There are some really juicy bits in Nicolai Ouroussoff's take on the new Broad Contemporary Art Museum.
For instance, he was talking about the open air pavilion:
I’ve seen gas stations in Southern California with far more architectural ambition.
Ouroussoff was a big fan of Koolhaas's original proposal.
Mr. Koolhaas’s design reflected a shrewd awareness of what made Los Angeles one of the most original urban creations of the 20th century. The elevated concrete slab eerily evoked a displaced fragment of elevated freeway; the translucent plastic dome, supported by curving steel beams, mirrored the early fantasies of Archigram, a group of British architects who saw the city’s informality and apparent lack of cultural depth as a model of social freedom in the 1960s.
In the end the board could not raise the money. And the boldness of Mr. Koolhaas’s vision presented a challenge for Mr. Piano. How to live up to such audacity? Would the refinement of Mr. Piano’s architecture look too timid?
note he has nothing but praise for piano in terms of actual function. as museum the lighting is apparently nearly orgasmic.
what he doesn't like is the lack of engagement with the place as urban object and as intellectual response to city. when i was reading ny times was happy to see architecture review so clicked through and the pic that headed the article was a downer. my first reaction was same as ousoroffs...how banal. the guy is working in LA, land of the automobile and with a context that practically requires innovation as urban planner and all he comes up with is a bit of regular planning? feels very competent (that is not intended to be complement...) but man what a wasted opportunity. i love piano's work, but this one? not his best in comparison to other projects he has done.
I have to agree with him as well. It's an interesting story, that of LACMA, and I had no idea that it suffered from such a long history of ambitious mediocrity. Everytime I rode by it I assumed that it was designed and built by no-name architects. At least it's consistent!
i liked this quote [the third one], but i have to set it up...
"On one side are people like Mr. Koolhaas who believe that Los Angeles’s emergence as the greatest experimental laboratory in 20th-century American architecture was rooted in a rejection of worn-out East Coast traditions." [...]
"On the other side are those who embrace East Coast models as an antidote to the city’s ethereality and all that freedom. " [Richard Meier...]
"The Broad Museum seems lost somewhere in the middle, like a bicyclist trapped on a freeway. "
I went there on Friday. The indoor spaces are large and functional. The upper galleries have great light. The track lighting seems flexible but distracting in the lower galleries. Conceptually it is like a department store that spit out its circulation. The circulation bits look like they were inspired by 1960s LA elementary schools, but they don't add up to much, and the escalator looks like one in a mall.
i don't think so, tumbles... i think ousoroff's critique is only partly about the architecture, which is lets face it just banal. what he is mostly critiqueing is the lack of an urban character. for such a large complex the urban planning aspect is important, and especially for LA.
urban planning don't have to mean piazzas and esplenades and hauntingly sheek green spaces...but for a world-class architect it should mean more than what was done...on a functional level at the urban scale it has basically just managed to not make things worse. THAT is the dissapointment i think. the building itself is ok. sorta bleek, but competent and with good lighting and all that. as a public place maybe it falls short a bit, but as a LA-place it seems to be pretty piss-poor.
Feb 18, 08 3:44 am ·
·
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.
Nicolai Ouroussoff's take on the new Broad Contemporary Art Museum
There are some really juicy bits in Nicolai Ouroussoff's take on the new Broad Contemporary Art Museum.
For instance, he was talking about the open air pavilion:
I’ve seen gas stations in Southern California with far more architectural ambition.
Ouroussoff was a big fan of Koolhaas's original proposal.
Mr. Koolhaas’s design reflected a shrewd awareness of what made Los Angeles one of the most original urban creations of the 20th century. The elevated concrete slab eerily evoked a displaced fragment of elevated freeway; the translucent plastic dome, supported by curving steel beams, mirrored the early fantasies of Archigram, a group of British architects who saw the city’s informality and apparent lack of cultural depth as a model of social freedom in the 1960s.
In the end the board could not raise the money. And the boldness of Mr. Koolhaas’s vision presented a challenge for Mr. Piano. How to live up to such audacity? Would the refinement of Mr. Piano’s architecture look too timid?
And there's more...
Has anyone seen it in person?
And the link:
http://www.nytimes.com/2008/02/15/arts/design/15cont.html?ex=1360818000&en=30dd55e1b2598ee4&ei=5124&partner=permalink&exprod=permalink
haven't seen it but agree with him.
note he has nothing but praise for piano in terms of actual function. as museum the lighting is apparently nearly orgasmic.
what he doesn't like is the lack of engagement with the place as urban object and as intellectual response to city. when i was reading ny times was happy to see architecture review so clicked through and the pic that headed the article was a downer. my first reaction was same as ousoroffs...how banal. the guy is working in LA, land of the automobile and with a context that practically requires innovation as urban planner and all he comes up with is a bit of regular planning? feels very competent (that is not intended to be complement...) but man what a wasted opportunity. i love piano's work, but this one? not his best in comparison to other projects he has done.
in the news
I have to agree with him as well. It's an interesting story, that of LACMA, and I had no idea that it suffered from such a long history of ambitious mediocrity. Everytime I rode by it I assumed that it was designed and built by no-name architects. At least it's consistent!
i liked this quote [the third one], but i have to set it up...
"On one side are people like Mr. Koolhaas who believe that Los Angeles’s emergence as the greatest experimental laboratory in 20th-century American architecture was rooted in a rejection of worn-out East Coast traditions." [...]
"On the other side are those who embrace East Coast models as an antidote to the city’s ethereality and all that freedom. " [Richard Meier...]
"The Broad Museum seems lost somewhere in the middle, like a bicyclist trapped on a freeway. "
I posted a Bloomberg news article on Piano's recent chain of museum buildings.
It took much the same tone as Ouroussoff's piece.
Piano is very competent at museums, functionally, in terms of lighting etc, but isn't daring. He doesn't challenge the urban fabric.
Personally i have always liked Koolhaas's model. Mainly because it was like one big urban canopy on plinths.
tumble i agree,
That is what i find funny. It is way the news post i did was Piano backlash.
I mean boo hoo, nice functionality?
I went there on Friday. The indoor spaces are large and functional. The upper galleries have great light. The track lighting seems flexible but distracting in the lower galleries. Conceptually it is like a department store that spit out its circulation. The circulation bits look like they were inspired by 1960s LA elementary schools, but they don't add up to much, and the escalator looks like one in a mall.
i don't think so, tumbles... i think ousoroff's critique is only partly about the architecture, which is lets face it just banal. what he is mostly critiqueing is the lack of an urban character. for such a large complex the urban planning aspect is important, and especially for LA.
urban planning don't have to mean piazzas and esplenades and hauntingly sheek green spaces...but for a world-class architect it should mean more than what was done...on a functional level at the urban scale it has basically just managed to not make things worse. THAT is the dissapointment i think. the building itself is ok. sorta bleek, but competent and with good lighting and all that. as a public place maybe it falls short a bit, but as a LA-place it seems to be pretty piss-poor.
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.