According to an initial study distributed by the City of West Hollywood, construction of the proposed development - which is being called 8850 Sunset Boulevard - is anticipated to begin in May 2021. Work would conclude after approximately 32 months, with project delivery expected in February 2024. — Urbanize Los Angeles
The exuberant 15-story mixed-use development on the Sunset Strip in West Hollywood first emerged as a new proposal in December 2018.
Urbanize LA has now shared more refined project details for 8850 Sunset Boulevard, including a proposed timeline with an anticipated kick-off in May 2021.
Rather than judge, maybe some of the stout hearted here can tell us exactly what this is. I'm at a loss, but I often like things I don't understand.
It is a monument to a culture that eschews frame of reference, that doesn't know what to do with itself, that has a limited attention span. It belongs to a discipline that now largely talks to itself and is running out of ideas.
The design is schizophrenic. Literally—it has a split personality. It reflects two major trends. One one side, a nod to "nature," the self-effacing geometric frames covered with green stuff. I find such buildings boring.
I should have made a distinction in my comment above. Great—and mediocre—architecture is "boring" because it exists well within an order and doesn't call excessive attention to itself. Often it is the mediocre that we fall in love with. The other sense of boring is work that we soon lose interest in and just stop seeing, for a variety of reasons. In the case of this Morphosis I suggested it might be boring because it called so much attention to itself that we fatigue.
On the other side, a tribute to another major trend, the free-form flowing anything goes designs that have been given funky justifications such as parametrics. But this design is genuinely crazy, like some surrealist twisted dream. Of course it has to be white.
How do they integrate the two trends? They just stick them together, one gently in the grasp of the other, the white, wild part drifting gently away, like a sail, like a cloud, like a dazed crackhead. It's hard to imagine the two parts apart now, it's hard to think of anything that holds them together. Integration of parts is passé, or simply no longer possible. There's nothing to integrate.
But look at what they have to work with:
The surrounding architecture is numbingly boring. Morphosis has nothing to work with. It's as if they've taken context and run it through a blender. Maybe the place needs shaking up. But whatever comes next will follow suit. Stay tuned.
It is the design of the moment, which will need to reinvent itself at an accelerating pace. Such is the spirit, such are our times.
It may well be successful, wildly so, and become a happening place. A reincarnation of the Viper Room will be there, I understand.
The comparison is with Vegas, constantly in flux, constantly remaking itself. Does it have great architecture?
I tend to walk away from such conversations.
Does its architecture work?
Apparently.
This is one of few buildings that has got my attention lately. I'd like to think it is a swan song to my least favorite era of architecture, but I know better.
all the commentary seems to skip over the aggressively confrontational statement this building makes, which is (literally) a picture of zahaesque expressionist modernism eating or crushing the lame green-friendly standard office box. it's dramatic and literal and quite consciously non-eternal. it's got an element of narrative totally 100% opposed to the universalist abstraction of modernism.
whatever we're looking at here, it's not an appropriate reading to categorize it as modernism. mies would have hated it. corb probably wouldn't get it. wright would have guaranteed to do it better. i think even zaha would find the caricature of her own work unsatisfactory.
it's more an argument in built form. what arguments, that's up for discussion. maybe a critique of dry overworked "sustainable" architecture. maybe a statement that expressive parametric design will eat the world. who knows, the fun's in devating the specific meaning suggested.
i don't think this kind of narrative literalism has been prominent in architecture since iconolgy went out of style, though it reflects something of the in-crowd humor of venturi scott brown, before they got misunderstood as being historicist. (pomo was always an intentional joke which quit being funny when people took it seriously)
so talking traditional vs modern totally misses the point. because this isn't a modern building; it's something alien and perverse. it's definitely anti modern.
i for one am very excited to imagine where it could lead.
All 16 Comments
just because you can does that mean you should
yes.
Except if it’s traditional
that looks so fucking awful
Of course the building is outrageous. What I can't tell is whether Morphosis have their tongues in their cheeks, and if so, how far.
But what is supposed to go in a neighborhood that once sported the Viper? The whole neighborhood is comprised of a chaos of camp and off-notes, a large part of its charm. Anything reserved and graceful would get eaten alive here.
This thing just grows on you. It fits in well by virtue of how well it doesn't fit in with anything in a place where nothing fits in with anything else.
No.
I hope there’s a Baja Fresh
And the CVS is around back.
amazing and audacious
Right? And look at that Chase bank, looks like shit.
amazing and audacious for all the right reasons
So let's build more like this! Right?! No.
Because it looks good? Imagine playing jazz or the blues...Been there, Done that! Dude, you need to loosen up.
let's have more of both. less of the other stuff.
Now your talking. Let your freak flag fly
What is it that you don't understand? It's a great building, of its time. Technological achievement. It would be an anachronism to build today, and the skin would be pasted on a thoroughly modern structure. I swear, you're like my mom, she is always asking for a Victorian home, without understanding the context in which the building of that home was possible. Just because we can? What buildings will represent us 70 years into the future? I hope it's this Morphosis project.
The whole "of it's time" argument is bullshit, and you know it. Imagine a musician, chef, writer, etc. not doing something beautiful because it was an older style or way of doing things. The whole history of architecture is full of examples that would be considered "not of their time", including yet another modernist minimalist building. And what about technologies like plastic food packaging or fracking when good old walking and organic food are clearly better for us? Your determinist thinking makes no sense.
Let me do your mom's house because no one needs to understand the context of what they like... cause they simply like it. Do roman classical revival building from the 1500's represent Antiquity or the Renaissance? And if I did a Art Deco inspired building, do you really think I would be satisfied with copying an existing building? I'm sure some would, and those folks exist whether they are doing Neo-classical, Neo-Deco, or Neo-modernism. And even if they did, do you think I or your mom would care if it brought us pleasure looking at it?
The only thing this Morphosis project represents is some inflated ego and our stupidity in thinking we have to have it because it looks nothing like before... besides a cut up snake head sculpture. This way of designing is like throwing dice and hoping to get a lucky seven. I thought being modern meant choosing to be ourselves, to listen to any music, date any person, eat any food, and build any kind of building we liked. You sound like the classicists of old (and some new) who reflexively say "NO" to things that don't fit their ideology.
What about the ideology of beauty? Your and my dear mother don't need an ideology to love something, they just need an empathetic and humble architect to make them happy. Let creativity take many paths, not a predetermined path set by some really depressing post WW1 dudes. They did some cool things, but let's move on already. Plus, how will we maintain these buildings in 50 years when the weather is going to be haywire? There's room for all of us.
Bore- ING. Your argument.
You insist on telling people what they can and can't learn from, except this is a creative field. People with their own vision see right through your puritanism, to say nothing about your bullshit. Learn to see with your eyes, not your ideology.
Beautiful. Lovely. Glad we still have these wonderful things. But, build one of those today? Balderdash! I'd personally love to see this priced out in 2019 dollars. It'd be a joke.
I do it everyday.
b3tadine, technology is constantly evolving. What makes a building worth preserving is not the method of construction, but the quality of its composition. That's why so many still love victorians, because they where a 'Gift to the Street' in both massing and detail. Here's one more in response to your criticism, which is a valid concern. One can study buildings for lessons in composition and strip details that are gaudy or impractical. And this is true of all styles, modernist or traditional.
Thayer-D is like an adult learner showing up to a lecture on the critique of 21st century fashion in a tweed 3-piece bitching about what the kids are wearing these days and then, when someone compliments his suit, he tells them to "Let their freak flag fly."
Yikes! A stinging rebuke.
lol... I remember one of these guys coming to a Storefront for Art and Architecture event. He acted like he thought he was the smartest guy in the room.
Everyone knows there's room for only one architectural style, because only twelve new structures are built every year. So choose: it's got to be new and flashy or traditional and mannered. We absolutely cannot have both.
I love that Morphosis triggers Thayer.
b3tadine: Have your Mom give me a call.
I love the fact that lots of people want buildings in trad styles triggers you guys. :)
Lots being... three? Or did you mean the statistics you made up in your head about the rest of the general public ?
There is a huge demand in the marketplace for architecture inspired by tradition. We can debate how big that demand is, but it's very large, particularly in the arena of residential architecture.
Nobody is passing laws preventing you from doing trad architecture. Neo-traditional activists do pass laws against aesthetics that don't conform to traditional styles. That's the major difference, in my view.
There are form-based urban design codes that encourage all sorts of styles, modernist ones as well.
But they tend to be traditional based codes because so many architects are unable to do the most rudimentary traditional design competently. They’ve sprung up be necessity because of many attitudes made evident here.
Uh, so the architects that produce traditional designs are unable to do them competently? Who hires a firm that works with contemporary design and then forces them to design a traditional building? Your false narrative lacks logical cohesion.
Correct. The quality of traditional design is extremely low due to the fact that schools don't teach the art of design, composition. And the people who hire firms know little of how backwards and reactionary our schooling is, imagining a world where basic skills in composition would be the basis of any competent architect's tool kit.
"schools don't teach the art of design, composition"
Objection, your honor. Assumes facts not in evidence.
This is a terrible building predicated on the basis of complete excess, a parametric self gratification exercise. Has every hacky trick in the book thrown at it....practice a little restraint...just irresponsible..
It is pretty hilarious. It looks like a stack of glass slides being crushed by a huge white robot hand. (Maybe Thom's the hand and we're the glass!)
It reminds me of an abstracted tornado. It's menacing.
Another question is when this building becomes boring.
Much good architecture is reserved, distinctive, well-proportioned—and boring. Boring is a virtue. It means such buildings will continue to persevere and earn our admiration or grudging respect for years, for centuries, even if they don't excite us at some time in one of our ephemeral phases. Many great buildings fall into this category.
Mediocre buildings continue to exist for the same reason. They may not draw admiration, but at least they don't offend or make us look askance, so we put up with them.
But this design exists to get our attention and shock us. Now. How long can that last? How long before it merely looks clunky and funky? Or we decide it isn't such a big deal after all, that we want something wilder?
You mean, like this one?
or this?
That last building is ... SHOCKEN. *clutches pearls*
Right!?
everything turns boring about 30 years after it's built. the lucky buildings last anyway and around 60 years later become either classics or beloved idiosyncrasies (eg anything bruce goff)
In a good city, most buildings should be background buildings - well proportioned, adhering to local traditions in materials and morphology, quietly doing their thing to contribute to the urban fabric. Showy buildings should be rare and important structures. Imagine a whole city of buildings like the Morphosis tornado.
Erik, I'm not, no one is, and that's why it's fine. Imagine Seaside, everywhere.
Ze Eric ist correkt! Ve vill NOT BE HAVINK ZIS WEIRDOBUILDING STUFFS in OUR perfekt society!
Pot meet kettle
Except nobody is forcing anybody to build contemporary buildings, slapnuts.
Do you actually use the word "slapnuts" out in the real world, or is it just an internet thing? :)
I use it, but generally not at work.
Don't forget this:
But three of those buildings don't belong in your list. Gaudi will always be a separate case. Another reason we need boring architecture is so we can appreciate it when someone cuts loose. Boring architecture sets the context and frames our expectations. But this is tricky. It will be hard to show failures because so many have been razed.
Most buildings, are, boring. When boring rises to architecture, that is sublime. When architecture rises to audacious, no one, no one, is saying more audacity, all I'm asking for is someone to break out in fucking drum solo, because all of this Enya, is really pissing me off.
'rises to architecture' ? Pretty sure it's all architecture, but this caste system thinking is part of the problem. You're either doing capital A architecture or your a hack cranking out shit. And then we wonder why the average pre WW2 town is soooo much better than the dros we put out today. Gary is exactly right. If your options are Enya or Neil Peart, I can see why your pissed. Go down to Venice, hit a dispensary, and enjoy the sights. LA is full of average beauty.
You have a lot of gall accusing everyone else of being in a 'caste system'. Physician, heal thyself.
That Morphosis building looks really efficient from every aspect - energy use, sustainability, function, maintenance, construction cost.
Its one thing to design absurdist virtual structures as movie sets, it’s another thing altogether to design them for actual construction. Aside from the fact that it is just slavish pandering to oligarchs while there are homeless sleeping in the streets.
FAIL
Oh, wait, this is all about aesthetics so none of this matters. Sorry.
Aesthetics has to do with beauty. This building is about calling attention to itself and not in a good way. It’s the old ‘society sucks so our buildings must honestly express the suckiness we live.’ And if your mom asks for beauty...well, let her walk around in Old Pasadena. BTW, LA has many Pasadenas if you don’t mind brown people:)
Aesthetics are both relative and subjective. That the discussion is about aesthetics instead of the functional and performance characteristics of the building in these critical times is a demonstration of how completely misdirected architectural culture is.
This building is just another glitzy corporate mcmansion. Adoring this is celebrating the race to self-extinction.
I agree it's a showboating building. My point is it offers the public nothing to enjoy beyond the novelty of its assertiveness. Aesthetics are subjective, but there are generalized preferences that appear in all styles and periods of history. Not to disqualify your or anyone else's interpretation, just to say if your building in public space, why not design a building one's mother might like? People don't think about economics or a building's historical context when walking around. But if you give the something they might like, it will lift their day just a bit.
"BTW, LA has many Pasadenas if you don’t mind brown people:)"
Do you think this is funny?
If your afraid of brown people, yes. LA is full of amazing architecture that is completely ignored because of ideology, whether architectural, economic , or racial. The problem is when white people are no longer afraid, in come the greedy developers. Know what I mean?
I don't have to learn L.A. from ideolog like yourself. Thank you, I lived here almost a half century. Everything you say here is usually dosed with a conservative ideology yet you always complain about other people's ideologies. A lot of blanket statements and not convincing at all. Very trite at best.
What’s my conservative ideology? The fact that i point out how rigid modernist schools are, like the guy 3tadine who simply says NO to building in styles he says are not legitimate? When you call me out as a conservative (which is laughable if you met me) rather than debate the points, it’s clear where your coming from. We might disagree, but I think that we can co-exist. I love LA, it’s just that I see so little of what I found there discussed here...because it seems stuck in the museum if “we don’t do that anymore”. Does that attitude sound liberal ir conservative to you?
You don't do debate. You do repetition until people stop talking to you.
Rather than judge, maybe some of the stout hearted here can tell us exactly what this is. I'm at a loss, but I often like things I don't understand.
It is a monument to a culture that eschews frame of reference, that doesn't know what to do with itself, that has a limited attention span. It belongs to a discipline that now largely talks to itself and is running out of ideas.
The design is schizophrenic. Literally—it has a split personality. It reflects two major trends. One one side, a nod to "nature," the self-effacing geometric frames covered with green stuff. I find such buildings boring.
I should have made a distinction in my comment above. Great—and mediocre—architecture is "boring" because it exists well within an order and doesn't call excessive attention to itself. Often it is the mediocre that we fall in love with. The other sense of boring is work that we soon lose interest in and just stop seeing, for a variety of reasons. In the case of this Morphosis I suggested it might be boring because it called so much attention to itself that we fatigue.
On the other side, a tribute to another major trend, the free-form flowing anything goes designs that have been given funky justifications such as parametrics. But this design is genuinely crazy, like some surrealist twisted dream. Of course it has to be white.
How do they integrate the two trends? They just stick them together, one gently in the grasp of the other, the white, wild part drifting gently away, like a sail, like a cloud, like a dazed crackhead. It's hard to imagine the two parts apart now, it's hard to think of anything that holds them together. Integration of parts is passé, or simply no longer possible. There's nothing to integrate.
But look at what they have to work with:
The surrounding architecture is numbingly boring. Morphosis has nothing to work with. It's as if they've taken context and run it through a blender. Maybe the place needs shaking up. But whatever comes next will follow suit. Stay tuned.
It is the design of the moment, which will need to reinvent itself at an accelerating pace. Such is the spirit, such are our times.
It may well be successful, wildly so, and become a happening place. A reincarnation of the Viper Room will be there, I understand.
The comparison is with Vegas, constantly in flux, constantly remaking itself. Does it have great architecture?
I tend to walk away from such conversations.
Does its architecture work?
Apparently.
This is one of few buildings that has got my attention lately. I'd like to think it is a swan song to my least favorite era of architecture, but I know better.
"On one side. . ."
This is a sublimely ridiculous building, and I say that with no small fondness.
The excuse of having a crappy, fragmented fabric to design a crappy, fragmented building is lame. Mayne is not relevant anymore.
Architecture is, is the same as Architecture =. You can't write a mathematical equation for something that is subjective, beauty cannot be defined that way, good, great, or bad cannot be summed up in an easily quantifiable statement.
This is one rendering.
People define beauty all the time, which is why we need to address it as architects, whether from a rendering or 20
Don’t be afraid of asking people what they think, and don’t be afraid to disagree, just account for the wide variety of taste that exists. On the other hand it doesn’t take a genius to know why Paris is the most visited city in the world or what ‘curb appeal’ means to a realtor, or for that matter understanding one’s own mother when she says something’s ugly. Beauty is subjective and impossible to quantify, but it affects us so directly and profoundly, so why on earth would we (as architects) shy away from studying and talking about it? Beauty exists in all styles, just less so in those where you’re not allowed to discuss it. People don’t see ideology, they see physical forms.
All this sturm und drang about one building. Focus. Honestly, I sense most of the critics are not too different than conservatives criticizing Al Gore, Bono, and others for taking airplanes and talking about climate change. Focus on the issues that matter with real people. Not the disco ball.
I don't mind the sturm, but I hate that drang.
This has been a great discussion. I doubt anybody changed their mind, but just the fact that we can have it is a good thing. Here's a new building in DC (my town) that is both modernist and traditional, it's the two buildings wrapping the corner townhouse. Some may hate it, but there's no doubt that the two faces coexist happily as do we all in our own diverse cities. And I fully agree about those conservatives who slam Gore and Bono for trying to save the planet among other things.
FWIW, I work with a ton of conservatives as I'm an architect for a home builder, and they are wonderful folks (most of them), love their families, and let my flaming liberal ass do my thing. I can't tell you how much I disagree with a lot of their politics, but in talking to them I can tell you that we actually have a lot in common. So thanks for keeping this civil.
I would hardly describe you as a flaming liberal. Flaming maybe.
However you might describe me, we need to get this train wreck out of office. S o whoever our side picks, please vote him or her in. Preferably a woman who can put this man in his place, but let's stick together for this one. This transcends all politics.
That building, is a mess. Looks like Vegas.
The building on the corner is probably a buca di beppo.
what is modern about that design, other than the construction? It kind of reminds me of the time Christopher Wren deliberately designed a shit show of a church for St. Peter's to get the people in charge to support the design he wanted (and eventually built). The toffs all loved it, with its absurd "bit of the old, bit of the new". Wren thought it was so clearly not worth consideration that they would go back to his original design. But the idiots in charge liked his obvious pile of junk and approved that version instead. Too smart for his own good, his solution was to get permission from the king to make changes to the design as difficult circumstances came up during construction. Which of course they did, and he built his original design instead of the piece of shit that was approved. Not to be misunderstood, he built something 180 degrees different from what was approved, and this is what he is recognized for as a genius today. Cool beans! My lesson from this true story is that appeasing old fashioned silly-heads is a waste of time, but tricking them is fun, so we should all do that. Or maybe it's that we should all be besties with the King.
What’s modern about the design is it not worrying if some modernist crank bitching about it not being ‘modern’ enough. BTW, do you mean St.Pauls?
That, looks like this:
It took me a long time—decades—to figure this out. A culture needs a conservative core and traditions if only to have something solid to react against. Otherwise we flail in the void, which is what we’re doing now. See the Morphosis project for 8850 Sunset Boulevard, above, for example. It's not hard to see how such a principle might apply to architecture.
I fought my father, a conservative, most of my life, often with cause. But that doesn’t mean I didn’t listen and he didn’t influence me. Most of his moral sternness I reacted against still stayed with me in some form and has helped define me. He was, after all, a good man.
And when that conservative core is weak, the culture suffers. The “moral majority” was never very moral. Now they have gone completely off track and are wholly corrupt, and we’re paying a horrible price. They are, in fact, more indulgent than we ever were.
But let's not pat ourselves on the back. I see similarities between 8850 Sunset Boulevard and our president, and in many ways we all are products of the same culture that created Trump. But I don't see us making that comparison. Instead, we'll have a battle royal to see who is most liberal.
These are glorious times.
Well said.
Define conservative. If you rely on us figuring it out it's really difficult to understand whether you have a valid point or not.
Yes, please tell us all about your belief system so that we may judge you first, and THEN decide whether your argument is valid. You may begin at any time. We'll be sitting here evaluating every keystroke for appropriateness.
"In art, as well as in all other forms of human effort, there always develop along side each other both conservative and liberal tendencies that are pretty sure at certain points to become respectively reactionary and radical. The conservative very justly appreciates the past and the liberal as justly values the present. The reactionary is as scornful of the present as the radical is of the past. Between the two extremes the Aristotelian mean is the desideratum"
A conservative is a person who now defines him or herself as conservative. They tell us. The term itself, of course, is meaningless.
Your entire post's point was "A culture needs a conservative core and traditions if only to have something solid to react against. " yet you cannot (or will not) define conservative, and citizen takes a cheap shot at me seemingly for no reason. (Thanks, little buddy.) You INTENTIONALLY use a word that is laden with assumptions, meanings of different sorts, and historical context that changes over time and then say it's a meaningless term. Wut?
Thayer, a quote without attribution is not helpful, especially for those of use who like context along side pretty (and selectively chosen) snippets .
Sorry, big buddy. Conservatives now are conservatives only in name. Before, there was a rich tradition of those who adhered to balance, social order, traditions, and moral probity in one form or another. For better and for worse, seriously, vainly, and/or hypocritically. I thought this could be assumed. In architecture you only have to look at Vitruvius on, various interpretations of classical architecture ever since. They provided a base for modernist and postmodernist reactions. For better and for worse.
The problem with conservatism's "rich tradition of those who adhered to balance, social order, traditions, and moral probity in one form or another" is how much social order, traditions, and moral probity white conservatives (which is, I think, fair to assume what we're talking about here) ignore at best and eradicate at worst, it being of "the other".
Of course. I believe that falls under the category "hypocritical," and it's more blatant now than ever. Moral probity need not necessarily be racist, however.
all the commentary seems to skip over the aggressively confrontational statement this building makes, which is (literally) a picture of zahaesque expressionist modernism eating or crushing the lame green-friendly standard office box. it's dramatic and literal and quite consciously non-eternal. it's got an element of narrative totally 100% opposed to the universalist abstraction of modernism.
whatever we're looking at here, it's not an appropriate reading to categorize it as modernism. mies would have hated it. corb probably wouldn't get it. wright would have guaranteed to do it better. i think even zaha would find the caricature of her own work unsatisfactory.
it's more an argument in built form. what arguments, that's up for discussion. maybe a critique of dry overworked "sustainable" architecture. maybe a statement that expressive parametric design will eat the world. who knows, the fun's in devating the specific meaning suggested.
i don't think this kind of narrative literalism has been prominent in architecture since iconolgy went out of style, though it reflects something of the in-crowd humor of venturi scott brown, before they got misunderstood as being historicist. (pomo was always an intentional joke which quit being funny when people took it seriously)
so talking traditional vs modern totally misses the point. because this isn't a modern building; it's something alien and perverse. it's definitely anti modern.
i for one am very excited to imagine where it could lead.
This building is certainly modernist in the glass and steel sculpture at it's a striped down sculptural aesthetic. For all its gyrations, we see again how little meat is on its bones. Plus, it's going to be in your face for blocks around. When you role the dice on forms sometimes you crap out.
Maybe, but that leaves it as merely an inside joke. That was my point above, that architecture is only talking to itself and has divorced itself from the world, a culture, its belief systems. Still, the thing intrigues the hell out of me for its outrageousness. It transcends the other discussions we've been hearing by its sheer absurdity. Maybe it blows those discussions out of the water and we start afresh with something else. I'm always happy when one of these gets built, and for all I know it is right for Sunset Boulevard. I'm not a native. It's not spoiling the older, more refined downtown.
Starchitects don’t design ‘for’: they design ‘against’ (other starchitects). Mayne even came right out and said it over the Cooper Union debacle. It’s a giant ego competition.
Compare/contrast for style and design:
For people who are good at this game:
You're no fun.
It has been said.
You haven't said anything.
"You're no fun" (It) has been said.
This from the one who complains that people don't debate, like him.
Being no fun ≠ disliking debate.
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.