NY Times architecture critic Nicolai Ouroussoff, in his review for NY Times "Arts & Leisure" section, demonstrates astoundingly meanspirited wrongheadedness: He puts the brand new Museum of Arts and Design at the end of his top-seven list of New York City buildings that he believes ought to be "candidates for demolition." It's time to demolish Ouroussoff. CultureGrrl
11 Comments
I think he's right, that building really sucks. Just because somebody made a few buildings that looked OK doesn't mean that anyone needs to cut him slack. Also FYI, the article above is very poorly written. And to CultureGrrl, you need to put your references in quotation marks, unless it's your opinion to "demolish Ouroussoff."
I don't think the building sucks. I think it has some weirdness to the exterior—most of which came about 1. as a result of the client insisting on something that the architect didn't want; and 2. as a result of having to stick with the existing massing envelope.
Don't forget that it's a gallery, so it has to function first and foremost as a place for displaying art. Which, according to all accounts, it does well.
The original building was an odd, unusable structure on Columbus Circle. The new building is an odd, usable structure. We've gained something very important.
CultureGrrl, I enjoyed your article very much, and disagree with GA who seems to think it was "poorly written". I love that you illustrated it with photos, and you're right: we've seen lots of criticism of the building's form but little talk of its display of contemporary art. Well done.
Also agree that saying this building should be demolished a week after it's been publicly unveiled is pretty short-sighted.
Every building is an outcome of complex negotiations between client, city, budget, history etc. none of which gives an architectural critic the reason to go "easy" on critiquing a building that, at the end of the day, is not a successful piece of architecture. I think the whole issue about detailing is an important one within the context of the specifi architect's work, since the work does not heavily rely on formal invention or programmatic controversy, the grounds to judge the work remains to be, how well its put together. And it really isn't well put together. For whatever reason, call it the client budget etc. the architect failed to manage the process successfully. For contemporary art, the galleries do not propose a new approach for viewing contemporary art, although it does not hamper the art experience either. So if it is that timid about its position to art, if the details are not executed carefully, if it is not an attractive urban object, can somebody tell me why we need to defend mediocrity???
I think there is a pretty vast divide between mediocre (or maybe in this case, lost opportunity) and "worthy of demolition". And in any case, I was defending the article, not the building, which frankly I can't build up enough interest in to feel strongly one way or another. The previous iteration was curious, but not good; this redevelopment seems to be the same.
Is every new gallery space required to propose a new approach for viewing the art? Or can we let artists drive that shift, since they will anyway, and tend to get cranky when we try to do it for them?
The original lollipop building by Edward Durrell Stone was an unfortunate and misguided design plopped down on the edge of Columbus Circle. It haunted New York and Central Park from the day it was built, and was never a successful musuem. For all its lightly colored structural elements, it was dark and forboding throughout. The new Arts and Design Museum is exactly the same thing - a leopard that hasn't changed its spots. It is a crime that the Landmarks Preservation Commission allowed this to be built. It looks like a huge ventilation shaft for the Mid-town tunnel.
New York Architect
i believe he shortsighted the blue building by tschumi, the worst piece of shit in new york (and unfortunately only a few blocks from me)..a building which that blind idiot wrote about with love and probably with a fat check by the developers and tschumi to shill it...
I dont think tschumi has the money to bribe architecture critics.
Tschumi, don't forget, married rich.
It's really a shame about 2 Columbus Circle. Edward Durell Stone's best projects embrace a murality that few architects dare attempt, and 2CC was a fine example of this. None should be victims of developmental facadicide. EDS never got the respect he deserved while living; now his buildings are being desecrated.
Murality? Did you mean morality?
I love Edward Durrell Stone's work, he's a master, but 2CC was just an odd duck, no matter how you frame it.
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.