solution for bringing in CAD as the real tool replacing fast sketches or presentations made to be spetacular . Sorry if my expertations are to high if I expect architecture to be more than Icon building ,museums and spetacular public buildings ---- but didn't architecture provide better before , wasn't it so that it was never enough to just shape the exteriour , shuldn't today's architecture in fact bring the solutions with the visions, the new methods and the innovative aproach ?
Agrea I am a designer not an architect.

meaning doesn't just come from representation. maybe there is a more relevant meaning that comes from what a building does vs. simply what it says

upside: one reason the Jewish Museum was so spectacular was it's purpose. Bilbao and DMA are for general use, rotating/traveling exhibits, etc., and therefore need some kind of flexibility.

So you're saying a flexible space is a generic space? If the Jewish Museum was emptied of its permanent exhibits and filled with rotating/traveling exhibits it would lose its meaning? To the contrary it would be much strengthened; the holocaust does not end when you assend the museum stairs and exit, it exists around us and is imbedded all over our culture - from your household cleaners to the VW you drive to work to the Thyssen Krupp elevator that takes you to your desk to the IBM you sit in front of all day. The fact that millions of people walked through the museum without any exhibit testifies to it hitting on something real. I bet if I worked with the ten best designers I know for ten years on a grocery store the end accomplishment wouldn't require isles of food because the building would have substance... Leipziger Platz in Berlin is a grocery store. The key to good architecture is a strong idea followed through with the time and clarity needed to execute it in a way that triggers conscious and intuitive reactions. Often good architecture initially gets the instinctive "it's different, I hate it!" reaction because we're not used to being "touched there". I love being touched there... ohhh yeah.

i like form/space playing, however i have reservations about libeskind and gehry's works.
architecture has come to an era of exhaustion, i think architecture today is the same taking some ordinary schmoe and letting him design whatever he wants without being really socially and environmntally responsible. buildings you know is not an independent entity. it has a direct relationship with its enviornmnet. the future is bleak if we continue being so irresponsible.
however there is hope, im optimistic about the future.. we would come to a realization that all this are just a product of our excessive consumerism on what is fashionable. we regard architecture too much in terms of its power, we regard ourselves us gods...sheesh why cant we be humble for once and think about the USERS! architecture for me is a two way participation between user and architect, the problem is that we leave users out of the equation, all goes to the "avant garde" "the radical" "the deconstructivist" all these catch phrases really annoy me..
i came from the east, i think all this is a western fettish for "fashionable" architecture will really take a toll on us all in the future.... o man we are really getting into deep shit with this destructive architecture.. kahn's kimbell museum, tadao ando, renzo piano, murcutt, that's REAL ARCHITECTURE.

libeskind's poetic waxing really annoy me along with those "deconstructivists"...they use their catch words masterfully, words like fragmentation, dysjunction, fractals...they reall make me laugh. architectural education is really getting a beating with this loads of crap fed into them.

fractals?
r u k m?

no im not kiddin u, you should check out salingaros take on this "intellectuals".

libeskind cmon, he's definitely worth talking about..with all his fancy buildings mushrooming all over the place, he even got a status of a rockstar. i wont mind talking about about some fraud.

sadly... these are all architectural follies, his works are similar to first year design works..even better than his.

his publications are even worse, full of crap, i think libeskind is a good graphic designer.

no serious academic input...

Jewish museum Copenhagen, Quite an interiour, most complain feeling a bit seasick.