Will Alsop's 'tabletop' building at OCAD in Toronto. Amazing from a block away...... kind of interesting standing underneath it...... and absolutely, crippingly disappointing once inside.
lb - I should caveat my post on the Scottish Parliament: It is a beautiful building, and I believe the offices to be cosy, wood panelled with wonderful views. There is a feeling of the concentration of power from the peristaltic movements of the ceilings, the openings, the barriers, the comings-together of crossing lines and superposition of (inverted) waves in the communal spaces and the relative (though complex) order that pervades the more private spaces. It is impressive, and fitting as a locus of control, embodying the discussions and integrating the divisions that are the work of government: bringing the party political Weltanschauung from the security of their ordered private offices into the maelstrom of open, stormy parliament.
However, it was surely meant to be in Lisbon, under a baking sun.
And finally, though many Yanks are dumb I don't picture you among them.
Bottom line here is that almost all the posts have shot down some starchitect of some sort! Perhaps we'll stop seeing them as gods and as a little more regular folk who perhaps have a good building here or there, like we'd all like to have in our career and several sub par performances.
The starchitect envy quotient is way too high for heathy discourse. It seems once again that starchitects are given way too much glory when they produce something that works and resonates with the general public and not enough of the gears when they produce something more akin to "personal play".
ochona
it may be mildly interesting if you expanded on your 'criticisms' rather than
offered one liners...
i find the chrysler and empire state to be pretty stunning...i have a view of
the empire state from my office so i see it all day everyday in all it's different
shades and hues and when it's covered in clouds and such. i guess i could
understand how one would be disappointed with the lobbies and such..but how
long ago was it built? but maybe i'm sentimental. living in new york those
two buildings serve as markers for me...stabilizing presences when i look up
north and can see them from 50 or 60 blocks away.
whistler
the reason starchitects are used in almost every post is the intent of the discourse: ie to define buildings that are underwhelming. in order for their to be some disappointment there had to be some expectation of an experience. i don't think people expect starchitect buildings to excite them just because they're designed by starchitects, but because they've seen them published and seen something in those pictures that excites them most likely.
we don't have the same expectations when we go to see a 'normal' building.
clearly this discussion was set up to be negative from the beginning...if it had been instead underwhelming/overwhelming experiences i'd be sure to see a similar number of overwhelming starchitect experiences.
I agree - the empire state bldg and chrysler look like some auto body shop bent up some sheet metal to clad it. Plus theres a lot of people there who are the rejects from every small town other place they couldnt make it in. But the street life and density are a spectacle.
Lars, I agree with your point, I would also offer that just because its published doesn't make it great and sadly much starchitecture gets published because of the name and not the quality. If one could gauge the quality of work via the published pieces then the expectation might be tempered somewhat.
I also think the underwhemed and overwhelmed is a better way to express personal experiences of Architectural work. Always nice to be overwhelmed by the unexpected.
Puddles by the way, insulted in a horrible way the honor of the fallen soldiers and their survivors and joked about it, where I spew some generalities about the curning of the population of the most desperately trendy place Ive ever seen
whistler
i wasn't arguing just because something is published that it's good.
i was saying that since more starchitects are published their buildings are seen more often and can attract the attention of more people and set up expectations. NOT because it's published starchitects building, but because it's something that's sparked their interest as a printed image. and as you said part of that interest may be sparked by images that don't disclose the truth about the piece of architecture.
there are plenty of buildings that are published that spark no interest in me..and are/aren't by starchitects..see half of architectural record.
i don't think we should be afraid, however, to acknowledge that there are some architectural masters out there right now that should be respected for their talent and previous buildings and therefore set up preconceived notions when visiting their work.
there are plenty of buildings that are published that spark no interest in me..and are/aren't by starchitects..see half of architectural record.
Now THAT is a true statement. Though in a shocking change from the norm this month has Zumthor's Kolumba on the cover and I nearly wept with joy when I saw it.
ep.
and that makes you any less ignorant how? i found puddles' comments to be completely tasteless, but i find your generalization to be mindless and not based in any reality that i've seen. i'm not entirely sure why someone who couldn't make it in anywhere, usa would expect to make it in ny. i see far more people coming to new york to challenge themselves, but to each their own. i'd be interested to know if you've ever lived in nyc?
Sorry, I'm afraid I was unclear - I nearly wept just at seeing the photos of Kolumba, I haven't seen it in real life. But I can't imagine for a moment being underwhelmed by it.
...yes, lots of honor in getting your head blown off or otherwise being crippled while attempting to do the same nasty things to other people
i suppose tasteless is a good description but its really a matter of perspective. anyhow, i did visit the vietnam vets memorial and i was underwhelmed...and i'll stand by those sentiments
i'll start with edinburgh, specifically the scottish parliament. it's perhaps in one of the world's most amazing urban settings -- in that it's right next to a mountain (psyarch, i cannot for the life of me remember what that's called) right in the middle of one of the most beautiful and significant urban centers in world history (think of all the contributions that scotland has made to the world). to me, miralles seemed like he was trying to compete with the awesome incredibly powerful simplicity of that rock by overwhelming the user with complexity and variation. it seemed like a magic show where the magician sees his audience isn't fooled, so he pulls every trick he knows out of his hat. but in the end, all he's left to say is, "but where'd the LIGHTER FLUID come from?!"
on the other hand, they were doing highrises in the 15th century in edinburgh. old town is amazing, with every close a surprise waiting to happen. i wanted to wander around forever.
new york? i was just expecting a city as great as its residents say it is. i was there last in 2000, and it already seemed like it had been scrubbed clean. architecturally and urbanistically, it was a letdown; while the number of must-sees were too numerous to see, and a lot of those were great, i just couldn't see why it was worth it, why it seemed to draw people in like a magnet. i just didn't get it. not at all.
Better than expected, The Gamble House. Perfect example of beauty in details and site.
I agree with Farmer on Notredame. Not quite a letdown, but not what it's supposed to be. I think it suffers the same problem as the Pantheon, and other historical buildings that now cater to tourism.
you seem not to have much grasp of the history of Viet Nam. Millions of poor Americans were drafted to fight (and 50,000 of them to die) so that you could have your xbox 360 (or whatever toy you're currently stroking.)
You have the luxury of not being drafted to go to Iraq. For many previous generations, getting their heads blown off was not a choice. It was required by law.
The real tragedy of Vietnam is not only that they were drafted, but that we'd still have our Xboxes and other toys today even if we had never set foot in that country. The war accomplished absolutely nothing.
I actually thought puddles comment was a joke to get everyone riled up until the last post ... i think we should exile puddles to vietnam for a few months so that he can see what vietnam "looks like".
A similar experience, though not Architectural, is the Mona Lisa. In its day it was the first bust/portrait set against a landscape. There are interesting illusions of perspective in the play of the landscape that were also novel at the time, and the (possible) thrill of transvestism in self-portraiture, and in the context of only a little over 30 (remaining) Leonardo oils in the world: it carries weight for rarity.
However, those aspects that were novel at the time, groundbreaking, are old hat now. We have seen derivative works and successive movements that have eclipsed the conceptual, technical, and artistic orbits that Leonardo pioneered.
Then there are the crowds that surround it in the Louvre, the acres of canvas that have been lost through successive thefts, the colour fade. These historic pieces, when the materials and methods (oil painting) are still in use, can pale in comparison, be drowned by the quality and volume of hundreds of years of competition, the lack of knowledge within the modern-day viewer, and the increasing decrepitude of their materials. Similar decreases in (artistic/architectural) value when the context changes to that of consumable tourist attraction (as above), or shared single-event experience with no opportunity for the love to grow. The Parthenon was for regular entertainment, colourful, bedecked with fabrics, glamorised by celebrity.
When the materials and methods have been lost and cannot be re-created (Pyramids, Stonehenge), or the narrative (artistic context) that highlights the seminal qualities of the work is visible, the cultural connection is still legible, they can still retain their magic. The residential streets of Edinburgh could never be recreated with the same skill in Masonry and availability of materials, the land in prime location. Their function still holds (unlike the Parthenon) and they are explicit in their derivation and succesion.
The meandering river of taste and the talents of, and constraints on, those that deliver to it, the erosions of time on materials and knowledge, the erosions of morals on what constitutes entertainment, the world, life, love, tits and arse. If she's still alive I guess even Brigitte Bardot is, now, a little underwhelming.
But then, actually, who wants to overwhelm? When the music makes you cry it's because you choose, on some level, to go with it. Submission is a choice. You need the skills to make that choice, and the stimulus: the relationship between your knowledge and the world, enjoyment of the unfolding, the unspoken conversation, the existential elevation of engagement. You want it? Go get it.
Being underwhelmed? well, smoke a cigarette or something. Go home.
I agree, NYC MoMA is pretty underwhelming. As stated in prior posts, there are some moments, but not many.
I don't know how well know the New Museum is in NYC, but it was underwhelming, particularly so at night. I will go back during the daytime hours to see how the offsetting of the stacked cubes allows light in. But at night? The place is like a warehouse, and the materials look cheap against the brash, stark lighting. I get it; from the neon colored print on everything there, to the armies of flourescent lights and wire mesh pieces everywhere, from tickets to pamphlets to food, this minimalist and industrial method may be saying something, but I am not really believing it. The cubes make a nifty form, and there is a neat detail where gallery walls meet the floor plates (the notch the plate at the wall and set the sheetrock down into it, so that from a distance, the point where wall meets floor is very clean), but it is very industrial, and just not in line with my personal preferences.
So I wonder...would I be as underwhelmed if I got to go inside of Tschumi's BLUE right down the street from my house (because I think that, from the outside, it works)? I guess that underwhelmed is the right word for NYC MoMA and New Museum because they are so highly anticipated.
I say this about New Museum because my high expectations were fully met just this past Friday while held over on a cross country flight. I got grounded in Texas, so I went over to Kimbell Art Museum in Ft. Worth. WOW. When you want to talk about appropriate use of materials and structure and light and function and form and scale and site and everything, this is the place to be. On an off-and-on cloudy afternoon, the light quality changed in there, never better or worse, but always good, and always different, and definetly soft. It was great. The design...was so silent. Louis Kahn rocks.
ochona.
thanks for the words...i appreciate the insight and understand what you're saying.
i'm a huge fan of miralles' work...although i've never seen it in person..and i've liked the pictures i've seen of the parliament. i hope to get to scotland someday just to see that building...and apparently the oldtown as well now.
i live in ny and have heard others say that they're let down by new york...
that's it's not as gritty..that it's clean...i get a bit confused by this. i grew up in boston..close enough to new york to hear the horror stories of the 'real' new york. i never visited back then because it had this aura of criminals run wild.
on the one hand the new new york is antiseptic and is driving everyone out...that's depressing. finding an apartment in manhattan or brooklyn or whever is really difficult. the island is being sold to the highest bidder and it's all being rebuilt and resold.
but on the positive side i rarely worry about walking alone anywhere and even really late at night. it's become one of the safest large cities in the world. that's got to be worth something.
l8r
i did get into narchitects building next door to blue. one thing that disappoints me in general is the lack of good construction work in the city. there's always joint compound on everything..painters drip paint or miss spots...holes are too large for wall mounted fixtures etc. this was definitely true of that building, but it was still under construction, theoretically.
isn't the MOMA sort of designed to be underwhelming? the whole idea was for the building to be a backdrop for the art..no?
taniguchi says, "Architecture is basically a container of something. I hope they will enjoy not so much the teacup, but the tea."..and i feel as though he also said that if you gave him enough money he'd make the architecture disappear.
i don't think he got the quality he wanted...when i walked the site with some people from kpf our client said that the contractor would've been put out of business in korea due to fines and such.
i maintain a certain amount of nostalgia for the old moma..but the new moma as a container for art is very successful...they can present two or three times more art than they used to.
anyone bashing new york is full of it. it's one of the great cities. if you don't like new york, you don't like cities.
i think that's true of a lot of these underwhelmed bashers.i read a touch of envy in many of these responses. a freudian might say one is repulsed by the thing one most desires.
a great experience that i didn't expect at all: the museum of pre- and early-history by josef kleihues in frankfort. it's hard to describe the place without making it sound more pomo that it really comes off. the new construction, the merging with an historic church, and the reconstruction/occupation of the church itself are all exquisitely handled. the details are simple and perfectly executed.
taniguchi did an amazing building in ueno park in tokyo that is brilliantly detailed. experientially it is not as strong, except in the main display area, which is wicked cool. maybe he did the "its the tea, stupid" thing there too - but because the display is permanent he got to design the tea; and he did it like an architect who cares about people and not just orgasmitronicking over mininalist detailing...
most architecture is a mixed bag. so far, of all the starchitects whose work i have seen up close, only steven holl and rem koolhaas have lived up to expectations...
Regarding the renovated NYCMoma-"museum spaces should be underwhelming to give the art the most focus" comment...
I agree that museum spaces need to be careful to not compete with the art...but they should also elevate the art by providing a good space to view/interact.
a few of examples -Kimball
-De Menil
-and in a lot of places, the DeYoung
Those buildings have quite subtle exhibition spaces, but they are good spaces not only for art to hang, but for art to be seen/interacted with.
The NYC Moma seemed to be trying some things out, but they weren't particularly well detailed. It didn't feel like a complete thought....I dunno, I sort got the sense that perhaps there is a pretty intense "moma committee" that may have been at odds with what the architect was trying to do.
It's a pretty alright museum...but it's the friggin Moma! It supposed to be super duper!
I guess being underwhelmed is pretty much all about expectation.
sorry i don't have enough time to elaborate, but the nominee's are....
salk institute (by kahn) - impressive detailing, but that central space made me feel as though i were in the neverending center of a panopticon. the whole thing was deeply oppressive and imperial. didn't work for me. (and i really liked the kimball and even exeter library). i liked the twbta center down the road.
walker art center (the h&dem addition) - this was the first project by the swiss wonderboys that i've seen in person. it was just awful. circulation made no real sense, the workmanship was pretty suspect, and it clearly showed a gap between the kind of precision they're known for in europe and what may be able to be done in america. the bathrooms in particular were just flat out crappy (all puns intended).
disney concert hall - details of the metal work were bleah (though infinitely better than bilbao), liked the little garden terrace area, but not at the expense of one really looooooong blank limestone wall. inside, the millwork and finish level was pretty good, but what was underwhelming is that there was only 1 really believable public space, outside the auditorium itself, that seemed convincing as a gathering space. otherwise, coming into a spetacularly undefined space was not very interesting..
Underwhelming Architectural Experiences
no, but i'm on a reading binge lately, so i'll check it out...
as soon as i hit send it occurred to me that i only corrected the apostrophe infraction and not the entire post, so here we go:
I stand corrected. You're not an idiot, you're an asshole.
:-)
Will Alsop's 'tabletop' building at OCAD in Toronto. Amazing from a block away...... kind of interesting standing underneath it...... and absolutely, crippingly disappointing once inside.
lb - I should caveat my post on the Scottish Parliament: It is a beautiful building, and I believe the offices to be cosy, wood panelled with wonderful views. There is a feeling of the concentration of power from the peristaltic movements of the ceilings, the openings, the barriers, the comings-together of crossing lines and superposition of (inverted) waves in the communal spaces and the relative (though complex) order that pervades the more private spaces. It is impressive, and fitting as a locus of control, embodying the discussions and integrating the divisions that are the work of government: bringing the party political Weltanschauung from the security of their ordered private offices into the maelstrom of open, stormy parliament.
However, it was surely meant to be in Lisbon, under a baking sun.
And finally, though many Yanks are dumb I don't picture you among them.
That should actually be a semicolon instead of a comma between "idiot" and "you're":
I stand corrected. You're not an idiot; you're an asshole.
Bottom line here is that almost all the posts have shot down some starchitect of some sort! Perhaps we'll stop seeing them as gods and as a little more regular folk who perhaps have a good building here or there, like we'd all like to have in our career and several sub par performances.
The starchitect envy quotient is way too high for heathy discourse. It seems once again that starchitects are given way too much glory when they produce something that works and resonates with the general public and not enough of the gears when they produce something more akin to "personal play".
touché
Touché.
huh?
all of my own projects. every last one of them.
underwhelming: new york
all of it
Chrysler and Empire State Buildings
ochona
it may be mildly interesting if you expanded on your 'criticisms' rather than
offered one liners...
i find the chrysler and empire state to be pretty stunning...i have a view of
the empire state from my office so i see it all day everyday in all it's different
shades and hues and when it's covered in clouds and such. i guess i could
understand how one would be disappointed with the lobbies and such..but how
long ago was it built? but maybe i'm sentimental. living in new york those
two buildings serve as markers for me...stabilizing presences when i look up
north and can see them from 50 or 60 blocks away.
whistler
the reason starchitects are used in almost every post is the intent of the discourse: ie to define buildings that are underwhelming. in order for their to be some disappointment there had to be some expectation of an experience. i don't think people expect starchitect buildings to excite them just because they're designed by starchitects, but because they've seen them published and seen something in those pictures that excites them most likely.
we don't have the same expectations when we go to see a 'normal' building.
clearly this discussion was set up to be negative from the beginning...if it had been instead underwhelming/overwhelming experiences i'd be sure to see a similar number of overwhelming starchitect experiences.
I agree - the empire state bldg and chrysler look like some auto body shop bent up some sheet metal to clad it. Plus theres a lot of people there who are the rejects from every small town other place they couldnt make it in. But the street life and density are a spectacle.
Lars, I agree with your point, I would also offer that just because its published doesn't make it great and sadly much starchitecture gets published because of the name and not the quality. If one could gauge the quality of work via the published pieces then the expectation might be tempered somewhat.
I also think the underwhemed and overwhelmed is a better way to express personal experiences of Architectural work. Always nice to be overwhelmed by the unexpected.
"Plus theres a lot of people there who are the rejects from every small town other place they couldnt make it in."
and you're calling puddles ignorant.
well its true isnt it? Thats what makes it an exciting place.
Puddles by the way, insulted in a horrible way the honor of the fallen soldiers and their survivors and joked about it, where I spew some generalities about the curning of the population of the most desperately trendy place Ive ever seen
whistler
i wasn't arguing just because something is published that it's good.
i was saying that since more starchitects are published their buildings are seen more often and can attract the attention of more people and set up expectations. NOT because it's published starchitects building, but because it's something that's sparked their interest as a printed image. and as you said part of that interest may be sparked by images that don't disclose the truth about the piece of architecture.
there are plenty of buildings that are published that spark no interest in me..and are/aren't by starchitects..see half of architectural record.
i don't think we should be afraid, however, to acknowledge that there are some architectural masters out there right now that should be respected for their talent and previous buildings and therefore set up preconceived notions when visiting their work.
Now THAT is a true statement. Though in a shocking change from the norm this month has Zumthor's Kolumba on the cover and I nearly wept with joy when I saw it.
ep.
and that makes you any less ignorant how? i found puddles' comments to be completely tasteless, but i find your generalization to be mindless and not based in any reality that i've seen. i'm not entirely sure why someone who couldn't make it in anywhere, usa would expect to make it in ny. i see far more people coming to new york to challenge themselves, but to each their own. i'd be interested to know if you've ever lived in nyc?
lb
now that's a building i'd like to see in person...as well as most of zumthor's work.
Sorry, I'm afraid I was unclear - I nearly wept just at seeing the photos of Kolumba, I haven't seen it in real life. But I can't imagine for a moment being underwhelmed by it.
...yes, lots of honor in getting your head blown off or otherwise being crippled while attempting to do the same nasty things to other people
i suppose tasteless is a good description but its really a matter of perspective. anyhow, i did visit the vietnam vets memorial and i was underwhelmed...and i'll stand by those sentiments
okely dokely.
i'll start with edinburgh, specifically the scottish parliament. it's perhaps in one of the world's most amazing urban settings -- in that it's right next to a mountain (psyarch, i cannot for the life of me remember what that's called) right in the middle of one of the most beautiful and significant urban centers in world history (think of all the contributions that scotland has made to the world). to me, miralles seemed like he was trying to compete with the awesome incredibly powerful simplicity of that rock by overwhelming the user with complexity and variation. it seemed like a magic show where the magician sees his audience isn't fooled, so he pulls every trick he knows out of his hat. but in the end, all he's left to say is, "but where'd the LIGHTER FLUID come from?!"
on the other hand, they were doing highrises in the 15th century in edinburgh. old town is amazing, with every close a surprise waiting to happen. i wanted to wander around forever.
new york? i was just expecting a city as great as its residents say it is. i was there last in 2000, and it already seemed like it had been scrubbed clean. architecturally and urbanistically, it was a letdown; while the number of must-sees were too numerous to see, and a lot of those were great, i just couldn't see why it was worth it, why it seemed to draw people in like a magnet. i just didn't get it. not at all.
Better than expected, The Gamble House. Perfect example of beauty in details and site.
I agree with Farmer on Notredame. Not quite a letdown, but not what it's supposed to be. I think it suffers the same problem as the Pantheon, and other historical buildings that now cater to tourism.
puddles,
you seem not to have much grasp of the history of Viet Nam. Millions of poor Americans were drafted to fight (and 50,000 of them to die) so that you could have your xbox 360 (or whatever toy you're currently stroking.)
You have the luxury of not being drafted to go to Iraq. For many previous generations, getting their heads blown off was not a choice. It was required by law.
I should have said: you have your xbox 360 in spite of the fact that many poor Americans were sent to fight and die in Vietnam.
puddles needs an ass kicking
The real tragedy of Vietnam is not only that they were drafted, but that we'd still have our Xboxes and other toys today even if we had never set foot in that country. The war accomplished absolutely nothing.
puddles
saying it was underwhelming is one thing, and completely valid
insulting those who are there and dont share your view on the memorial or the war? that is either a joke in very poor taste, or ignorant
do you also laugh at people who dont share your views on religion?
I actually thought puddles comment was a joke to get everyone riled up until the last post ... i think we should exile puddles to vietnam for a few months so that he can see what vietnam "looks like".
Puddles you might want to vist the OVENS in Germany and see what kind of effect they have on you.....I would be very curious.
A similar experience, though not Architectural, is the Mona Lisa. In its day it was the first bust/portrait set against a landscape. There are interesting illusions of perspective in the play of the landscape that were also novel at the time, and the (possible) thrill of transvestism in self-portraiture, and in the context of only a little over 30 (remaining) Leonardo oils in the world: it carries weight for rarity.
However, those aspects that were novel at the time, groundbreaking, are old hat now. We have seen derivative works and successive movements that have eclipsed the conceptual, technical, and artistic orbits that Leonardo pioneered.
Then there are the crowds that surround it in the Louvre, the acres of canvas that have been lost through successive thefts, the colour fade. These historic pieces, when the materials and methods (oil painting) are still in use, can pale in comparison, be drowned by the quality and volume of hundreds of years of competition, the lack of knowledge within the modern-day viewer, and the increasing decrepitude of their materials. Similar decreases in (artistic/architectural) value when the context changes to that of consumable tourist attraction (as above), or shared single-event experience with no opportunity for the love to grow. The Parthenon was for regular entertainment, colourful, bedecked with fabrics, glamorised by celebrity.
When the materials and methods have been lost and cannot be re-created (Pyramids, Stonehenge), or the narrative (artistic context) that highlights the seminal qualities of the work is visible, the cultural connection is still legible, they can still retain their magic. The residential streets of Edinburgh could never be recreated with the same skill in Masonry and availability of materials, the land in prime location. Their function still holds (unlike the Parthenon) and they are explicit in their derivation and succesion.
The meandering river of taste and the talents of, and constraints on, those that deliver to it, the erosions of time on materials and knowledge, the erosions of morals on what constitutes entertainment, the world, life, love, tits and arse. If she's still alive I guess even Brigitte Bardot is, now, a little underwhelming.
But then, actually, who wants to overwhelm? When the music makes you cry it's because you choose, on some level, to go with it. Submission is a choice. You need the skills to make that choice, and the stimulus: the relationship between your knowledge and the world, enjoyment of the unfolding, the unspoken conversation, the existential elevation of engagement. You want it? Go get it.
Being underwhelmed? well, smoke a cigarette or something. Go home.
I agree, NYC MoMA is pretty underwhelming. As stated in prior posts, there are some moments, but not many.
I don't know how well know the New Museum is in NYC, but it was underwhelming, particularly so at night. I will go back during the daytime hours to see how the offsetting of the stacked cubes allows light in. But at night? The place is like a warehouse, and the materials look cheap against the brash, stark lighting. I get it; from the neon colored print on everything there, to the armies of flourescent lights and wire mesh pieces everywhere, from tickets to pamphlets to food, this minimalist and industrial method may be saying something, but I am not really believing it. The cubes make a nifty form, and there is a neat detail where gallery walls meet the floor plates (the notch the plate at the wall and set the sheetrock down into it, so that from a distance, the point where wall meets floor is very clean), but it is very industrial, and just not in line with my personal preferences.
So I wonder...would I be as underwhelmed if I got to go inside of Tschumi's BLUE right down the street from my house (because I think that, from the outside, it works)? I guess that underwhelmed is the right word for NYC MoMA and New Museum because they are so highly anticipated.
I say this about New Museum because my high expectations were fully met just this past Friday while held over on a cross country flight. I got grounded in Texas, so I went over to Kimbell Art Museum in Ft. Worth. WOW. When you want to talk about appropriate use of materials and structure and light and function and form and scale and site and everything, this is the place to be. On an off-and-on cloudy afternoon, the light quality changed in there, never better or worse, but always good, and always different, and definetly soft. It was great. The design...was so silent. Louis Kahn rocks.
ochona.
thanks for the words...i appreciate the insight and understand what you're saying.
i'm a huge fan of miralles' work...although i've never seen it in person..and i've liked the pictures i've seen of the parliament. i hope to get to scotland someday just to see that building...and apparently the oldtown as well now.
i live in ny and have heard others say that they're let down by new york...
that's it's not as gritty..that it's clean...i get a bit confused by this. i grew up in boston..close enough to new york to hear the horror stories of the 'real' new york. i never visited back then because it had this aura of criminals run wild.
on the one hand the new new york is antiseptic and is driving everyone out...that's depressing. finding an apartment in manhattan or brooklyn or whever is really difficult. the island is being sold to the highest bidder and it's all being rebuilt and resold.
but on the positive side i rarely worry about walking alone anywhere and even really late at night. it's become one of the safest large cities in the world. that's got to be worth something.
l8r
i did get into narchitects building next door to blue. one thing that disappoints me in general is the lack of good construction work in the city. there's always joint compound on everything..painters drip paint or miss spots...holes are too large for wall mounted fixtures etc. this was definitely true of that building, but it was still under construction, theoretically.
isn't the MOMA sort of designed to be underwhelming? the whole idea was for the building to be a backdrop for the art..no?
taniguchi says, "Architecture is basically a container of something. I hope they will enjoy not so much the teacup, but the tea."..and i feel as though he also said that if you gave him enough money he'd make the architecture disappear.
i don't think he got the quality he wanted...when i walked the site with some people from kpf our client said that the contractor would've been put out of business in korea due to fines and such.
i maintain a certain amount of nostalgia for the old moma..but the new moma as a container for art is very successful...they can present two or three times more art than they used to.
anyone bashing new york is full of it. it's one of the great cities. if you don't like new york, you don't like cities.
i think that's true of a lot of these underwhelmed bashers.i read a touch of envy in many of these responses. a freudian might say one is repulsed by the thing one most desires.
a great experience that i didn't expect at all: the museum of pre- and early-history by josef kleihues in frankfort. it's hard to describe the place without making it sound more pomo that it really comes off. the new construction, the merging with an historic church, and the reconstruction/occupation of the church itself are all exquisitely handled. the details are simple and perfectly executed.
the getty center was pretty underwhelming. all i wanted to do was look at the view and to stop looking at the building.
taniguchi did an amazing building in ueno park in tokyo that is brilliantly detailed. experientially it is not as strong, except in the main display area, which is wicked cool. maybe he did the "its the tea, stupid" thing there too - but because the display is permanent he got to design the tea; and he did it like an architect who cares about people and not just orgasmitronicking over mininalist detailing...
most architecture is a mixed bag. so far, of all the starchitects whose work i have seen up close, only steven holl and rem koolhaas have lived up to expectations...
The Paris Las Vegas Casino. Totally not like Paris, France. Very disappointing.
I did overhear some American visitors in the Luxor commenting on how amazing it is to be inside a real pyramid.
Regarding the renovated NYCMoma-"museum spaces should be underwhelming to give the art the most focus" comment...
I agree that museum spaces need to be careful to not compete with the art...but they should also elevate the art by providing a good space to view/interact.
a few of examples -Kimball
-De Menil
-and in a lot of places, the DeYoung
Those buildings have quite subtle exhibition spaces, but they are good spaces not only for art to hang, but for art to be seen/interacted with.
The NYC Moma seemed to be trying some things out, but they weren't particularly well detailed. It didn't feel like a complete thought....I dunno, I sort got the sense that perhaps there is a pretty intense "moma committee" that may have been at odds with what the architect was trying to do.
It's a pretty alright museum...but it's the friggin Moma! It supposed to be super duper!
I guess being underwhelmed is pretty much all about expectation.
sorry i don't have enough time to elaborate, but the nominee's are....
salk institute (by kahn) - impressive detailing, but that central space made me feel as though i were in the neverending center of a panopticon. the whole thing was deeply oppressive and imperial. didn't work for me. (and i really liked the kimball and even exeter library). i liked the twbta center down the road.
walker art center (the h&dem addition) - this was the first project by the swiss wonderboys that i've seen in person. it was just awful. circulation made no real sense, the workmanship was pretty suspect, and it clearly showed a gap between the kind of precision they're known for in europe and what may be able to be done in america. the bathrooms in particular were just flat out crappy (all puns intended).
disney concert hall - details of the metal work were bleah (though infinitely better than bilbao), liked the little garden terrace area, but not at the expense of one really looooooong blank limestone wall. inside, the millwork and finish level was pretty good, but what was underwhelming is that there was only 1 really believable public space, outside the auditorium itself, that seemed convincing as a gathering space. otherwise, coming into a spetacularly undefined space was not very interesting..
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.