i just visited michael graves san juan capistrano library. i had previously studied the building in a history class and was excited to go see and experience it for myself. but when i got there, i was completely disappointed. the place looks horrible! paint is chipping off the walls, gyp is beat up and dented in places, carpet is pulling away from walls, and it just looks so... dated. is this a sign of neglect or just a consequence of graves relying on paint and cheap materials to make architecture? the place was built in 1983 which makes it barely over 20 years... definitely not at "timeless" piece of architecture.
funny you've mentioned paint. i saw the library when they were painting inside out in 83'. painters said that there were over 80 different paint colors that needed to go in different places. it is chipping now? grahaha.
believe me it did look dated even then. and who said it was supposed to be timeless? but, also, they should repaint and recarpet after 20 yrs. cut some slack right there.
Interior paint has an 8 to 10 year lifespan at absolute best, even in fairly lightly-travelled areas. I don't think this has much to do with the architect. It's a maintenance issue. Sure, if the architect is told that the client doesn't plan to perform routine maintenance and renovation, AND the client budgets for more durable, long-wearing, maintenance-free surfaces, then the architect would have some culpability there. But the paint and carpet should be at least the 4th generation by now, and if they aren't then that's the client's issue.
Orhan, I must have toured it around that time and heard the same thing. Apparently they are bound by contract to stick to those paint colors--maybe that is the problem, just can't tell the janitor to grab some paint and go to work. A big expensive job.
This reminds me of when Michrael Graves commented on the residence in Fort Wayne about to be razed. He said he wouldn't intervene because architects shouldn't interfere with the life of their work. In other words if it is worth saving, people will save it. This is fine a good, but what happens when the architect works against his/her work by making it difficult or expensive to maintain? timpdx is right on.
my graves toilet brush died, i scrubbed the bristles off, i loved it, it reminded me of the man himself. as though i was using his head to cleam my bowl...
I hate Michael Graves' work. Both his buildings and his objects look like disney versions of themselves. Like he drew something REAL, and then had an animator sketch over it, and built it the way the animator drew it instead.
I remember being shocked by his Portland building - how dreary it was inside, and how poorly it was aging..It just doesn't look normal in reality, it's meant to be seen only in a photograph. I like his teapot, though..maybe he missed his calling as an industrial designer.
And as for the legions of yellow-trace terra-cotta color pencil drawing wannabes he released like swarms of bees ...ugh.
right after this project, michael recieved his invitation from pj to be in the same group with maier, eisenman, hejduk, gwatmey seagal as one of the five. soon after he quit white..
can someone explain to me why Michael Graves is Michael Graves? What were his successful designs? Why the Princeton deanship? Why the product design for target??( i can see how that could just be a byproduct of the architectural fame).
ps, I really like Meredith Clausen's writing. Anyone from U of Washington taken a class with her?
it is called post-modernism...was big back in the day
i always thought that maybe his buildings look the way they do because of his lazy eye. Maybe this contributed to a lack of depth perception, this being why his buildings are realativly 'flat'
on a bit o' pomoGraves: the Federal Reserve Bank of Dallas in Houston, Texas.
A wise Talking Head said "This very out of place structure somehow lingers, like a fart left by someone no longer in an elevator."
toured the humana building in louisville with students today (as i do every year) and am always amazed by how GOOD it really is. it's so specific to louisville and so. well. made.
hating on graves is ok, i guess, for sport. but it's good sometimes to acknowledge the sensitivity and unique character of a lot of his best work, too.
grave disappointment
i just visited michael graves san juan capistrano library. i had previously studied the building in a history class and was excited to go see and experience it for myself. but when i got there, i was completely disappointed. the place looks horrible! paint is chipping off the walls, gyp is beat up and dented in places, carpet is pulling away from walls, and it just looks so... dated. is this a sign of neglect or just a consequence of graves relying on paint and cheap materials to make architecture? the place was built in 1983 which makes it barely over 20 years... definitely not at "timeless" piece of architecture.
it it graves
yep. as i think mdler meant to say, it is graves.
funny you've mentioned paint. i saw the library when they were painting inside out in 83'. painters said that there were over 80 different paint colors that needed to go in different places. it is chipping now? grahaha.
believe me it did look dated even then. and who said it was supposed to be timeless? but, also, they should repaint and recarpet after 20 yrs. cut some slack right there.
Interior paint has an 8 to 10 year lifespan at absolute best, even in fairly lightly-travelled areas. I don't think this has much to do with the architect. It's a maintenance issue. Sure, if the architect is told that the client doesn't plan to perform routine maintenance and renovation, AND the client budgets for more durable, long-wearing, maintenance-free surfaces, then the architect would have some culpability there. But the paint and carpet should be at least the 4th generation by now, and if they aren't then that's the client's issue.
He should have gone with some mint green institutional tiles. Like at my middle school. You know the ones.
One must always protect one's building from when one of these things blows up:
Orhan, I must have toured it around that time and heard the same thing. Apparently they are bound by contract to stick to those paint colors--maybe that is the problem, just can't tell the janitor to grab some paint and go to work. A big expensive job.
OTOH Capistrano is a very wealthy little city.
This reminds me of when Michrael Graves commented on the residence in Fort Wayne about to be razed. He said he wouldn't intervene because architects shouldn't interfere with the life of their work. In other words if it is worth saving, people will save it. This is fine a good, but what happens when the architect works against his/her work by making it difficult or expensive to maintain? timpdx is right on.
Graves is always a disappointment...although the man makes a mean toilet brush
my graves toilet brush died, i scrubbed the bristles off, i loved it, it reminded me of the man himself. as though i was using his head to cleam my bowl...
I hate Michael Graves' work. Both his buildings and his objects look like disney versions of themselves. Like he drew something REAL, and then had an animator sketch over it, and built it the way the animator drew it instead.
I remember being shocked by his Portland building - how dreary it was inside, and how poorly it was aging..It just doesn't look normal in reality, it's meant to be seen only in a photograph. I like his teapot, though..maybe he missed his calling as an industrial designer.
And as for the legions of yellow-trace terra-cotta color pencil drawing wannabes he released like swarms of bees ...ugh.
right after this project, michael recieved his invitation from pj to be in the same group with maier, eisenman, hejduk, gwatmey seagal as one of the five. soon after he quit white..
Read this:
http://architronic.saed.kent.edu/v6n1/v6n1.02a.html
I haven't read much about MG's other work....
can someone explain to me why Michael Graves is Michael Graves? What were his successful designs? Why the Princeton deanship? Why the product design for target??( i can see how that could just be a byproduct of the architectural fame).
ps, I really like Meredith Clausen's writing. Anyone from U of Washington taken a class with her?
it is called post-modernism...was big back in the day
i always thought that maybe his buildings look the way they do because of his lazy eye. Maybe this contributed to a lack of depth perception, this being why his buildings are realativly 'flat'
my $.02
on a bit o' pomoGraves: the Federal Reserve Bank of Dallas in Houston, Texas.
A wise Talking Head said "This very out of place structure somehow lingers, like a fart left by someone no longer in an elevator."
toured the humana building in louisville with students today (as i do every year) and am always amazed by how GOOD it really is. it's so specific to louisville and so. well. made.
hating on graves is ok, i guess, for sport. but it's good sometimes to acknowledge the sensitivity and unique character of a lot of his best work, too.
Snyderman House Fort Wayne Indianastan 1972, torched in 2002
A bizarre body of work, really... every building seems transitional at best... All of them in-between-schemes.
Best new word in this thread: cleam
Prize goes to Beta
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.