Michael Kimmelman’s column this week, about the debate over plans to demolish a midcentury Paul Rudolph building in Goshen, N.Y., makes the case for why it should be saved. It is only one example of his taking up a cause. As The Times’s architecture critic, he has not been shy about advocacy.
Here, he describes why he’s been outspoken in supporting this building, which doesn’t have the profile of other fights he has taken up.
— nytimes.com
UPDATE: Orange County legislators fail to save Paul Rudolph's Government Center
Previously:
9 Comments
Its just a matter of time before casually-intersted non-architects realize the charm and power of midcentury modern architecture. We're basically repeating the history of 50 yrs or so ago when important architecture of the 19th century was being demolished because it was considered obsolete and unlivable.
Of course midcentury modern should be preserved, but is this the only role of architecture critic of the nytimes? Huxtable could write much better about all buildings, old or new, and explain their value both aesthetically and contextually. Kimmelman certainly loves to brand himself as a savior, but he doesn't really have the knowledge to make a better case other than the political one or some mumbo jumbo about design not being in a vacuum. For this you need to get really nerdy about the design--don't be embarrased to talk about aesthetics and experience.
"but he doesn't really have the knowledge"
Exactly. He is pretty much an armchair architect with a very prestigious platform. It sometimes feels as though Kimmelman is just responding to what he has found on the internet.
And he is basically setting up on opportunity for history to repeat itself yet again. I can imagine 30 years from now, a half-informed public, with no NYTimes review to reference, turning on a major work of 21 century architecture.
I see very little difference between the values of architects today and Paul Rudolphs generation. In fact much of today's good modern architecture is even more dynamic than Rudolph's work. And yet Kimmelman blasts today's "starchitecture" as egotistical and loves Rudolph and midcentury modernism because the twitterati tell him so. What is the difference, really. Kimmelman is an idiot.
I think he is calculating that under the banner of preservation it is politically correct to appreciate unusual buildings. All of the complicated circumstances that surround every building project are long settled. Rudolph is dead so Kimmelman doesn't need to worry about what his position is on labor unions or peak oil theories.
exactly.
My favorite part of the interview (emphasis mine):
"But I also chose it because, as a public building, it’s a good illustration of how architecture isn’t just about aesthetics. A building like the center represents certain values and ideas. It was designed to express in concrete and glass notions about open, energetic, democratic government — which may explain some of the opposition to it, but in any case underscores how architecture is, at heart, about how we live, who we are, and what we value."
Hmmmm...OK... so people don't like the building because they oppose open, energetic, democratic government. Got it.
Couldn't it be that people just think the thing is ugly? Nope, that couldn't be it. It must be a sign of a character flaw.
"Its just a matter of time before casually-intersted non-architects realize the charm and power of midcentury modern architecture. We're basically repeating the history of 50 yrs or so ago when important architecture of the 19th century was being demolished because it was considered obsolete and unlivable."
The only difference being, 50 years ago the average middle class American aspired to vacation in 19th century Paris while the avant guard in NYC got over the aversion of living around poor minorities and moved into run down 19th century neighborhoods.
Today, mid-century modernism's charms are waiting to be discovered, despite the nonstop marketing of its hipness. Any day now...
BTW, I do hope they save this building. It's kind a cool in a funky way and definitely more interesting than the current mid-century revival, imho.
See, you all thought I was exaggerating when I said politics is Kimmelmans only criteria.
The other main factor here is that many NYC critics all come from that Yale circle... So Rudolph is their boy. He's great and all, and I think it's worth saving, but there are many many similar if not better buildings that get the hated ego starchitect brand by this same club.
I think Kimmelmans preservation slant needs to be not about one building, but explaining the value of architecture everywhere. Kind of what Ourousoff and Huxtable did
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.