I know it's probably blasphemy to even ask this around here, but I'm just curious if anyone who's been following the Grosse Pointe Library discussion favors or is indifferent to demolishing the building? It's great that there's been such an outpouring of enthusiasm and passion about it, but I'm just not feeling it.
Bryan, I suspect if you are alien to it like I am or not a fan of Bruer or modernism in fact it is possible to be indifferent to it. However I believe such makes it of such cultural importance. There is always the opportunity to play the silent observer, which makes you more important to offer criticism on the final proposal; since this project & exercise is fundamentally about changing peoples' minds
It doesn't look like a particularly revolutionary modernist building to me, but I am interested in keeping the building from the standpoint of a environmental decision. I think it is a good challenge to undertake in a community that is probably so wealthy that it is used to just tearing stuff down that they don't want, and replacing it with new, disposable buildings. This could be very enlightening for these people, to show them that it is possible to come up with an attractive solution to a problem that will benefit both their community and their pocketbooks in the long run. And I am always up for a good challenge....
absolutely, and to piggy-back on dubK's comment, I wanted to add that isn't this why we (part of it) went into this profession for? Meaning, the notion and opportunity to resolve issues having to do with site, restrictions, context, and all the other good stuff (codes, zoning, clients) I mean, tearing it down just doesn't offer the challenge (as DubK said) that you would get with a clean slate
Just my $.02 cents
in addition, I never particularly sought out the work of Breuer, but now I must say that I am starting to really focus on works like his and really appreciate what was done.
I do not mind the demolition of most of the derelict buildings in the Detroit area to make way for new and better developments. This is not a case of removing the unused and replacing it with another architecturally important building. To propose to replace the current Breuer building with another piece of pseudo post modernistic Jeffersonian architecture. Why add to the existing crap that litters the surrounding city's and towns?
DubK beat me to it---that's exactly how I feel. I didn't know of the building at all until this, but I support the preservation/rehabilitation/reuse of buildings (historic or not) in general. I don't support the culture that encourages razing buildings to the ground just because you think you could do a little better.
Breuer's great, but i'm not sure who would give a crap. Compared to half of a downtown i don't find breuer nearly as interesting (if i had to choose). I honestly get far more fired up about the slow deterioration and demolition of Detroit.
since all you tell us is that you are "just not feeling it," I will take your passing comment as a casual aesthetic observation. I can certainly understand that it doesn't appeal to your aesthetic sensibilities (nor to the library director's, for that matter). Nevertheless, the project is a work of Architecture, rather than a mere building (to borrow a distinction that was first articulated to me during my first year of design education, via Le Corbusier's Towards a New Architecture).
here are some of my motivations for being involved with this (aside from issues of resource conservation):
It is of its time, and has a certain appropriate-ness that many buildings constructed today come nowhere near. In addition, it houses at least two other pieces of work created by artists that were contemporaries of Breuer - a mobile by Calder and a tapestry (?) by Kandinsky. I believe these works were commissioned for the building in the '50s (if not, they were purchased by the original client/patron for the space).
It is responsive to its site (both physical and otherwise).
It was built for its place. I recall reading somewhere that the architect altered the exterior material to brick at the request of the client/patron (much of Breuer's civic work was executed in concrete, while his residential work often included masonry).
It is well crafted (judging only from drawings and images, and the reports of those who have seen it in person).
This project also sits in an interesting position in Breuer's career, just before he became highly sought after. Archinect member 'aml' created a timeline of Breuer's work that demonstrates this fact (it may be on the MAPA wiki, which is linked to on the SAVE ME thread).
Finally, it has a place in the heritage of Grosse Pointe. In closing, some cut/paste from the SAVE ME thread: ...design ingenuity can lead to solutions that accommodate contemporary needs while respecting modern landmarks.
You are certainly entitled to your position, but do us the service of articulating it. Although you may not have given this much thought, I still find your thread useful because it gives those of us with the position that the library should be saved a place to make our own argument. If nothing else, this is good practice.
I think bryan4arch was just encouraging a full debate on the subject, as we are only seeing one side of it currently. I don't even believe that he necessarily supports tearing it down, just that he wanted to see if there was anyone out there who did.
but in any even AP it is his opinion, which I do respect and as was said, he did have the 'balls' to post.
I agree, he has incited good debate about the idea of maintaining such a piece of architecture, which has only but reaffirmed most of our beliefs and passion for opposition to it's being razed.
opinions are fine to have, squirrelly, and it's also ok to ask the question, "Anyone support tearing it down?"
but how useful is it to throw opinions around when we could be demonstrating positions that were arrived at with logic? I'm not saying my position is solid, but I have carefully considered it, and I'm comfortable holding it with some conviction and attempting to support it in a discussion. and to be clear, I'm not interested in a right or wrong answer - i'm interested in a dialogue wrought by reason. they're fun.
In that sense, this thread could be a very useful way to develop a case for or against demolition. there is a clear purpose to such a discussion.
If this thread is about opinions, I won't waste anymore time on it. If it's about making a case, one way or the other, well...that seems like a useful thing to do with my lunch break.
i think the examples of modern architecture are in minute numbers comparing to total number of buildings which qualifies as 'architectural work'. let alone the numbers of buildings designed by important modern masters such as breuer, gropius, mies, wright, neutra, schindler and many more from coast to coast in north america. these buildings are often of gold leafed cornices or tile roofs or gingerbread detailing that communities are more familiar with.
i think it is architectural community's job to educate people about these buildings and teach them these buildings are not only just buildings but their very designs influanced many of everyday products and machinery that is used today or are in development.
it is not about liking this building or disliking the other.
it is about preserving a piece of rare sample of our own history. specially if it is deemed to be erased due to solvable space requirements and growth.
should be indifferent if the decision made to demolish unity temple in oak park because it is too small, schindler house in los angeles because new aprtment building can provide ten more condo units for the developer.
if you don't give crap, keep the crap to yourself until you find an appropriate out house to dump it all down.
i'm doubtful that it took any real guts to post this thread. there were already several posters who supported the demolition of this "mediocre" building on the original thread. if anything, i'm annoyed because we already have several threads regarding this library...why start a new thread when we're already on the topic elsewhere? anyhow...
"Anyone support tearing it down?"
funny that should be asked. i keeping chewing on something written in the herzog & de meuron natural history book where they were being interviewed about dealing with existing buildings or found objects, so to speak. they offered a reasonable answer when they replied that they'll tear down if there's reason to tear down and they cite the de young museum in san francisco as an example. that position is definitely congruent with my own thinking and the trouble i have with the grosse point central library is not so much the demolition but the reasoning & genesis of that demolition. the library is going to be torn down (and it's still likely that it will be torn down) primarily because the library board has been taking a business-as-usual approach with their project. they've already built two new libraries recently (within the past three years) and seem to be driven by a kind of business-like/bottom-line approach in achieving a new central library as well. they're aware of the cultural importance of the building but i don't think it initially resonated with them how important that might be, so when they hit a snag like the parking requirements then it was easy to say, "well, guess we'll just have to build brand new then". personally, i find that to be specious because it's debatable as to how valid those parking requirements even are to begin with...and i don't find it to be a compelling enough reason to tear the building down.
the other odd thing, for me at least, is that i'm not necessarily certain that i'm "feeling it" either. but here's why this is an important project in my opinion: if grosse pointe with all their money & education can't find a way to make this project work, then what hope is there for the rest of us? how many other relatively unknown, modest gems of the past half-century will be gobbled up the the unwitting citizens of lesser communities?
in sum, this is a special opportunity and a timely one too. we have an intelligent, successful client in the library board (& the grosse pointe community at large) and they are willing to engage us in a discussion of the value of architecture. how many posts on this forum have chided clients for their foolish disregard of architecture? have many times have we felt like no one was listening to our concerns? that noboby cares about architecture? well, we got their attention now so let's make the most of it.
I don't support demolishing the library, or most other buildings for that matter. Not only is it a waste of resources, it's often the case that one set of problems simply ends up being replaced by a different set of problems.
What I'm not feeling is what has sparked so much passion about this building in particular. Buildings small and large, great and insignificant are demolished or altered beyond recognition every day. Why has so much support galvanized behind this building and not the others? If the effort succeeds (or even if not) will Archinecters stand up to fight for other buildings, even if they’re works of lesser-known architects or located in communities lacking the resources of Grosse Pointe? (some of these questions have already been addressed).
On a more philosophical note, I feel more indifferent than most on the historical or sentimental reasons for preserving existing buildings. If a building exists in my mind, it exists. If the architect has done a through job of presenting his/her work in plan, section, elevation, details, sketches, and/or models the actual existence of the built work becomes almost immaterial in my view.
Good point Bryan,
As for the other communities and other buildings. Some of us do fight it, for the same reasons this one is being fought for. I just think the right combination of individuals, topic, and time resulted in excitingenough people on this forum to do something. Archinect has reported the demolition of other buildings, without this type of response from the ground. The timing of the reporting (before the plan was final) and the unique makeup of the forum, created this push. I envision similar things happening again, if the "planets align".
j
b4a,
don't you think historical importance is a good enough reason to save a building?
i have seen a small and beautiful sample of irving gill's house 20 years ago in torrance ,ca. that little house was recorded in charles moore's 'the city observed, los angeles' guide book. two years after the first visit i happened to be in the area to show it a friend of mine who was interested seeing gill's lesser known works. lo and behold, the house was replaced with one of those brass sconced cut glass entry doored two story maximum footprinted cheap building with vinyl windows w/ fake plastic frenched mullions. the owner was washing his car in front and we started to talk about the house that was there and he said they got rid of the shack that was there because the purchase price was next to nothing. we shoved him the book and after reading the caption about the previous building, he said wow and he wished he knew it before he tore it down.
that little house was abot 7-800 sq. ft and was beautifully sited and in it's small area it had a beautifully proportioned living room and other rooms. the large garden was full of beautiful fruit trees and if it were to kept, it would have been a perfect example/learning point of a typical lot use for a small family residence that people are really interested these days.
the house is gone. no floor plans left. i can't find the photos i took during first visit and people in the neighborhood has no clue who the hell irving gill is.
i am not indifferent.
regarding the grosse point library, like puddles mentioned above,
i see this corporate styled take over. using perhaps nonexisting parking problem as an excuse to get rid of entire building.
do you realize how many cubic yards of previously significant building that is?
i am sure significant buildings are demoed everyday for better market value instead of better cultural value. i gave an personally witnessed sample above.
i find your argument very incomplete, for you don't offer any words as to why these buildings are insignificant historically or sentimentally, therefore their demolishment or erasure has no significant effect in the long run in anyway.
i don't have to argue for my points because there are countless arguments, books and institutions supporting them.
i would find it really significantly interesting if you can argue your points besides shrug offs like, " On a more philosophical note, I feel more indifferent than most on the historical or sentimental reasons for preserving existing buildings. If a building exists in my mind, it exists. If the architect has done a through job of presenting his/her work in plan, section, elevation, details, sketches, and/or models the actual existence of the built work becomes almost immaterial in my view."
That's a great observation, Josh. We are usually hearing about the teardowns once the wrecking balls are already headed over there, but early information can produce great results.
If the architect has done a through job of presenting his/her work in plan, section, elevation, details, sketches, and/or models the actual existence of the built work becomes almost immaterial in my view.
the existence of a well-documented building that doesn't exist IS, in fact, immaterial.
i've never found that drawings of buildings smell, feel, or sound like buildings at all.
admittedly i'm biased at this point, having put a lot of energy into this, but i think you're initial post is not ballsy at all but more like irresponsible. you've raised a provocation, but not backed it up with anything except 'feeling it'.
all that said, i'd love to hear more from you because it would be good to continue this discussion and really develop thoughtful and critical arguments both for and against keeping the building. that way (for us) we'd be able to build our argument for when we face others with the same indifference.
Perhaps bryan isn't questioning the impetus to save any historical work by a famous architect.....I read it as him questioning this particular effort. Semantics....
With regards to puddles question above:
"if anything, i'm annoyed because we already have several threads regarding this library...why start a new thread when we're already on the topic elsewhere?
The answer is, for those of us who weren't "on board" from the very beginning, or around for every minute of every day that the original thread got to upwards of 400 posts (almost 500 now), sitting around and trying to catch up is not only daunting and intimidating, it's impractical. Some of us actually are quite busy, you know.
"Historical Importance" What vague, fuzzy sorts of words. How important? Important to whom? And who decides this? I rarely think that "historical importance" alone is enough reason to save a building, precisely because of this. On personal importance: What do I care about some house that George Washington lived in for five years? What does anybody care about a house that George Washington lived in for five years? On architectural importance: Who's to say that Marcel Breuer's work is more worthy of being saved than Joe Smith's work down the street? Is it being saved just because it's a Breuer? If so, is it valid to save the lesser-known, lesser-quality work of an otherwise good architect? And who decides which ones were "good", anyhow? If this is what you would call one of his better pieces, shouldn't its "goodness" be so apparent that nobody would want to tear it down? On general historical importance (events, etc.): Who decides what events are worth commemorating through the preservation of their place of happenstance, and what events are not? Where does it stop if you start on this tack?
This subjectivity places the subject of preservation very precariously, because the general answer to why something was preserved was, "Because it seemed like the thing to do at the time." Plus, it is unfortunate how often preservation takes a building "out of circulation" as I like to put it. This refers to those buildings that get turned into historical museums, or are otherwise not allowed to grow and change with their community. These buildings have patently outlived their usefulness, and are being kept up basically on life support as a result of superficial values.
On the other hand, I fully support the maintanece or even repurposing of buildings that are still capable of useful function, that can contribute to the economics of their community. For this reason I support saving this particular library, as it is still used and beloved by members of its community. It is a waste of materials and resources to tear down a building which still functions at such a high level. Throwing around ideas of "historical importance" will not win over everybody, because of that subjective word importance. But current value and usefulness are much more difficult to argue away.
Wow... AP, Orhan A, you seem to be getting very aggravated by this discussion while trying to explain that we should be having rational open minded conversations. This is getting interesting.
I believe a Discussion titled “Any One in Favor of Tearing It Down?” could be more productive than 50 posts in one day of people mutually patting each other on the back for agreeing the thing should be saved. That’s what the petition is for.
Whether Modern or Gothic revival, the hinge point in any preservationist debate is: How do you decide what you save and what you don’t. And more importantly, who decides?
Getting red in the face while trying to explain to people that they shouldn’t tear something down because you say so just makes architects look self righteous. As an Irving Gill fan I am equally abhorred by your story Orhan, but private property ownership gives people the right to do what they want. We can make statements and galvanize support, but we aren’t the culture police.
What I am trying to flesh out is: Is the fact it was a Breuer building enough to save the library? It is important to understand whether or not people are getting excited about saving Breuer because mid-century modernism is popular now or because they feel Grosse Point will be better for it. And while I am in support of saving the building I am a bit surprised it is getting as much attention in comparison to a lot of other buildings.
regardless of any sort of "importance" i don't think i would ever want to take down a building. (unless of course it was time, health risks, etc.)
granted, functional requirements do change, and it makes sense business wise... but to destroy a building is destroying so much more.
let there be ruins, i say. I hope pilgrim baptist stays the way it is forever. i would never want to be responsible for erasing a piece of another architects soul. (be it sullivan, breuer, or whoever)
not to mention the heritage of a community
anyway, my argument doesn't hold any worth, it's just a personal opinion. and though i spend every waking minute trying to debunk the fourth dimension, i still can't stand the thought of something being lost forever.
Like I said at the start of the original thread, I support tearing it down to build something better. However, I was convinced by people with a better understanding of the context that the replacement was likely to be considerably worse - in which case protect away!
i love the way when people get a strong response to their posts, they say "wow, what happen to open discussion?"
well nothing happened to opened discussion. go on man.
and when you read something try to pass obvious mechanics, if necessary to expand a little. we all know about private property and etc,
this is a point in case of demolishing architecturally significant works. culture police is your invention.
from my perspective, as someone who has at least visited the central library, i'm in favor of avoiding its demolition because i find it to be a very pleasant & modest building. it's nothing spectacular...it's simply a well-done project. that it's a "breuer" almost doesn't even matter to me. and truthfully i would probably be just as appalled by the work of a starchitect (gehry, libeskind, etc.) replacing it as i am by the thought of a local & undistinguished firm getting their hands on it.
more than anything, it's the process that's been bothersome. this is a challenging but potentially very rewarding project that should be awarded to a talented young firm/architect that's capable of rising to the task. i'm not sure who i'd want to see the library hire. i'd love to see what a young herzog de meuron or maybe zumthor would have done with this library...except those guys arent' so young anymore & probably have other interests. so why not find who else is out there? it'll take a lot of ambition & talent to achieve the kind of project
for comparion's sake, i'll reference the recently completed ica in boston by diller & scofidio. although i'm don't know all of details of their search for an architect, i was able to attend a public presentation about six years ago when the museum directors had narrowed their search to four architects (office da, zumthor, diller & scofidio and studio granda) who each had an hour to make a presentation to a lecture hall full of people, most of whom probably had no stake in the project other than to live in the same town. the ica realized the significance of their project and exercised great diligence in seeing that they lived up to that responsibility. admittedly, there are many differences between boston's ica & grosse pointe's central library...but i'm still hoping that the library board will embrace the opportunity that their central library project represents with a similar spirit to that exhibited in boston six years ago.
i think it's important to offer alternatives to demolishing this building for many reasons. among them:
1. because it's a breuer, and is therefore a notable part of architecture history.
2. because it's distinct among breuer's work in that members of the community convinced the architect to make certain changes (e.g., use of brick) that were uncharacteristic of the architect's work, making it uniquely grosse pointe's breuer.
3. the original design is a very skillful and efficient use of the given site. the problems now are not with the building but with the constraints of the site relative to contemporary requirements.
4. there are other parking solutions, including shared parking, parking variances, multi-level parking, etc. that haven't been sufficiently explored and should be as part of our effort. there have been parking solutions for this library in the past - but they were undermined by local politics.
5. the library is already a landmark within its community, integrally tied to the history of the community and some of its past leaders. a new library would not have the same 'legacy' quality that the existing already carries. an expansion/enhancement of the existing could complement and continue that legacy instead of erasing it.
6. judging from the recent new branches, a new branch on this site is unlikely to be distinguished in any way. the discussions we are having now will never happen for the ewald or woods branches.
7. the library is in good condition, it's been well-maintained/well-loved, and can be considered a good example of the ecological 'embodied energy' argument. why tear down something perfectly good and send it to the landfill only to replace it with more stuff, using more energy?
8. even if it's not breuer's best work, or not something about which all of us would be excited, it's a good, well-designed building, well-sited, about which some will get excited (like us). modern work that can serve as a positive example, can excite people, and provide a model for other modern construction works in our (contemporary architects') favor.
9. to the point about private ownership noted above: yes, private owners can tear down any old rudolph or neutra they want. but this is a public building, expansion will be supported via public funds, and the public has a say in it. and it's a LIBRARY: what other institution besides a museum can serve as the stewards of our cultural heritage. libraries support literacy, not only in functional reading, but in literacy about our culture.
10. this building is a cultural gift that was given to the community of grosse pointe - the breuer, with its calder and its kandinsky, and its (now lost) furnishings - by a private donor who loved the arts and loved his town. it wasn't built through the bush-beating of a board but because mr ferry thought it was impt and gave the money.
isn't this building a great example of what we all want to accomplish as architects; making places better, more beautiful, and more culturally rich through our best efforts?
Feb 9, 07 9:45 pm ·
·
I'm sure these guys will do a fabulous job!!!
although, personally, I'd hire this guy
dodge the bullet
a rose is a rose is a trumbauer
quondam is as quondam does
I found out yesterday that, on 17 August 1824, the man who "founded the nation's first public museum" visited and sketched "Miers Fisher's House." I doubt the "rambling" 83 year old suspected that one day in the far off future that the first virtual museum of architecture online would eventually emanate from the same place.
But I'm still looking for the drawing of "The Seat of Miers Fisher" exhibited by Benjamin Henry Latrobe in 1812. Wonder what gave him such a capitol idea.
(Oh, oops, I just contributed to the ongoing "patting on the back" we've all been doing. Well, if you don't like it, bite me.)
There was some speculation whether the architect who did the Ewald Branch and the pro bono work for the Central branch feasibility study suggested tearing it down because it might net a better, high profile design job for his own firm. I'm not saying that is the case, given the programamtic requirements he was asked to fulfill starting on an open site would have made a lot of sense, and I don't want to slander the work of an architect whose thought process I do not know. I think a large part of this charrette exercise is to put a lot of minds together exploring whether those programmatic requirements really make sense in light of the repercussions of tearing down this building.
I can say this from a decade spent doing additions and renovations to historic buildings: my firm never, ever proposed tearing down a building to make something different; the only time we ever even considered that notion in any of the many, many feasibility study/master plans for very difficult-to-renovate projects I ever worked on was when the owner said to us "We hate this building, we want your work to justify tearing it down". Often there were below-surface political reasons for this attitude. And typically we "fought back" with reasons why it made as much/more economic sense to renovate as to demolish.
It worries me that perhaps, with the kind of work I'm seeing coming from schools the last few years, young architects are really being taught that the best work emanates on an empty site full blown out of the architect's mind. I was always taught, in school and in work, that the work we do here is part of a continuum of cultural occupation of our planet. Nothing we ever do is the end-all answer, and everything that exists needs to be read as cultural and physical context, and we need to design as part of that continuum.
Personlly, I do think that the fact that it's a Breuer building is reason enough to save it - they aren't making any more Breuers these days!
Saw Florian Henckel von Donnersmarck on Charlie Rose last night. I'm still not sure exactly how Franziska's daughter-in-law Ursula and Florian are related, but Ursula's father is right under Florian on the wiki page.
And the big story on Action News is that Steve Lauf's cousin's husband announces his candidacy for Mayor of Philadelphia on the same day Anna Nicole Smith died. It's the candidate's mother-in-law's turn to call Lauf's mother for their weekly phone chats.
[note to self: In the virtual future all news will be delivered via the eye of the beholder.]
And in other breaking news, over seven years after discovering a heretofore undetected double printing of the Ichnographia Campi Martii, the first virtual museum of architecture discovers evidence pointing to a heretofore unnoticed design by Benjamin Henry Latrobe, the first professional architect of the United States of America.
Rococo your boat, life is but a dream.
Feb 10, 07 9:59 am ·
·
I found the perfect replacement!
Feb 13, 07 1:05 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.
Anyone support tearing it down?
I know it's probably blasphemy to even ask this around here, but I'm just curious if anyone who's been following the Grosse Pointe Library discussion favors or is indifferent to demolishing the building? It's great that there's been such an outpouring of enthusiasm and passion about it, but I'm just not feeling it.
bryan i take back all the nice things i ever said about you. oh wait i never have said anything nice about you. nevermind...
Bryan, I suspect if you are alien to it like I am or not a fan of Bruer or modernism in fact it is possible to be indifferent to it. However I believe such makes it of such cultural importance. There is always the opportunity to play the silent observer, which makes you more important to offer criticism on the final proposal; since this project & exercise is fundamentally about changing peoples' minds
It doesn't look like a particularly revolutionary modernist building to me, but I am interested in keeping the building from the standpoint of a environmental decision. I think it is a good challenge to undertake in a community that is probably so wealthy that it is used to just tearing stuff down that they don't want, and replacing it with new, disposable buildings. This could be very enlightening for these people, to show them that it is possible to come up with an attractive solution to a problem that will benefit both their community and their pocketbooks in the long run. And I am always up for a good challenge....
absolutely, and to piggy-back on dubK's comment, I wanted to add that isn't this why we (part of it) went into this profession for? Meaning, the notion and opportunity to resolve issues having to do with site, restrictions, context, and all the other good stuff (codes, zoning, clients) I mean, tearing it down just doesn't offer the challenge (as DubK said) that you would get with a clean slate
Just my $.02 cents
in addition, I never particularly sought out the work of Breuer, but now I must say that I am starting to really focus on works like his and really appreciate what was done.
I do not mind the demolition of most of the derelict buildings in the Detroit area to make way for new and better developments. This is not a case of removing the unused and replacing it with another architecturally important building. To propose to replace the current Breuer building with another piece of pseudo post modernistic Jeffersonian architecture. Why add to the existing crap that litters the surrounding city's and towns?
DubK beat me to it---that's exactly how I feel. I didn't know of the building at all until this, but I support the preservation/rehabilitation/reuse of buildings (historic or not) in general. I don't support the culture that encourages razing buildings to the ground just because you think you could do a little better.
Thanks to Bryan4arch for the balls to post that.
Breuer's great, but i'm not sure who would give a crap. Compared to half of a downtown i don't find breuer nearly as interesting (if i had to choose). I honestly get far more fired up about the slow deterioration and demolition of Detroit.
bryan,
since all you tell us is that you are "just not feeling it," I will take your passing comment as a casual aesthetic observation. I can certainly understand that it doesn't appeal to your aesthetic sensibilities (nor to the library director's, for that matter). Nevertheless, the project is a work of Architecture, rather than a mere building (to borrow a distinction that was first articulated to me during my first year of design education, via Le Corbusier's Towards a New Architecture).
here are some of my motivations for being involved with this (aside from issues of resource conservation):
It is of its time, and has a certain appropriate-ness that many buildings constructed today come nowhere near. In addition, it houses at least two other pieces of work created by artists that were contemporaries of Breuer - a mobile by Calder and a tapestry (?) by Kandinsky. I believe these works were commissioned for the building in the '50s (if not, they were purchased by the original client/patron for the space).
It is responsive to its site (both physical and otherwise).
It was built for its place. I recall reading somewhere that the architect altered the exterior material to brick at the request of the client/patron (much of Breuer's civic work was executed in concrete, while his residential work often included masonry).
It is well crafted (judging only from drawings and images, and the reports of those who have seen it in person).
This project also sits in an interesting position in Breuer's career, just before he became highly sought after. Archinect member 'aml' created a timeline of Breuer's work that demonstrates this fact (it may be on the MAPA wiki, which is linked to on the SAVE ME thread).
Finally, it has a place in the heritage of Grosse Pointe. In closing, some cut/paste from the SAVE ME thread:
...design ingenuity can lead to solutions that accommodate contemporary needs while respecting modern landmarks.
You are certainly entitled to your position, but do us the service of articulating it. Although you may not have given this much thought, I still find your thread useful because it gives those of us with the position that the library should be saved a place to make our own argument. If nothing else, this is good practice.
BlueSteel, your point seems to be about visual appeal. So I like red and you like blue. who cares?
I think bryan4arch was just encouraging a full debate on the subject, as we are only seeing one side of it currently. I don't even believe that he necessarily supports tearing it down, just that he wanted to see if there was anyone out there who did.
perhaps, but "i'm just not feeling it" could have been left out in that case, and replaced with something more like what you just wrote, rationalist.
but in any even AP it is his opinion, which I do respect and as was said, he did have the 'balls' to post.
I agree, he has incited good debate about the idea of maintaining such a piece of architecture, which has only but reaffirmed most of our beliefs and passion for opposition to it's being razed.
opinions are fine to have, squirrelly, and it's also ok to ask the question, "Anyone support tearing it down?"
but how useful is it to throw opinions around when we could be demonstrating positions that were arrived at with logic? I'm not saying my position is solid, but I have carefully considered it, and I'm comfortable holding it with some conviction and attempting to support it in a discussion. and to be clear, I'm not interested in a right or wrong answer - i'm interested in a dialogue wrought by reason. they're fun.
In that sense, this thread could be a very useful way to develop a case for or against demolition. there is a clear purpose to such a discussion.
If this thread is about opinions, I won't waste anymore time on it. If it's about making a case, one way or the other, well...that seems like a useful thing to do with my lunch break.
i'm not upset, either, just being frank.
i think the examples of modern architecture are in minute numbers comparing to total number of buildings which qualifies as 'architectural work'. let alone the numbers of buildings designed by important modern masters such as breuer, gropius, mies, wright, neutra, schindler and many more from coast to coast in north america. these buildings are often of gold leafed cornices or tile roofs or gingerbread detailing that communities are more familiar with.
i think it is architectural community's job to educate people about these buildings and teach them these buildings are not only just buildings but their very designs influanced many of everyday products and machinery that is used today or are in development.
it is not about liking this building or disliking the other.
it is about preserving a piece of rare sample of our own history. specially if it is deemed to be erased due to solvable space requirements and growth.
should be indifferent if the decision made to demolish unity temple in oak park because it is too small, schindler house in los angeles because new aprtment building can provide ten more condo units for the developer.
if you don't give crap, keep the crap to yourself until you find an appropriate out house to dump it all down.
these buildings are often berift of gold leafed cornices or tile roofs or gingerbread detailing that communities are more familiar with.
I think this building is completely impossible to save and that's why I want to try and save it.
i'm doubtful that it took any real guts to post this thread. there were already several posters who supported the demolition of this "mediocre" building on the original thread. if anything, i'm annoyed because we already have several threads regarding this library...why start a new thread when we're already on the topic elsewhere? anyhow...
"Anyone support tearing it down?"
funny that should be asked. i keeping chewing on something written in the herzog & de meuron natural history book where they were being interviewed about dealing with existing buildings or found objects, so to speak. they offered a reasonable answer when they replied that they'll tear down if there's reason to tear down and they cite the de young museum in san francisco as an example. that position is definitely congruent with my own thinking and the trouble i have with the grosse point central library is not so much the demolition but the reasoning & genesis of that demolition. the library is going to be torn down (and it's still likely that it will be torn down) primarily because the library board has been taking a business-as-usual approach with their project. they've already built two new libraries recently (within the past three years) and seem to be driven by a kind of business-like/bottom-line approach in achieving a new central library as well. they're aware of the cultural importance of the building but i don't think it initially resonated with them how important that might be, so when they hit a snag like the parking requirements then it was easy to say, "well, guess we'll just have to build brand new then". personally, i find that to be specious because it's debatable as to how valid those parking requirements even are to begin with...and i don't find it to be a compelling enough reason to tear the building down.
the other odd thing, for me at least, is that i'm not necessarily certain that i'm "feeling it" either. but here's why this is an important project in my opinion: if grosse pointe with all their money & education can't find a way to make this project work, then what hope is there for the rest of us? how many other relatively unknown, modest gems of the past half-century will be gobbled up the the unwitting citizens of lesser communities?
in sum, this is a special opportunity and a timely one too. we have an intelligent, successful client in the library board (& the grosse pointe community at large) and they are willing to engage us in a discussion of the value of architecture. how many posts on this forum have chided clients for their foolish disregard of architecture? have many times have we felt like no one was listening to our concerns? that noboby cares about architecture? well, we got their attention now so let's make the most of it.
taste and aesthetics are not the same thing...
I don't support demolishing the library, or most other buildings for that matter. Not only is it a waste of resources, it's often the case that one set of problems simply ends up being replaced by a different set of problems.
What I'm not feeling is what has sparked so much passion about this building in particular. Buildings small and large, great and insignificant are demolished or altered beyond recognition every day. Why has so much support galvanized behind this building and not the others? If the effort succeeds (or even if not) will Archinecters stand up to fight for other buildings, even if they’re works of lesser-known architects or located in communities lacking the resources of Grosse Pointe? (some of these questions have already been addressed).
On a more philosophical note, I feel more indifferent than most on the historical or sentimental reasons for preserving existing buildings. If a building exists in my mind, it exists. If the architect has done a through job of presenting his/her work in plan, section, elevation, details, sketches, and/or models the actual existence of the built work becomes almost immaterial in my view.
you're right. my use aesthetics above was incorrect.
(^directed at vado's comment)
Good point Bryan,
As for the other communities and other buildings. Some of us do fight it, for the same reasons this one is being fought for. I just think the right combination of individuals, topic, and time resulted in excitingenough people on this forum to do something. Archinect has reported the demolition of other buildings, without this type of response from the ground. The timing of the reporting (before the plan was final) and the unique makeup of the forum, created this push. I envision similar things happening again, if the "planets align".
j
b4a,
don't you think historical importance is a good enough reason to save a building?
i have seen a small and beautiful sample of irving gill's house 20 years ago in torrance ,ca. that little house was recorded in charles moore's 'the city observed, los angeles' guide book. two years after the first visit i happened to be in the area to show it a friend of mine who was interested seeing gill's lesser known works. lo and behold, the house was replaced with one of those brass sconced cut glass entry doored two story maximum footprinted cheap building with vinyl windows w/ fake plastic frenched mullions. the owner was washing his car in front and we started to talk about the house that was there and he said they got rid of the shack that was there because the purchase price was next to nothing. we shoved him the book and after reading the caption about the previous building, he said wow and he wished he knew it before he tore it down.
that little house was abot 7-800 sq. ft and was beautifully sited and in it's small area it had a beautifully proportioned living room and other rooms. the large garden was full of beautiful fruit trees and if it were to kept, it would have been a perfect example/learning point of a typical lot use for a small family residence that people are really interested these days.
the house is gone. no floor plans left. i can't find the photos i took during first visit and people in the neighborhood has no clue who the hell irving gill is.
i am not indifferent.
regarding the grosse point library, like puddles mentioned above,
i see this corporate styled take over. using perhaps nonexisting parking problem as an excuse to get rid of entire building.
do you realize how many cubic yards of previously significant building that is?
i am sure significant buildings are demoed everyday for better market value instead of better cultural value. i gave an personally witnessed sample above.
i find your argument very incomplete, for you don't offer any words as to why these buildings are insignificant historically or sentimentally, therefore their demolishment or erasure has no significant effect in the long run in anyway.
i don't have to argue for my points because there are countless arguments, books and institutions supporting them.
i would find it really significantly interesting if you can argue your points besides shrug offs like,
" On a more philosophical note, I feel more indifferent than most on the historical or sentimental reasons for preserving existing buildings. If a building exists in my mind, it exists. If the architect has done a through job of presenting his/her work in plan, section, elevation, details, sketches, and/or models the actual existence of the built work becomes almost immaterial in my view."
i challenge you to make your argument.
That's a great observation, Josh. We are usually hearing about the teardowns once the wrecking balls are already headed over there, but early information can produce great results.
the existence of a well-documented building that doesn't exist IS, in fact, immaterial.
i've never found that drawings of buildings smell, feel, or sound like buildings at all.
admittedly i'm biased at this point, having put a lot of energy into this, but i think you're initial post is not ballsy at all but more like irresponsible. you've raised a provocation, but not backed it up with anything except 'feeling it'.
all that said, i'd love to hear more from you because it would be good to continue this discussion and really develop thoughtful and critical arguments both for and against keeping the building. that way (for us) we'd be able to build our argument for when we face others with the same indifference.
Perhaps bryan isn't questioning the impetus to save any historical work by a famous architect.....I read it as him questioning this particular effort. Semantics....
With regards to puddles question above:
"if anything, i'm annoyed because we already have several threads regarding this library...why start a new thread when we're already on the topic elsewhere?
The answer is, for those of us who weren't "on board" from the very beginning, or around for every minute of every day that the original thread got to upwards of 400 posts (almost 500 now), sitting around and trying to catch up is not only daunting and intimidating, it's impractical. Some of us actually are quite busy, you know.
"Historical Importance" What vague, fuzzy sorts of words. How important? Important to whom? And who decides this? I rarely think that "historical importance" alone is enough reason to save a building, precisely because of this. On personal importance: What do I care about some house that George Washington lived in for five years? What does anybody care about a house that George Washington lived in for five years? On architectural importance: Who's to say that Marcel Breuer's work is more worthy of being saved than Joe Smith's work down the street? Is it being saved just because it's a Breuer? If so, is it valid to save the lesser-known, lesser-quality work of an otherwise good architect? And who decides which ones were "good", anyhow? If this is what you would call one of his better pieces, shouldn't its "goodness" be so apparent that nobody would want to tear it down? On general historical importance (events, etc.): Who decides what events are worth commemorating through the preservation of their place of happenstance, and what events are not? Where does it stop if you start on this tack?
This subjectivity places the subject of preservation very precariously, because the general answer to why something was preserved was, "Because it seemed like the thing to do at the time." Plus, it is unfortunate how often preservation takes a building "out of circulation" as I like to put it. This refers to those buildings that get turned into historical museums, or are otherwise not allowed to grow and change with their community. These buildings have patently outlived their usefulness, and are being kept up basically on life support as a result of superficial values.
On the other hand, I fully support the maintanece or even repurposing of buildings that are still capable of useful function, that can contribute to the economics of their community. For this reason I support saving this particular library, as it is still used and beloved by members of its community. It is a waste of materials and resources to tear down a building which still functions at such a high level. Throwing around ideas of "historical importance" will not win over everybody, because of that subjective word importance. But current value and usefulness are much more difficult to argue away.
Wow... AP, Orhan A, you seem to be getting very aggravated by this discussion while trying to explain that we should be having rational open minded conversations. This is getting interesting.
I believe a Discussion titled “Any One in Favor of Tearing It Down?” could be more productive than 50 posts in one day of people mutually patting each other on the back for agreeing the thing should be saved. That’s what the petition is for.
Whether Modern or Gothic revival, the hinge point in any preservationist debate is: How do you decide what you save and what you don’t. And more importantly, who decides?
Getting red in the face while trying to explain to people that they shouldn’t tear something down because you say so just makes architects look self righteous. As an Irving Gill fan I am equally abhorred by your story Orhan, but private property ownership gives people the right to do what they want. We can make statements and galvanize support, but we aren’t the culture police.
What I am trying to flesh out is: Is the fact it was a Breuer building enough to save the library? It is important to understand whether or not people are getting excited about saving Breuer because mid-century modernism is popular now or because they feel Grosse Point will be better for it. And while I am in support of saving the building I am a bit surprised it is getting as much attention in comparison to a lot of other buildings.
regardless of any sort of "importance" i don't think i would ever want to take down a building. (unless of course it was time, health risks, etc.)
granted, functional requirements do change, and it makes sense business wise... but to destroy a building is destroying so much more.
let there be ruins, i say. I hope pilgrim baptist stays the way it is forever. i would never want to be responsible for erasing a piece of another architects soul. (be it sullivan, breuer, or whoever)
not to mention the heritage of a community
anyway, my argument doesn't hold any worth, it's just a personal opinion. and though i spend every waking minute trying to debunk the fourth dimension, i still can't stand the thought of something being lost forever.
Like I said at the start of the original thread, I support tearing it down to build something better. However, I was convinced by people with a better understanding of the context that the replacement was likely to be considerably worse - in which case protect away!
i love the way when people get a strong response to their posts, they say "wow, what happen to open discussion?"
well nothing happened to opened discussion. go on man.
and when you read something try to pass obvious mechanics, if necessary to expand a little. we all know about private property and etc,
this is a point in case of demolishing architecturally significant works. culture police is your invention.
i know you are but what am i
from my perspective, as someone who has at least visited the central library, i'm in favor of avoiding its demolition because i find it to be a very pleasant & modest building. it's nothing spectacular...it's simply a well-done project. that it's a "breuer" almost doesn't even matter to me. and truthfully i would probably be just as appalled by the work of a starchitect (gehry, libeskind, etc.) replacing it as i am by the thought of a local & undistinguished firm getting their hands on it.
more than anything, it's the process that's been bothersome. this is a challenging but potentially very rewarding project that should be awarded to a talented young firm/architect that's capable of rising to the task. i'm not sure who i'd want to see the library hire. i'd love to see what a young herzog de meuron or maybe zumthor would have done with this library...except those guys arent' so young anymore & probably have other interests. so why not find who else is out there? it'll take a lot of ambition & talent to achieve the kind of project
for comparion's sake, i'll reference the recently completed ica in boston by diller & scofidio. although i'm don't know all of details of their search for an architect, i was able to attend a public presentation about six years ago when the museum directors had narrowed their search to four architects (office da, zumthor, diller & scofidio and studio granda) who each had an hour to make a presentation to a lecture hall full of people, most of whom probably had no stake in the project other than to live in the same town. the ica realized the significance of their project and exercised great diligence in seeing that they lived up to that responsibility. admittedly, there are many differences between boston's ica & grosse pointe's central library...but i'm still hoping that the library board will embrace the opportunity that their central library project represents with a similar spirit to that exhibited in boston six years ago.
i think it's important to offer alternatives to demolishing this building for many reasons. among them:
1. because it's a breuer, and is therefore a notable part of architecture history.
2. because it's distinct among breuer's work in that members of the community convinced the architect to make certain changes (e.g., use of brick) that were uncharacteristic of the architect's work, making it uniquely grosse pointe's breuer.
3. the original design is a very skillful and efficient use of the given site. the problems now are not with the building but with the constraints of the site relative to contemporary requirements.
4. there are other parking solutions, including shared parking, parking variances, multi-level parking, etc. that haven't been sufficiently explored and should be as part of our effort. there have been parking solutions for this library in the past - but they were undermined by local politics.
5. the library is already a landmark within its community, integrally tied to the history of the community and some of its past leaders. a new library would not have the same 'legacy' quality that the existing already carries. an expansion/enhancement of the existing could complement and continue that legacy instead of erasing it.
6. judging from the recent new branches, a new branch on this site is unlikely to be distinguished in any way. the discussions we are having now will never happen for the ewald or woods branches.
7. the library is in good condition, it's been well-maintained/well-loved, and can be considered a good example of the ecological 'embodied energy' argument. why tear down something perfectly good and send it to the landfill only to replace it with more stuff, using more energy?
8. even if it's not breuer's best work, or not something about which all of us would be excited, it's a good, well-designed building, well-sited, about which some will get excited (like us). modern work that can serve as a positive example, can excite people, and provide a model for other modern construction works in our (contemporary architects') favor.
9. to the point about private ownership noted above: yes, private owners can tear down any old rudolph or neutra they want. but this is a public building, expansion will be supported via public funds, and the public has a say in it. and it's a LIBRARY: what other institution besides a museum can serve as the stewards of our cultural heritage. libraries support literacy, not only in functional reading, but in literacy about our culture.
10. this building is a cultural gift that was given to the community of grosse pointe - the breuer, with its calder and its kandinsky, and its (now lost) furnishings - by a private donor who loved the arts and loved his town. it wasn't built through the bush-beating of a board but because mr ferry thought it was impt and gave the money.
isn't this building a great example of what we all want to accomplish as architects; making places better, more beautiful, and more culturally rich through our best efforts?
I'm sure these guys will do a fabulous job!!!
although, personally, I'd hire this guy
dodge the bullet
a rose is a rose is a trumbauer
quondam is as quondam does
I found out yesterday that, on 17 August 1824, the man who "founded the nation's first public museum" visited and sketched "Miers Fisher's House." I doubt the "rambling" 83 year old suspected that one day in the far off future that the first virtual museum of architecture online would eventually emanate from the same place.
But I'm still looking for the drawing of "The Seat of Miers Fisher" exhibited by Benjamin Henry Latrobe in 1812. Wonder what gave him such a capitol idea.
Very well stated, Steven.
(Oh, oops, I just contributed to the ongoing "patting on the back" we've all been doing. Well, if you don't like it, bite me.)
There was some speculation whether the architect who did the Ewald Branch and the pro bono work for the Central branch feasibility study suggested tearing it down because it might net a better, high profile design job for his own firm. I'm not saying that is the case, given the programamtic requirements he was asked to fulfill starting on an open site would have made a lot of sense, and I don't want to slander the work of an architect whose thought process I do not know. I think a large part of this charrette exercise is to put a lot of minds together exploring whether those programmatic requirements really make sense in light of the repercussions of tearing down this building.
I can say this from a decade spent doing additions and renovations to historic buildings: my firm never, ever proposed tearing down a building to make something different; the only time we ever even considered that notion in any of the many, many feasibility study/master plans for very difficult-to-renovate projects I ever worked on was when the owner said to us "We hate this building, we want your work to justify tearing it down". Often there were below-surface political reasons for this attitude. And typically we "fought back" with reasons why it made as much/more economic sense to renovate as to demolish.
It worries me that perhaps, with the kind of work I'm seeing coming from schools the last few years, young architects are really being taught that the best work emanates on an empty site full blown out of the architect's mind. I was always taught, in school and in work, that the work we do here is part of a continuum of cultural occupation of our planet. Nothing we ever do is the end-all answer, and everything that exists needs to be read as cultural and physical context, and we need to design as part of that continuum.
Personlly, I do think that the fact that it's a Breuer building is reason enough to save it - they aren't making any more Breuers these days!
Horace and Anna made a lovely couple, but, did anyone notice?
Saw Florian Henckel von Donnersmarck on Charlie Rose last night. I'm still not sure exactly how Franziska's daughter-in-law Ursula and Florian are related, but Ursula's father is right under Florian on the wiki page.
And the big story on Action News is that Steve Lauf's cousin's husband announces his candidacy for Mayor of Philadelphia on the same day Anna Nicole Smith died. It's the candidate's mother-in-law's turn to call Lauf's mother for their weekly phone chats.
[note to self: In the virtual future all news will be delivered via the eye of the beholder.]
And in other breaking news, over seven years after discovering a heretofore undetected double printing of the Ichnographia Campi Martii, the first virtual museum of architecture discovers evidence pointing to a heretofore unnoticed design by Benjamin Henry Latrobe, the first professional architect of the United States of America.
Rococo your boat, life is but a dream.
I found the perfect replacement!
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.