Los Angeles architect/writer John Southern pens a contextual critique of DS+R's much talked about museum design for philanthropist Eli Broad on Bunker Hill.
Los Angeles architect/writer John Southern pens a contextual critique of DS+R's much talked about museum design for philanthropist Eli Broad on Bunker Hill.
"While Eli Broad’s financial psyche and political legacy with respect to Los Angeles has been exhaustively covered since his announcement to build the museum adjacent to the Disney Hall, the contextual and design challenges facing his architects, DS+R of New York, have been largely glossed over in shadow of their clients on buoyant reputation." drowning in culture | previously 1 & 2
3 Comments
These two lines in particular killed for me re Bunker Hill at large and context at large. where iconography trumps memory, and things are exactly as they seem. and and that a prolonged strategy of urban taxidermy was therefore the only logical and inevitable solution.
Although I agree with some of John's points (especially on Eli Broad), there really is not enough information accessible to public to pass judgment in such an involved and detailed level, especially in regards to how the building will operate urbanistically. Some of his points, which present themselves as the most substantial critiques, also are the most heavy handed and the most vague (for example the ones about designing facades: I have seen many buildings whose facades are "designed" exactly in the same language but end up creating completely different results due to access, circulation etc.). I also find his position on Lincoln Center renovation questionable and dismissive, but that's the subject of a whole different post. So I have a few questions: Is it reasonable, logical or even necessary to expect a building to operate as urbanism? Are aesthetically ambitious works of architecture urbanistically irresponsible or insensitive? Has the iconography of Gehry's work been harmful for downtown LA? What architecture firms would be more appropriate for the job? I'm asking these questions not to sound patronizing, they are real questions. On the flip side, I must say smell some "anti-parametricism."
based on his urban goals for the area, either he needs to critique the program itself, saying this is the wrong location for this type of building, or roll with it being another isolated(ing) stuffed trophy. looking for a healing, rehabilitating, re-vitalizing moment of urbanism to come from a building housing a private art collection is simply misplaced, no amount of reworking the facades can get it there. the urban vitality he seeks requires a critical mass of mixed-use development -- commercial frontages, residences, community amenities, etc. without that it will remain quiet as you exit these trophies.
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.