Today, as we round the corner to witness the ROM in all its pointy glory, my girlfriend literally puts her hand over her mouth in amazement.....
... at what an ugly building it is. Her words are "Oh my god, slantsix, what did they do to that building?!? That's the ugliest thing I've ever seen! It looks like something came from outer space to ruin the old building!"
When I saw the building mostly-completed a couple of months ago, I wanted to give it a chance. Now that I see it in all its splendour, I know that I should have gone with my gut instinct, 'cause that thing is damned ugly. They should have just left the structural beams exposed. It's a giant mess, really.
Sorry to bring this up again. I don't know if anybody else here has seen it in person, but for now you're just going to have to take my word for it.
Never got a chance to see the chairs, unfortunately, but I'm back in town soon and I'll make a point of it. Maybe I'll sit on one and get a friend to spin me around and around and around until I get thrown off, or throw up.
Or I'll just sit on it, remark at how ugly and uncomfortable the thing is, and leave.
I can't really say whether the old building's great or not, as my last visit was about 5 years ago, and I don't remember it being remarkable, but it has tons of old-world architectural craftsmanship going on. The new building is a marvel of engineering....which is completely covered up by cheap aluminum cladding. Grrrr.
The Denver Art Museum is very bad. A poorly designed space for art, and the 2x4s laid on the floor to highlight the dangers of every canted wall is tacky.
Danny, your pictures are great! I really got a good sense of the building looking at them, even got a little motion sick....you should post your Flickr set here.
I will mention that "great" is not a word I would use to describe that building though.
i would have thought that those posting on this site would have been more critical in their criticism, rather than just jumping in line. it is fine to try to dismiss the well-known based on an intelligent review of their work, but most of the comments sound like typical school-time bitching. no one is an easier target than the out-of-favor.
the libeskind buildings certainly have faults, but from this discussion you would imagine no redeeming qualities at all. i have to disagree.
i haven't visited the ROM, so can only comment based on the photos. but i have been to the Denver museum and it has some very good spaces. there are definitely parts that don't work, details that are not resolved or just plain bad, but it also offers quite strong spatial and organizational sequences that are worth the effort. i think it is time to separate the negative emotions directed to Libeskind the person, from a consideration of the work.
as for the idea that you can't show art there, actually one of the big surprises for me in visiting was how well the slanted, sloping walls work to make for a re-think of art display. again, it doesn't all work, but it contributes to some new possibilities.
from the images and blog of Danny Wills for the ROM, it does seem that in spite of a clear desire to not like the building, the entry spaces, the facade, the stairs, the bridge links and other details actually do hold interest. clearly the building is unfinished - but this is a decision of the board or director, not the architect.
The phenomenon of "typical school time bitching" is a result of the "students considering architect's building syndrome". which is also known as SCABS. SCABS is usually encountered by architecture students and even some architectural professionals upon encountereing the works of well known architects. These well known architects or "starchitects" comprise the apogee of the architectural design world and often design some of the world's most celebrated buildings.
These commissions often result from design competitions. A design competition is similar to a bar fight from a western movie as the starchitects are pitted against one another (because only starchitects are allowed to compete in such notable design competitions) in a no holes barred design off. The judges are comprised of a board of wealthy patrons who often have the buildings, or at least a wing, named after them and of the bureaucrats who administer the operations of said building. After months of long nights and weekends (mostly performed by indentured servants known as architecural interns) the finalists present their projects to the board in a stunning visual presentation that is augmented by the all important concept. The concept (often developed the night before the presentation) is a principle that allows the starchitect to generate and justify the form of his/her(well one her anyway) building.
This process is an important aspect of SCABS because most university architecture programs are organized in a manner that allows each student to be his/her own starchitect. Although most students who enter into the profession will be doing anything from developer white boxes to institutional work, the idea of the genius architect who designs genius buildings with a shamanistic rigor is perpetuated at the university level and therefore, transferred to the student. While in school, the student is the starchitect who is allowed to take an often wondrous(torturous) and enlightening(desperate) journey of discovery(doing things over and over) to arrive at a concept which can then be developed and passionately defended in what is known as a critique. The critique is a fascinating behaviorural study that is found only in architecture schools and in certain colonies of baboons.
This is where the origin of SCABS has been traced. It must be understood that "A Museum for Nothing", or "A Cenotaph for Walter Benjamin" is both the beginning and the end for most architectural students. The real world is comprised of code reviews and window schedules. But, SCABS allows the "starchitect who never was" to retain a voice. The difference is that the SCABber is not viewing the work of a starchitect as an architecture critic. ie not the competition juror or studio critic, but as a peer. However, it is not a peer in the professional sense, but a peer in the student sense. The SCABber is talking to/about the starchitects work as if both SCABber and starchitect were in school together. So, rather than elaborate and form opinions of the critic, the SCABber is allowed to comment from the gut. So, what seems like "typical school time bitching" is actually a much more complicated and nuanced experience.
if by "from the gut" you mean a more visceral, more bodily response to the work in question, i would have to disagree. the response is not to the work, but to the personality. and i beg to differ that the response is more nuanced. it is likely to be more complicated than "typical school-bitching", but only in the sense that it is a response based on the unadulterated participation in the very phenomena it seeks to disparage.
you make an excellent point about the scholastic simulation of "stararchitects'" and their competition engagement. and it is from this same position that the animosity shown to "stararchitects" (such a pointless term) is at its most conservative. it is participating in the same pattern of giving un-critical credence to an opinion or attitude - this time as a negative position - as the un-critical support and reverence lavished on select groups of architects by clients, competition selection committees, magazines and school lecture series. different sides of the same coin.
if i understand your analysis correctly, i believe you are also noting that the combative comparison is not mine versus yours, but me versus you.
"how well the slanted, sloping walls work to make for a re-think of art display"; it's very hard for me to tell if this is possible or not from the photos and the concept - but - are these slanted walls host to a permanent work that the angled space was "designed for"?; what i'm getting at is that these museums seem to not be very flexible at all, and most likely a nightmare for curators of a typically museum that hosts a series of rotating exhibits with a small permanent collection.
"but it also offers quite strong spatial and organizational sequences that are worth the effort"
I think that you can do this without sacraficing the flexibility and demands of the program, which is, at its most basic in a museum, to display art;granted, it is to early to tell since these spaces are not yet filled; but take Holl's Nelson Atkins (although not yet open)
knock, apparently the floor grate system makes it completely flexible for curators to install exhibits. however, i highly doubt many things being fixed to the walls. in the basement, where photography was disallowed, the exhibits were placed in partition like structures in the floor space, away from the wall. although there were some items on the wall (this was because it was 90 degrees), it seems doubtful that much will be displayed in some new re-thinking of a typical museum exhibit. the top floor had a small exhibit, all placed on podiums or partitions away from the walls.
to me, it seems that there will be less inventive design for displays, and more attempt at trying to make due with what they have.
This new trend impulsed by the "Bilbao Effect" is like product design, once you have created a certain style it spreads everywhere (ie iPod). Unfortunately this type of architecture has become a big marketing tool to sell a specific design just like a product. Thus each project becomes a "box on a lot" an it only fills in a space rather than trying to adapt and fit to the context.
i hope to visit the building in the coming months; from the pictures posted by Danny Wills (thanks, by the way), it seems that despite some of the issues pointed out on archinect (most of which i agree with), some of the interior spaces seem to be quite dramatic; i am looking forward to experiencing the building, and that in itself, is commendable.
Visited Libeskind's ROM today.
Today, as we round the corner to witness the ROM in all its pointy glory, my girlfriend literally puts her hand over her mouth in amazement.....
... at what an ugly building it is. Her words are "Oh my god, slantsix, what did they do to that building?!? That's the ugliest thing I've ever seen! It looks like something came from outer space to ruin the old building!"
When I saw the building mostly-completed a couple of months ago, I wanted to give it a chance. Now that I see it in all its splendour, I know that I should have gone with my gut instinct, 'cause that thing is damned ugly. They should have just left the structural beams exposed. It's a giant mess, really.
Sorry to bring this up again. I don't know if anybody else here has seen it in person, but for now you're just going to have to take my word for it.
without a doubt, one of the worst built projects i've ever seen.
i visited the ROM before the addition, it wasn't the greatest building, but now it looks like total shit.
any word from the board on if they actually like it or want to commit mass suicide yet?
I thought Liebskind was a genius, or something???
slantsix
did the $12,000 chairs really rotate?
Never got a chance to see the chairs, unfortunately, but I'm back in town soon and I'll make a point of it. Maybe I'll sit on one and get a friend to spin me around and around and around until I get thrown off, or throw up.
Or I'll just sit on it, remark at how ugly and uncomfortable the thing is, and leave.
I can't really say whether the old building's great or not, as my last visit was about 5 years ago, and I don't remember it being remarkable, but it has tons of old-world architectural craftsmanship going on. The new building is a marvel of engineering....which is completely covered up by cheap aluminum cladding. Grrrr.
slantsix,
did you take pictures? i'd be interested to see them.
i visited this weekend.. i am working on getting pictures posted soon. check the blogs, dot.
The Denver Art Museum is very bad. A poorly designed space for art, and the 2x4s laid on the floor to highlight the dangers of every canted wall is tacky.
mdler, rotate
*they didn't rotate
I was reading the newspaper today (yup, I do that) and noticed a one-page ad for Libeskind's next Toronto project, a condo tower called "The L Tower".
L is for Libeskind. Or, as he wants you to believe, 'landmark','location', etc.
What an ass.
Danny, your pictures are great! I really got a good sense of the building looking at them, even got a little motion sick....you should post your Flickr set here.
I will mention that "great" is not a word I would use to describe that building though.
dubk, i posted a link a couple comments above and in my blog.
Whoops, I didn't know you had a blog. Sorry!
it is a great set, danny. thanks for the tour.
when did such a group mentality take over?
i would have thought that those posting on this site would have been more critical in their criticism, rather than just jumping in line. it is fine to try to dismiss the well-known based on an intelligent review of their work, but most of the comments sound like typical school-time bitching. no one is an easier target than the out-of-favor.
the libeskind buildings certainly have faults, but from this discussion you would imagine no redeeming qualities at all. i have to disagree.
i haven't visited the ROM, so can only comment based on the photos. but i have been to the Denver museum and it has some very good spaces. there are definitely parts that don't work, details that are not resolved or just plain bad, but it also offers quite strong spatial and organizational sequences that are worth the effort. i think it is time to separate the negative emotions directed to Libeskind the person, from a consideration of the work.
as for the idea that you can't show art there, actually one of the big surprises for me in visiting was how well the slanted, sloping walls work to make for a re-think of art display. again, it doesn't all work, but it contributes to some new possibilities.
from the images and blog of Danny Wills for the ROM, it does seem that in spite of a clear desire to not like the building, the entry spaces, the facade, the stairs, the bridge links and other details actually do hold interest. clearly the building is unfinished - but this is a decision of the board or director, not the architect.
hear hear
The phenomenon of "typical school time bitching" is a result of the "students considering architect's building syndrome". which is also known as SCABS. SCABS is usually encountered by architecture students and even some architectural professionals upon encountereing the works of well known architects. These well known architects or "starchitects" comprise the apogee of the architectural design world and often design some of the world's most celebrated buildings.
These commissions often result from design competitions. A design competition is similar to a bar fight from a western movie as the starchitects are pitted against one another (because only starchitects are allowed to compete in such notable design competitions) in a no holes barred design off. The judges are comprised of a board of wealthy patrons who often have the buildings, or at least a wing, named after them and of the bureaucrats who administer the operations of said building. After months of long nights and weekends (mostly performed by indentured servants known as architecural interns) the finalists present their projects to the board in a stunning visual presentation that is augmented by the all important concept. The concept (often developed the night before the presentation) is a principle that allows the starchitect to generate and justify the form of his/her(well one her anyway) building.
This process is an important aspect of SCABS because most university architecture programs are organized in a manner that allows each student to be his/her own starchitect. Although most students who enter into the profession will be doing anything from developer white boxes to institutional work, the idea of the genius architect who designs genius buildings with a shamanistic rigor is perpetuated at the university level and therefore, transferred to the student. While in school, the student is the starchitect who is allowed to take an often wondrous(torturous) and enlightening(desperate) journey of discovery(doing things over and over) to arrive at a concept which can then be developed and passionately defended in what is known as a critique. The critique is a fascinating behaviorural study that is found only in architecture schools and in certain colonies of baboons.
This is where the origin of SCABS has been traced. It must be understood that "A Museum for Nothing", or "A Cenotaph for Walter Benjamin" is both the beginning and the end for most architectural students. The real world is comprised of code reviews and window schedules. But, SCABS allows the "starchitect who never was" to retain a voice. The difference is that the SCABber is not viewing the work of a starchitect as an architecture critic. ie not the competition juror or studio critic, but as a peer. However, it is not a peer in the professional sense, but a peer in the student sense. The SCABber is talking to/about the starchitects work as if both SCABber and starchitect were in school together. So, rather than elaborate and form opinions of the critic, the SCABber is allowed to comment from the gut. So, what seems like "typical school time bitching" is actually a much more complicated and nuanced experience.
re: vado retro
if by "from the gut" you mean a more visceral, more bodily response to the work in question, i would have to disagree. the response is not to the work, but to the personality. and i beg to differ that the response is more nuanced. it is likely to be more complicated than "typical school-bitching", but only in the sense that it is a response based on the unadulterated participation in the very phenomena it seeks to disparage.
you make an excellent point about the scholastic simulation of "stararchitects'" and their competition engagement. and it is from this same position that the animosity shown to "stararchitects" (such a pointless term) is at its most conservative. it is participating in the same pattern of giving un-critical credence to an opinion or attitude - this time as a negative position - as the un-critical support and reverence lavished on select groups of architects by clients, competition selection committees, magazines and school lecture series. different sides of the same coin.
if i understand your analysis correctly, i believe you are also noting that the combative comparison is not mine versus yours, but me versus you.
vado, your breakdown was briliance
"how well the slanted, sloping walls work to make for a re-think of art display"; it's very hard for me to tell if this is possible or not from the photos and the concept - but - are these slanted walls host to a permanent work that the angled space was "designed for"?; what i'm getting at is that these museums seem to not be very flexible at all, and most likely a nightmare for curators of a typically museum that hosts a series of rotating exhibits with a small permanent collection.
"but it also offers quite strong spatial and organizational sequences that are worth the effort"
I think that you can do this without sacraficing the flexibility and demands of the program, which is, at its most basic in a museum, to display art;granted, it is to early to tell since these spaces are not yet filled; but take Holl's Nelson Atkins (although not yet open)
knock, apparently the floor grate system makes it completely flexible for curators to install exhibits. however, i highly doubt many things being fixed to the walls. in the basement, where photography was disallowed, the exhibits were placed in partition like structures in the floor space, away from the wall. although there were some items on the wall (this was because it was 90 degrees), it seems doubtful that much will be displayed in some new re-thinking of a typical museum exhibit. the top floor had a small exhibit, all placed on podiums or partitions away from the walls.
to me, it seems that there will be less inventive design for displays, and more attempt at trying to make due with what they have.
This new trend impulsed by the "Bilbao Effect" is like product design, once you have created a certain style it spreads everywhere (ie iPod). Unfortunately this type of architecture has become a big marketing tool to sell a specific design just like a product. Thus each project becomes a "box on a lot" an it only fills in a space rather than trying to adapt and fit to the context.
This building has its own tv commerical.
Libeskind's drawings translated into building and into tv commericals.
i hope to visit the building in the coming months; from the pictures posted by Danny Wills (thanks, by the way), it seems that despite some of the issues pointed out on archinect (most of which i agree with), some of the interior spaces seem to be quite dramatic; i am looking forward to experiencing the building, and that in itself, is commendable.
libeskind = denver art museum?
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.