Frank Gehry's team is wrapping up another high-profile project this year: after the $1-billion mixed-use development The Grand topped out in Downtown Los Angeles this week (aiming for completion in late 2021), the LUMA Arles art complex in the south of France just announced its intention to open on June 26 (government-issued Covid-19 guidelines permitting).
Construction on the Gehry-designed tower, the centerpiece of the 27-acre campus at the Parc des Ateliers in the city of Arles, began in 2014. The 15,000 sqm / 161,500 sqft high-rise, finished with 11,000 stainless steel panels, will house exhibition galleries, project spaces, research and archive facilities, an auditorium, and a cafe, alongside workshop and seminar rooms.
"We wanted to evoke the local, from Van Gogh's 'Starry Night' to the soaring rock clusters you find in the region," Frank Gehry described his building. "Its central drum echoes the plan of the Roman amphitheater."
The campus also features seven former railway factories, four of which have been renovated by New York-based Selldorf Architects as exhibition and performance spaces. The surrounding gardens and public park are designed by Belgian landscape architects, Bureau Bas Smets.
88 Comments
I am reminded of my youth.
Don't get me wrong.. I don't actually hate it...
natematt what is this object? It looks so familiar but I can't place it.
It's a Lego crystal. I'm pretty sure it was introduced in the mid nineties with their Aquanauts line.
That’s it! My son never had a silver one, he had a blue one.
I think the original use of the piece was in silver for the aforementioned line. So that's my memory. Though I think many after were neon.
It's known as a 1x1 Rock Crystal 5 point and it was released for the first time in silver/chrome back in the late grunge year of 1995. The first line of lego sets to have it was Aquazone. I may have several myself.
minecraft gehry copying itself, disappointed at the straight elevator towers though.
With every new project Gehry reaches a new low.
Considering where he started that's really saying something.
At the very least, I'm intrigued by it. It's fairly novel (to me) and isn't his usually predictable stuff. Would you like it any more or less if somebody else designed it?
If Gehry did something worth praising I'd be happy to do so. Aside from the Chiat/Day building I have yet to see one, and he's running out of time.
He's running out of time for you to go see his praiseworthy work? There's plenty out there.
He's running out of time to make good architecture. Unless of course you think good architecture is just a series of stylistic experiments. As far as I am concerned that is an exercise in ego, not architecture. https://archinect.com/forum/thread/134061675/what-s-good-architecture
Stylistic experiments don't disqualify something from being good architecture. Dismissing an entire oeuvre as an exercise in ego is lazy criticism. Many Gehry buildings perform beautifully for their users and enhance their communities. It seems being shiny is just offensive to your tastes.
Putting aside the obvious structural inefficiency, expense of construction, and difficulty of maintenance one is left with aesthetics based on form, context, and subjective appearance. That is not what defines good architecture. Aside from that it looks like a bizarro turd that dropped from a giant mechanical cow's ass.
Miles, what's your view on baroque or renaissance architecture? both are largely just a bunch of stylistic flourishes. the florence cathedral has a huge wasteful dome which adds no useful space to the building, and the oversized doors are too heavy for a single person to push open. not to mind the difficulty of cleaning all that marble.
The great renaissance cathedrals were the height of craft and technology at the time, and considering the difficulties in restoring Notre Dame, the craft is still unmatched. In theory at least the cathedrals were a higher purpose, and even if they weren't (a different argument) they have transcended to become truly iconic spiritual places. Many took hundreds of years to construct.
To discuss this in the context of Gehry is inane.
Actually, I like the way this irregular shape plus the circle of the base work with the straight geometry and parallel lines of the other buildings. See the last photo, above.
The overhead shots may give a skewed sense of how it appears to residents. From the street it is not so imposing:
And Arles, at least in this area, is really flat, so people won't have those views. It provides a marker and an accent for an area that could stand a punch.
The view from further out:
"Starry Night" it is not. It reminds me more of the flame of the Statue of Liberty. But Starry Night is how residents will remember it, so it will take on those associations and images regardless.
this looks like a fascinating and complex building for a banal site in a city more famous for its representations in art than its actual qualities. i would actually travel to arles to visit, which isn't something i considered doing before. in that sense, it's a likely success at meeting the clients goals. besides having a compelling weird beauty.
I'll join you in that trip. One of my complaints about Gehry's museums is that even his best work upstages the work displayed, which could well be the case with this building. But here it brings attention to the other exhibition/performance space, for the better. See the Selldorf work, below. The Gehry could well bring status to the center, for reasons good and bad, and make it a vital art center. Again, I like the Gehry only in the context of the entire arts complex. I assume it will get more landscaping.
It's not just a tower. It's a beacon.
I honestly misread the headline as "Slimy New Frank Gehry Tower".
I'm hesitating to read commentary on this building because people love to hate on Gehry. I think this building looks wild and experimental, and it comes at a time when architecture culture is so painfully repetitive and banal. Furniture design is much more interesting and experimental, honestly. Even Brutalism nostalgia is more satisfying than most of what gets built today. Gehry is one of the few high profile architects still creating challenging and experimental architecture.
"wild and experimental" just like my clients want to waste their money.....
Why assume that the architect is disobeying the wishes of their client? It's not like these large cultural clients are hiring Gehry to produce a shrinking violet of a building that nobody will notice. They know what they're buying.
you're the one assuming "wild and experimental " has any value in this case, the building is not wild or experimental, rooms are square and plumb, windows had to hatch themselves out of the pixelated "skin" and such skin will begin leaking in 2 weeks. poor attempt at figuration without any consideration for context, use or buildability.
You implied that this is a "waste" of the client's money without knowing what the client values. And yes, this is getting attention because it looks wild and it likely is experimental, based on what we know about Gehry's past, his designs tend to use cutting edge tech and pushes fabrication capabilities. I don't know what else to say. Sure, it isn't reinventing every building system. But that doesn't mean it's not experimental.
i've found liking gehry and his works (i do, a lot) to be almost a political statement within architecture that offends both high-grade academic architects and the ordinary hacks doing big box stores and sfh res. i think that's the effect he seeks too ;)
it appears neoliberalism is still holding strong.
Isn't all architecture currently architecture of neoliberalism? A minimal concrete luxury condo building by Tadao Ando, a neotraditional luxury condo tower by RAMSA, or an undulating steel clad luxury condo tower by Frank Gehry. They're all operating under the same economic conditions with the same agenda. Even the carefully restored townhouse or adaptive reuse project. They are all the "architecture of neoliberalism" .
no.
government funded projects are not operating under the same agenda, for one. there are many counter examples of everyday architecture that do not fit under your luxury-oriented examples.
I'm saying that I don't see an architectural aesthetic unique to neoliberalism. There are banal private buildings and banal public buildings, spectacular and luxurious private buildings and spectacular and luxurious public buildings. I just visited the brand new Eisenhower Memorial in DC. That was also designed by Gehry. It was grand, perfectly crafted with exotic materials, and probably very expensive.
The Eisenhower Memorial consists mostly of brutalist blocks of varying sizes. The statues are nice, but come on.
if there is an aesthetic (which i'm not claiming), gehry would be it.
They are smooth stone blocks and columns. I don't know that it qualifies as "brutalism" in 2021, also since they are not raw concrete. Also, there is a massive metal tapestry that is the length of the entire block. I've never seen anything like it.
A jumbled mass of steel and glass. It looks like a building that was unsuccessfully sent through Star Trek's transporter and reassembled only partially. Experimental art is one thing, in that a person can either partake of it or not. Experimental architecture is another, inescapable to those who live around it or, even worse, are forced to live/work in the buildings. This is an assault in architectural form.
It looks literally like what it is, a unique landmark building created for a cultural institution by Frank Gehry.
Are people new to architecture? Are they not familiar with this model? Are they not familiar with Frank Gehry?
This is not new.
I've disliked Gehry's designs for many years, so yes, I'm quite familiar with both him and the deconstructivist style of which he is the biggest offender. Deconstructivism is an interesting thought experiment and I've enjoyed some of it in art and literature. But for physical spaces it's abominable. It's the height of egotism. People have to live in and near these things. They are Steve Martin's cruel shoes writ large, more a childish repudiation of previous styles than an actual style itself. It's a teenager railing against his parents, in building form, and it's just as impulsive, impetuous and, in hindsight, embarrassing. Only in this case, we're stuck with it. We can't learn and move on. Not to mention the maintenance on these things is horrendous. So no, you're suggestion that dislike of Gehry can only come from ignorance is unfounded.
I've visited many of his buildings and I've enjoyed most of them. I think this has a lot to do with the perspective of the visitor. If you enjoy design culture in general, and the various strands and influences that emerge throughout history, you probably won't go around imagining the "ego" of the creator, or more accurately, the team of creators behind the thing. "we're stuck with it" Most of us will never even visit this building. And even for people who live near it, it's easy to avoid one building in town that you don't like. We don't get to curate our built urban environment to our own personal specifications.
Again, you seem to imply that it's mere ignorance, this time of "design culture," that influences dislike of Gehry's designs. I fully understand the architectural lineage, the "strands and influences," that led to deconstructivism. I simply think there's no reason to deconstruct architectural styles other than as thought experiments, unless it's the ego of the architect who wishes to make his mark upon the profession. The fact that "most of us will never even visit the building" is both a blessing and quite a weak argument for its quality. That's like if someone has COVID and we look on the bright side by saying, "well at least he lives far away." Finally, the inhabitants of a community should absolutely have some say in how their public spaces appear. I've seen way too many empty brutalist benches in awful concrete expanses to believe that people actually like this stuff.
I don't think Gehry would receive these commissions if there were not a lot of people out there who appreciate his architecture as much as I do.
Also, It should be mentioned that the construction quality of Gehry projects seem to be better than other "starchitect" buildings I have visited. For example, the Broad Museum and the Culture Shed have serious quality problems. I've seen Nouvel buildings and Zaha Hadid buildings that are also very disappointing up close.
The ruling class (financial backers and the cultural elites who drive these projects) likes this stuff, no doubt. But most people don't. Why are pre-war buildings and neighborhoods so highly sought after?
even most of the architects on this page aren't enjoying it- should tell you something.
i mean it literally looks like a polished crystal turd. is this really exemplary avant-garde architecture?
@davvid Honest questions: What do you like about it? Do you find any sense of harmony or beauty in the design? Is a public building the right venue/medium to evoke disharmony if that is the intent?
@square The training that architects receive has a lot of biases built into it. I've encountered many architect friends who hate anything postmodern, anything too playful, and anything that they could describe as "ironic" or "pastiche". Personally, I think I experienced an architectural education that was very much from a white, straight, male perspective. Anything too campy, too colorful, or too decorative received bad reviews. We were even trained to not have any color in our architectural models. Many of the architects that emerged as "starchitects" in the 80s, 90s, and 00s were inspired to break those rules and to embrace visually striking materials, color, and surprising manipulations of form.
@joaquinvargas To your comment about the architectural tastes of the ruling class, plenty of them like traditional architecture. Trump even created an executive order called "Make Federal Buildings Beautiful Again" mandating that traditional and classical architectural styles be used for federal buildings. Biden immediately reversed that order. Both are part of the ruling class.
To your second comment, I like the texture of the spiraling reflective panels and how they contrast with the protruding windows. I think it probably has a nice shimmering effect in the sunlight. The form is definitely weird, but I enjoy weird forms.
I first saw a model of this project about five years ago in a gallery in Tokyo was having an exhibition on Gehry's work over the years.
Personally, I think I experienced an architectural education that was very much from a white, straight, male perspective.
wow, i haven't heard the argument that gehry is subverting the patriarchy before. it's novel, but gehry typifies the white, straight male perspective. in fact, if we're talking about identity and class here, there are plenty of those in the "working class," and who aren't white, who prefer normal architecture that simply works for them.
not sure what you're arguing here.
Gehry is an architect who did subvert an aesthetic hegemony in Architecture. Zaha Hadid is another, and we all know that she attracted as much hatred as Gehry does, if not more. I think that the hegemony I am referring to is probably most exemplified by Richard Meier.
i think davvid really likes this project.
I do
"We wanted to evoke the local, from Van Gogh's 'Starry Night' to the soaring rock clusters you find in the region," Frank Gehry described his building. "Its central drum echoes the plan of the Roman amphitheater."
Not a bad tribute to the one-eared lunatic who produced one of the best known paintings of all time. Plus the echoes of Arles rocks and amphitheater.
Gehry, however, is not going to do anything literal. Van Gogh works with thick, swirling paint that distorts and transforms his subject for emotional effect. Gehry works with architectural elements, brick-like aluminum panels, stacked, staggered, and twisted to produce swirling shapes, those box-like windows that stick out and are erratically placed, rather comic and, of course, a little crazy. The expected regular tower has been posited and distorted in a variety of ways—like Van Gogh's sky and trees—whose solid facades will be fractured by multiple reflections or dispersed in bright reflection. All of this is anchored and qualified by the straight, regular, solid, stone shaft alongside. There's a dialogue here between light and solid, nature and edifice, without resolution. Gehry doesn't have a picture frame to contain and charge the composition. Rather he has to relate openly to the entire sky. This shaft serves the purpose of a frame.
It's tempting to compare Van Gogh with Gehry. Neither creates work that is especially intellectual, fits neatly with esthetic movements, or stands in any clear relationship to tradition or the present. Both produce creations that are personal, idiosyncratic, and, again, a little crazy. Or a lot. And however much they both distort and challenge, their work is compelling and readily accessible, which must account for the popularity of both.
It's the association with Van Gogh that redeems the Gehry for me. There's nothing gratuitous about what he's doing here. Instead we are taken to a well known figure and work, and with those to personal questions and wanderings, our own desire for a little madness that still, in another light, makes sense to us.
I'm skeptical of reference to the amphitheater, but the tower needs a base, a regular one for contrast, and a circle adds another form in the overall mix.
In assessing the Gehry, it is important to remember type: this is an art center. It has to evoke visual creation.
And I suspect this project will be quite successful. It will bring attention to this center—and attendance. People will just want to climb the tower to say they have climbed it as well as look out on Arles, their perspective challenged by their ascent, where they are standing. I'm curious to see the interior. Maybe they will look at the art along the way.
It will also bring attention to Arles, a family nondescript place that could use a place marker. I don't know what other reference might better serve it, or stand better in our cultural confusion today. It is a figure of our times, for better and/or for worse.
I'm guessing it will run into all kinds of maintenance problems.
"a fairly nondescript place"—arrrgh
The Selldorf refurbishing of the train sheds merits attention. More pictures at their site.
Here are some photos I took of study models that were exhibited in Tokyo in 2015:
yup. polished turd. especially the first one. the color block version is the best one.
Why is that even a valid critique? I'm thinking of "clay" sculptures by Urs Fischer, one displayed in front of the Seagram building. They really did look like feces. But they also looked like clay. Why is that form "bad"?
it's not a critique, it's an observation.
@davvid The form of feces is bad for a building, full stop. Not sure how that isn't apparent. I'm not interested in postmodern deconstructions that require a working knowledge of critical theory and architectural history in order to "appreciate" a building. That kind of thing is fun in art, but not in permanent, public physical spaces.
@joaquinvargas I see it as a tower. Is it possible that you're just struggling for words to describe a complex shape?
@joaquinvargas Also who really thinks that a visitor needs to know about critical theory to experience a work of contemporary architecture? This is so unbelievably silly and condescending toward the general public. We experience contemporary architecture all the time.
it's not condescending, it's reality (i find this line of argument funny). the majority of people do not like garbage like this.
It is condescending to suggest that the public is incapable of enjoying contemporary architecture unless they have some specialized knowledge.
Also, I don't think that your hatred of Gehry stems from a concern for "real people", whoever they are. I think it is entirely about you and your personal dislike of weird architecture. I think it is the non-normative aesthetic here that offends you. When you say "real people", I'm reminded of when Sarah Palin said "real America". She meant her own personal America. And you mean, your own personal tastes.
please show me the data that a large majority of people enjoy gehry's work, and we'll talk. that is your thesis, right? that the masses love gehry and starchitecture in general?
judging from this page, an audience you would think sympathetic to your claims, you're starting in a pretty deep hole.
Who says that a majority needs to enjoy every type of architecture? We live in a pluralistic world with a diversity of aesthetics that speak differently to different people. David Adjaye's work is going to be different from RAMSA's work. RAMSA's work is going to be different from MAD Architects. MAD Architects is going to be different from Lacaton & Vassal. I am more of a fan of that discourse than I am a fan of any one style.
The theme here follows the conception of Guggenheim Abu Dhabi, where the inspiration for the form was supposedly the contents of an inverted waste bin.
Garbage in, garbage out.
...
meanwhile, real architecture, for real people, that does require the elevation of their tastes to the avant-garde
https://archinect.com/news/art...
"real people" lol
"lol" lol
Do we judge a neighborhood park by the same standards as an amusement park? I like my neighborhood parks...but amusement parks are fun too.
The architecture approach of Gehry's work is not the norm anymore. The focus has shifted heavily on social, sustainability, vernacular aspect. Iconic form making is a thing of the past. Gehry of course can still ride on the reputation and get rich clients to continue to build his usual style of projects. Emerging architects thought, will not get far with only focus on forms. Or should I say, struggle to obtain clients willing to spend such money on iconic forms. Honestly, the more I am into actual practice. The more I feel how "Architecture" is behind political and economical forces.
Economics rule. Politics is just economics by other means.
In NYC, I think that luxury real estate development is driving architecture culture. And in order to apologize for that development or distract from it, developers and cities partner up to create pseudo-public spaces with access to water, bike paths, public art, event spaces, and shopping malls. The High Line is probably original example of that and Hudson Yards is the hyper-capitalist next generation of it.
yes, there will always be bootlickers for the gehrys etc (who typically happen to be the people willing to work ridiculous hours for little pay), but like you said jay, the conversation is shifting, for the better, towards social concerns rather than aesthetic debates about formalism.
we'll have to see though if the talk delivers, or if like miles says, economics continue to trump the conversations.
“ The architecture approach of Gehry's work is not the norm anymore.”
it never was...
@Square. Are you calling young architectural workers "bootlickers"? Shouldn't we be enforcing fair wage laws and making college free, not ridiculing architects for working at firms that inspire them?
only those who chose to work at firms that exploit them because they are simply "inspired," who are also perpetuating that very system of exploitation. this can happen while also pursuing "fair wage laws" and reforming the college system. these things aren'tmutually exclusive.. you can both choose to not be complicit in starchitecture culture and fight for better working conditions. in fact, it's probably important that you do both..
you could instead choose to work at a firm like i do that does great design work, pays you well, and respects your time.
Do you even know if workers are paid less at Gehry Partners than the average firm, or are you shooting from the hip?
And btw, we are all participating in a system that exploits us. If you're blaming workers, your analysis is way off.
“The conversation is changing” aka an shallow wokeness is the new Bilbao effect.
@ davvid Concept and funding for high line was put together by a non-profit group. Developers had nothing to do with it, and only capitalized on it with massive construction projects that completely altered the adjacent area after the fact. Developers don't apologize for anything and only provide required quasi-public amenites with the greatest reluctance, minimal expense, and greatest propensity to be perceived as private.
oh davvid, even marx understood that while owners are to blame for most of the misery of workers, those very workers are actors that have a thing called agency.
you might want to stick to ooo etc.
What does Coke, Disney, Greenwashing, and Wokeitectire have in common, anyone, anyone?
Night shot, closer to Starry Night
Statement: “There is one driving-metaphor for Luma Arles: that of a living organism. As such the balance between form and function will determine its viability. The trick is to compose a polyphonic score where everything is ordered, but where everything is possible”.
from the Luma site, Maja Hoffmann
The building will never look the same but change with different times, different seasons, with shifts in weather. And it will have different degrees of presence/absence.
I do love how the facade plays with light and reflection, only really hate that poop deck in the rear...
Bit of a Bilbao thinking on the municipality side of things. Other than that, Gehry does what Gehry does.
I just took a virtual tour of Arles. Really, in the old part, a charming town, quite walkable, quite attractive, quite human, on a human scale. But as you move away from the center, out towards Luma, the landscape turns banal and all too familiar.
A few blocks away. You have to assume the trend will continue, unless checked. Arles will keep growing, and it will grow out.
The Luma center + Gehry may well set the tone for future development, for the better, saving the area from the dismal bottom line. Forward thinking—now was the time to get in.
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.