Frank Gehry is designing a new 22-story tower that developers want to build in downtown Santa Monica, near the intersection of Ocean Avenue and Santa Monica Boulevard, according to the official website for the project. The structure will feature space for a hotel and condominiums, as well as restaurant and retail space. — latimes.com
47 Comments
How many ways can you mash up a box and sell it as innovation?
See Frank Gehry
Gehry has managed to transition from hideous to stale.
I have never seen Gehry done a bad building in his home Santa Monica. This looks so much better than anything others have done in that vicinity over the years. Hotel and tourist zone continues. From now on, it is just bigger, better, more expensive and exclusive. From dive bars to riches in 35 some years.
orhan, i agree, this is intriguing to me. i'm interested in the glass detailing.
Generally, not a fan of his, but this building has a nice rhythm and some patterned geometries, and is even better than the building which alludes to 2 volumes involved in a dance in Prague CZ. Thank God for the lack of the "layers to be peeled" effect on this one.
I've always sort of liked the one linked below, except that the thing on top of the volume on the right looks like a ginormous nest, which would then imply a lot of bird shit landing on those entering the building.
http://1.bp.blogspot.com/-a59-aijd13c/TWMX3_f-YCI/AAAAAAAAAB4/76gSwWybaRM/s1600/1260282373606.jpg
man has ceased to evolved!
Quickly now! copy paste something from alberti instead!!!
the faux-old has less ideas than FG
whoa, hey now ...
Mantua's the bomb.
Alberti could mash up a box real good.
How many ways can you mash up a box and sell it as innovation?
My initial reaction was that this is only news because it's Gehry and it'll be expensive. Nothing to see here.
But Thayer's comment - even though it was meant to be criticism - made me give it a second look. It made me realize that each of these mashed-up boxes that comes out of Gehry's office *does* require construction innovations - new detailing to allow what's proposed to be able to be made. Incremental innovations having to do with window detailing, structure, and especially skin.
We sometimes use the metaphor of jazz when talking about architecture - usually "variations on a theme" - but I don't know that architects generally give it much credence. So many are constantly looking for novelty, making something new with each project.
Gehry's office has settled nicely into a couple of themes that they're exploring. With each we see the expected Gehry's ripples, but you can almost hear the 'What would happen if...?' that led the team down a search for a different way to make something. If you compare this to Bilbao, for instance, there has been an evolution over a decade of projects in how to handle openings, loose curves turning to precise creases, signature form-making wedded to familiar building typology.
Gehry's office is no longer shocking us. They've developed a more mature way of making projects that makes them better neighbors while still giving something non-typical to the streetscape and challenging the construction process. More power to 'em.
It made me realize that each of these mashed-up boxes that comes out of Gehry's office *does* require construction innovations
It seems the quality of this building is based almost exclusivly on technological innovation or for that matter, any innovation. Imagine taking this annalogy to music, 99% of the music people like today would be deemed worthless because it owes something to a previous musical riff, genre, etc. In fact taken to almost any cultural output, we'd be living in a world of copy paste, or at least that's how the world would look if you never bothered to develope an eye for the differences that make life interesting.
Novelty certainly has it's charms. It's why many of us tend to romanticize our youth, when everything was so new and fresh. As we get older and experience more things, the elation of the new is more elusive and we tend to need more stimulus to achieve the same level of delight, for some by any means necessary. To others who's lives where filled with constant change, they might shy away from novelty, as it reminds them of traumatic experiences. Some steer clear of the shocking when they know it's not serendipity or worse, a calculated effort to "shock". If you still get a charge from "shocking" the old folks, more power to you, it dosen't discount the possibility of discovering something genuinly new and interesting, but when it comes to manupulation, I'd hedge my bets. To others, they might dig deeper than the surface, to split the atom and see what lies within.
Gehry's office is no longer shocking us.
Gehry might have shocked some people walking through a varied but coherant 19th century urban fabric, but he shouldn't have shocked any architect who's seen his kind of expressionism explored in the many hypothetical exercises since the early 20th century. The only shocking thing for me was that someone would have paid to for one of these that wasn't a pure sculpture. That's the trajectory of the endless quest for novelty though, that every scribble must be built in to three dimensions, no matter how inpractical. And if you have to "invent" details to build the sculpture as building then all the better as you can justify it as true "innovation".
I actually like Blbao, and having visited it, can attest to it's power, derived mostly (IMHO) to its context. As architects, we are taught that the highest ideal is to be the singular heroic architect who defies all convention, who breaks the mold, and the rest of us are faux-oldie sheep, at least that's what our modernist ancestors would have you believe. We should always value any kind of innovation, and variety is in fact the spice of life, but this narrow minded view that what one needs to be shocked with the new (to feel alive!!!)isn't backed up by history, nor would it hold up in a divorce court. Eitherway, it's a free country and I'd defend Gehry's right to sell his schtick, even though I don't buy it.
innovation, new, shock
'shock of the new' ? where's that phrase come from? it cant just be robert hughs can it?
anybody know offhand?
regardless, who's actually operating with these terms in mind? Not wanting to exactly repeat oneself doesnt automatically put one in the camp of the abrasive 'avant garde'
especially in california
it just seems like a very uninteresting set of terms for a conversation, useful for arguing with but not much else
think im gonna go listen to the who, then maybe go surfing. right after this bong hit.
are there no balconies?
Orhan, in what way do you see it as being better (other than possibly the workmanship and quality of finishes )?
tammuz, as a design interest I see it better.
I know the area too well and saw many new buildings gone up in the vicinity. The area was a sleepy old downtown Santa Monica, a heaven for senior citizens and low income people living there in its rent controlled apartments. Then in 1980 Frank Gehry designed the now demolished Santa Monica Place which was followed by the gentrification of the 3 rd. Street Mall as we know today serving the tourists mainly and Ocean Avenue turned into a "hotel zone." Non of the people I mentioned earlier remain in the area.
Don't get me wrong, the building we are talking here falls in the same category as the all gentrifying structures have been going up there in its commercial formula. But I just know from the experience watching Gehry building in the area from the start of his glorious career that he understands this neighborhood, its climate and whatever else, better than any other architect. He is the "local" in this case.
For me, I don't go to that neighborhood anymore. Considering myself a native, its tourist fueled feeling upsets me too much. All I knew of it is gone and turned into a monochromatic money trap for generic corporate entertainment.
"shock of the new ? where's that phrase come from?...anybody know offhand?"
It comes from Mr. Ward, the person I was responding to in the previous post.
I think your bong is clogged.
Orhan, i feel that you didn't nswer the question. saying that Gehry knows the locale and so on doesnt answer the question. there are local architects here who know the region and, well, it doesnt do them any favour.
you say that he knows the neighbourhood, but within the same post, you also say that the area serves a very different rather generic purpose now . therefore, he could be building this in any other area in the world that shares the same climatic condition and possibly vantage view directions, lets say. but i would classify these facets on par with workmanship and finishes..limited to the 'corporeality' of architecture and not to its more overarching role in organizing space and society.
so, what makes this building better? if you conceive of its superiority in terms of those corporeal elements only, then Dubai should be your idea of paradise :o)
in my opinion, i don't see what is very special about this building.. i see application of quirks that have been more adventurously and freely applied elsewhere by Gehry in a more convincing manner. applying this wave effect does not alleviate from the awkwardness of bulk and massing that i can see in the perspective (i judge only by the images available on the relate site), the tower is a tower and the podium is a podium like any other, the facade elements are redundant, columns and rows of windows. room, room, room..etc, turn around the corner, room room room..then elevators +stairs? then back to room room..stacked over each other? minimum loss of floor space and maximum leasable/rentable/tenantable/whateverable spaces...yes?
what makes this building better? the ripple wave effect? so, its about who does makeup better...fine, i can accept that. but we should be more specific here.
this is one of his worst buildings yet. I agree with tammuz. looks like a typical boring building that someone dented up with a giant hammer.
it has great views. i like it white which goes very well with light in santa monica and it would reflect it nicely in different times of the day. ripple effect is nicely done too.
now, all that could be wrong. we are only looking at a rendering. i am speculating on my knowledge and experience.
here is the lot and the vicinity for those who don't know the area. browse it if you want.
https://maps.google.com/maps?q=101+Santa+Monica+Blvd+Santa+Monica,+CA+90401&ie=UTF-8&hq=&hnear=0x80c2a4cfff8471c5:0x2387a72822cee1dd,101+Santa+Monica+Blvd,+Santa+Monica,+CA+90401&gl=us&ei=qnA2UdyUBMfBygGploG4AQ&ved=0CDEQ8gEwAA
couple blocks to the south, james corner building a park. but i suppose everyone loooves him. hi line hi line hi line!!
The area was a sleepy old downtown Santa Monica, a heaven for senior citizens and low income people living there in its rent controlled apartments.
You forgot the Brits. They made a beeline for Santa Monica, if moving to L.A., and had that pub up on Ocean Avenue they loved, as well as some others.
Gehry better straighten up those lines cause I am so offended!
We won't evolve anymore so we must use balloon frames in our architecture!
Stop exploring now. Slow down, I can't keep up with my arthritis and am too lazy to crack a book. Dang why they gotta make learning so hard? dang internets, handwritten pieces of papyrus is where to learn..., in my day at least.
When I split atoms christopher alexander preaches a faux-old sermon. All hail the depth of faux-old theology.
james corner would be a better landscape architect if his website was better.
as for the building, its nice. doesn't seem to do much for the street, but what do we expect or want? better urban planning might make it all work better if anyone was interested in that sort of thing. james could probably whip it all up into shape.
When I don’t know becomes now I know,
Architecture’s finished.
When last year’s words become next year’s words,
Architecture’s done.
Style arrives.
and there shall be palm trees. Three palm trees.
Thayer D
I'm not sure you have any idea what it means to see novel. Shock and novelty aren't the same thing - That seems to be your whole argument.
"It seems the quality of this building is based almost exclusively on technological innovation or for that matter, any innovation. Imagine taking this analogy to music, 99% of the music people like today would be deemed worthless because it owes something to a previous musical riff, genre, etc."
99% of the music people like today is absolute garbage. Are you taking about Taylor Swift? Who are those boys in a band from England?
I am really trying to figure out your argument.
Are you really arguing that Gehry's strive for novel places him outside the confines of architectural history because there is no historic base? You really think this building is based only on technological innovation? There are probably 40 factors that will shape this building. Building is not easy but I guess if it's only about technological innovation it makes it an easy target. Super simplistic view.
"but he shouldn't have shocked any architect who's seen his kind of expressionism explored in the many hypothetical exercises since the early 20th century."
What are you taking about? Gehry's office, with the ability to actually build on their concepts, have done an incredible amount of leg work in the innovation of architecture and building.
You are actually arguing against novelty in an age where architecture is constantly marginalized. Kind of absurd.
Mr. jwl,
I was responding to the way Mr. Ward's comment conflated the two, as they can sometimes be, but as you astutely point out, aren't necessarily the same, so for clarification on the distinctions between the terms 'novelty" and "shocking" as Mr. Ward employed them, you'd have to ask him.
To figure out my argument, you'd first have to assume one isn't the sole arbiter of music's quality, which might be difficult for someone full of conviction, but give it a go. Am I arguing that Gehry's persuit of novelty places him outside the confines of history? I didn't know history had confines, unless you are speaking from a strictly Hegelian perspective, in which case, welcome to the 21st century! Do I think his building is based solely on technological innovation? I'm not sure I ever attempted to understand his motivations, because a: I was responding to Mr. Ward's points and b: I could give a shit. Where you where hanging with Mr. Cyclone through that part?
Eitherway, I think I was saying that "We should always value any kind of innovation", or did you miss that part also? My point was/is that innovation for the sake of novelty (whether it shocks or not) shouldn't be the main criteria for wether work is good or not. You may feel differently, and more power to ya, but I don't look at it that way. In any case, if you are "really trying to figure out (my) argument", it's probably best not to follow-up by saying what my argument is. "You are actually arguing against novelty...bla bla bla).
tammuz, even though they build little uncomfortable little balconies 50% of the time here, people hardly use them. Balconies here mostly used as extra storage for exercise equipment, old refrigerators, plastic plants etc.. It is safe to say there is no balcony culture in USA. With the exception of major cities and their cores, USA is a one or two story country.
The proportions of this one are pleasing, and so are the ripples. And yes, the white color is somehow quite Santa Monica. This is much better than the "New York by Gehry" tower. That one looks fragmented and broken, unless you stand in one specific corner of the building. I also like the pretty "regular" bottom volume. Harkens back to Old-Skool Gehry.
about the balconies, this is very.......in california?!?!?!? with its beautiful weather? who would not want to have a cup of coffee or tea sitting outside on a balcony in the morning or late afternoon, perhaps watching the sunset? and even during bearably cold wet days .
but is that true there? i stayed at a friend's apartment in LA, somewhere in the valley area, and the building, amongst others, had balconies...a 2 or 3 or 4 storey building...we are talking specifically california. perhaps they are mostly too bonged out to notice. or maybe i was.
i will not dispute whether it is cali-kosher or not; you would know better. but you can move the gehry building to Dubai and it would not look out of place at all. at all. at all. then again, it could be because Dubai can well accomodate a californianeque sensibility of sorts rather than/or as well as the other way around.
anyway, apartment towers are challenging, in terms of design. how does one deal with vertical massing and yet not render the building a victim of its own objectness (amongst other challenges). this one may be successful in that sense and i agree with sameolddoctor about the proportion (not about the podium though)..so it might be quite a neighbourly polite tall building. .but it also looks like a one-trick-pony ...as if gehry made a very typical apartment building computer model and then applied a ripple effect to the facade...and that its. the massing i still find awkward. perhaps the detailed design has more to disclose.
The park just to the north of site A, B, C is by J. Corner. Those developments are by Related Properties California Division. Kings of gentrification along with their architects and landscape architects. Those units will sell min. $1,000 000 each and up to $10,000 000 if not more. The site was owned by RAND Corp.
Bring back Gehry's Santa Monica Place! Now that was a great building.... (The 1981 version, not the 1995 whoring-up, or the 2010 gutted wonder.)
citizen, yes. You could even read the slanted SANTA MONICA PLACE. Do you remember the name of the artist? It is now officially credited to Frank Gehry..
I think this building is decent - I like the white - maybe a little too fussy for me, but I like the formal ideas here...
I think programmatically Gehry's buildings tend to work pretty well (at least interior program)... it's when he tries to translate his work to climates other than Mediterranean (i.e. climates with snow and ice) where he gets into serious problems.
Thanks for posting, Orhan. That's a classic image of the parking structure. But the mall building itself was excellent, too. The site plan wedged between those four given corner buildings, the stepped section, the white plaster and steel, the terra cotta tile flooring.... all delicious.
I've always thought that the cheaper the budget, the better the Gehry.
The Mall building was beautiful. An infill between two parking structures and two department stores. A juxtaposed fountain with simple concrete stools where you could smoke. A glass elevator.. Even a jewelry shop by Frank Gehry himself.. There was a Fred Fisher ice cream stand on the second floor behind the main entry that was so po-mo but worth mentioning.. Even a serious community art gallery which I think was operated by USC.
You could even read the slanted SANTA MONICA PLACE.
That always bothered me. Someone did a school building or a dormitory at the University of Toronto with an obnoxious and overly large display of the school's name. It could have even been Gehry. Who knows? He is Canadian by birth.
Found it. It was on the cover of some arch. mag.:
http://ka-foto.se/album/pask/thumbs/university-of-toronto-architecture-masters-i16.jpg
^ gotta be morphosis
It might be. I was someone with a very nouveau SoCal vernacular. I thought it looked ridiculous in Toronto.
There are signs and there are signs. As a critic, you need to be able to understand the time, distinguish the context, refinement and authorship in order to "not" lump sum everything. Otherwise you are just a blabbermouth like Dr. Oz.
Is this the same mall with the extremely dingy interior? Or was that after the 90's rehab. I visited in around 2003 and found it quite bad...
In the sketches movie, didn't Frank Gehry say he hated the design?
The rehab was awful... the clean modernism tarted up with trim and pastel colors to help "enliven" it, I guess.
As a piece of truly urban architecture (and a shopping mall at that), it was really successful.
they always have civic improvement angle to these things ..
Otherwise you are just a blabbermouth like Dr. Oz.
I don't like it on that building in Toronto. That a name architect did it does not help the context and the authorship. I think it will look quirky in short order.
"Santa Monica Place" signage-building looks fun. the scale of it, no?
the "University of Toronto" signage doesn''t look nice. the beam like stricture looks an visually heavy element and the building is heavier and heavier.
no, the mall looks more fun and open, breath in out. the second one, the building looks like it wants to fart and can't.
The Dr. Oz comment wasn't because of his personal demographics. It's because he shoves so many snippets of advice at you that you can't possibly remember them and assimilate them into your lifestyle. And you then think "Screw it, pour on the roquefort crumbles and bring on the chocolate mousse. I'll let my arteries clog and I'll go 3 years earlier. BFD."
At any rate, for "Toronto," yes, that's the word - heavy, and it looks like it very badly wants to rotate.
But we "morphed" in the wrong direction, when the spotlight is on Gehry. One more thing: the tower is very articulated, yet the podium is not. That comes off as inconsistent.
" But we "morphed" in the wrong direction, when the spotlight is on Gehry. One more thing: the tower is very articulated, yet the podium is not. That comes off as inconsistent."
Inconsistent, or different? That is why I say its like Old School Gehry. Even in the Walt Disney Concert Hall, who'd have thought that the stone base would look good with the titanium "sails"? It works, and works beautifully.
Wonder how the interior space is gonna look like.
Have never been inside of any Ghery's building, and always wondered.
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.