The Commission of Fine Arts [...] has praised Gehry’s designs in the past but asked him to consider minor revisions. [...] In response, Gehry submitted a redesign that incorporates a few dozen more trees – but left the basic components of the memorial untouched. Gehry did not attend the presentation of the new designs last week, and an architect at his firm said: “We are staying with the overall big ideas for the project.” — theguardian.com
37 Comments
This is the absolute worst design Gehry has ever done. But he can't back down lest he should look like a short order cook. He's an artist, take it or leave it.
I feel like this situation is lose-lose for Gehry. Many people will *never* accept the memorial, even if it *is* successful. By standing his ground he at least maintains his personal integrity, and - I don't know, just speculating - I imagine losing the commission might not be such a blow to him, given how pedantically conservative all the criticism is.
Personally I think it's a cool urban space but wish it still had the statue of Eisenhower as a boy, which I thought was a powerful piece of the memorial - I'm pretty sure that was removed in an earlier round of design change requests by the family.
It reminds me a little of Loyola Law School in a larger scale.
This is a perfect demonstration of the disaster that is this profession. The architect thinks he's an artistic genuis and that the public is at best woefully ignorant. The publc wants some consideration for their built environment rather than just some egotistical crap rammed up their collective asses.
A success here for Gehry is completely out of reach as it would require putting the interest of the project's stakeholders ahead of his colossal ego.
Miles Jaffe,
What about the egotistical public? Why should we assume that the public knows best? Do you really want to enter an era of crowd sourced/focus group tested architecture?
If Gehry was worth his salt he would design a solution to the problem. That's what architects are supposed to do. This isn't supposed to be a monument to his ego.
He has designed a solution. Susan Eisenhower wants total authority over the project. Why should he roll over and allow that? Gehry is 84 years old and one of the most respected living architects in the world. Susan Eisenhower is only a part of this process by accident of birth.
Clash of the Titans
or titanic egos, in this case. Last I knew, architecture was a service profession. And the way I was trained, your job is to make the project successfully happen by bringing everything and everyone together. If you can't, then at least have the integrity to resign.
The issue is service vs. servility. Why would you expect Frank Gehry to roll over for Susan Eisenhower or Darrel Issa?
If Gehry hands this project over to Robert Stern, it doesn't bring everyone together. Nobody ever manages to bring everyone together. Lets stop kidding ourselves about that. Architects never produce perfect solutions.
davvid, your distinction between service and servility is an interesting one. I don't think it's that cut and dry as some consider service to be a form of servility while others might look at it as a noble calling. In this case, since it's a sculpture, I would side with the artist, as bad a composition as it is. But what makes this design particularly objectionable is that it litterally screens the public space and overwhelmes the pedestrian with its gargantuan scale. Not quite Eisenhowerian. As an object in the field, you could pretty much plop any old thing down, give it whatever storyline you'd like, and people would walk past it like so many sculptural objects. Unfortunatley, the public has long been inured to bland and ugly public sculptures and don't expect much.
The problem here is that this design wants to be the whole context by walling off the surrounding builidngs, which, granted their facades gives one little to feast on, is never the less a gesture of amazing arrogance. Afterall, these buildings will probably be re-done, and hopefully in styles that contribute more to the public realm than another "perfect" grid.
It's interesting that you started by questioning the importance of what the public thinks and then pivot to say this is an issue with Ms Eisenhower or Mr. Issa. And the nearby Vietnam memorial will always stand as proof that large scaled abstract gestures have the ability to move us, regardless of one's stylistic preferences. But this is not about classicist vs. modernist or representational vs. abstract, this is about Gehry's freestyle compositional method crapping out. He threw a lucky seven on Bilbao and followed that with several mini Bilbaos until he finally recognized the need to try another tack. This one bombed for reasons that seem to escape him. This time, his complete denial of context and human scale, attributes that have served him well previously, have gotten him into a no win situation. Time to throw the dice again.
I think that Orhan's description is an apt one. It DOES remind me of the Loyola Law School. And I like the law school...as an academic village. It's really successful. Gehry's best urban schemes are like that, interesting recreations of piazzas, villages. The Edgmar project in Santa Monica is another example, and maybe my favorite Gehry building.
In my opinion, the problem is that a memorial isn't a village. Gehry's design isn't a memorial, which first and foremost is an object for contemplation. It's a show and tell school museum diorama village. It is completely missing a symbolic content, which is the hallmark of memorial architecture - this is why the Vietnam memorial is so successful and so loved by people. They visit it and are moved by the symbolism of it. Gehry seems incapable of addressing symbolic content in a sophisticated way, or probably more likely, he doesn't think it is important.
Besides, the thing is crazy over-scaled, and concedes no importance and pays no attention to the L'Enfant plan for DC, or to the existing established aesthetic for monuments there.
The question in my mind: What were they thinking they were going to get from Gehry?
Thayer, not being snarky, just trying to really have a discussion on your points: I'm not sure the argument that there's a lack of human scale holds up, nor the argument that the screens act as solid walls closing off the context. look at this image:
I see a large park - grass and trees where currently there's a parking lot - plus lots of benches, nice pavers, and a house-sized stone monument with a statue of a human figure (larger than life-size, yes).
The screens don't come to the ground, so visually if not physically the sight is permeable to pedestrians (the background of this view shows a solid wall that's hard to understand - other images show a below-grade access back there so I imagine there is some retaining wall and grade change that has to be dealt with). And the screens allow a view through them to the buildings beyond.
Yes the columns are huge (this rendering cleverly doesn't show one), but I think the ground-plane amenities break down that scale and make for - basically - a nice park.
Donna, I don't have a problem with the park of course, but rather the urbanism space and the scale of the monument. It completely dominates its surroundings. And the screens however translucent, physically screen out the context, which is just strange. But I doubt they will be as opaque as modeled since we all know the transparency of glass curtain walls is somewhat overestimated. At any angle, the screens will read opaque. Yes, you can see straight under them, but space is experienced in 3-d with the eyes taking in the whole, so unless you'll put vertical horse blinders on pedestrians, it will by and large screen out the context. Just the symbolism of a tall metal screen surrounding the space seems antithetical to what Eisenhower accomplished in helping to free Europe from tyranny, or for neo-liberal capitalism as tammuz might say.
As for the scale, those pylons are ginormous, so even without the screens, they're flat out towering. I think they are 8' in diameter and upwards of 80 feet tall. Pure poatonic forms with no detailing to scale them down what-so-ever. I agree that the idea is neat-o and could have been cool at another scale, but it's a room with-in a room. Plus, to piggy back on to EKE's point, it denies the context of L'Enfant's plan. I've seen conceptual modernist work that grabs some invisible landscape axis and make that the dominant move of the whole composition. Here, you litterally have a giant diagonal with, on one end, a fabulous view... and nothing, not even a wisper. I'm not saying it would be necessary to acknowledge it to be successful, but when you screen the surrounding space out with what feel like drive-in movie theater screens, it seems beyond arrogant.
Maybe it will eventually become an icon of the DC landscape like many other controversial projects. Maybe the bald concrete overscaled pylons will age wonderfully or the metal screens won't gather dust and debris. It just seems like Gerhy took another big aesthetic gamble, and lost.
have we forgotten the original diagram of this situation? : gehry was hired, with the support of an eisenhower who was then heading the effort. a different eisenhower, of course. presumably they meant to hire gehry, right?
this group approved gehry's original design, since he gave them what they wanted. susan eisenhower came in later, now heads the group, and asked that it be different, gathering all of the nay-sayers into her huddle.
what is the architect's responsibility in this situation? how is the architect arrogant when he delivered what was asked of him : a nicely resolved solution for a protected space within a busy intersection that satisfied all of the (then) stakeholders?
this wouldn't be the first time that a project has moved on from its original architect or the architect has quit out of frustration with shifting priorities. this faux controversy has been beat to death.
time for both sides to move on so that a new architect can give us another underwhelming project like the wwii memorial. it's probably what we deserve.
Thayer,
I am not hearing any criticism compelling enough to justify the kind of intervening we have seen with this process. Much of it has been led by long time critics of Gehry.
The scale is fine. Essentially this is a park with a few large elements. The arrogance charge is thrown so frequently at architects that its very hard to take that seriously. I don't see anything here that would suggest that Gehry is not doing his job. The problem is that this job is in Washington and there are forces that align there that prevent anything with substance from being produced. I hope Gehry stands firm.
If Gehry's job is to design a memorial, then, in my opinion, he hasn't done his job. If you care about the urban environment of one of America's great cities, then this is anything but a "faux controversy".
The worst thing about the magnificent Vietnam Memorial is the figurative sculpture foisted on the project by congress.
But at its reduced scale and offset to a landscaped area it is hardly obtrusive at all. In this siting the most objectionable thing about that piece is really the process that created it.
But that process - which went from a pure memorial to one that was only to be a pedestal to coexistence - worked. Of course Maya Lin was just a student without the force of an 80-year old starchitect's ego.
Architecture is a process. Masterful architects create magnificent projects by working the process. It's more than just drawings to be built from.
Masterful architects are not egotists.
I object to Gehry's scheme precisely because it lacks substance. It's vapid and shallow. As Donna says, it's basically...a nice park. A memorial need to be more than a nice park.
EKE, Its clearly a memorial and it has substance. It may not be the memorial you would like to see with the particular type of substance you would like it have.
Its fine to criticize but I'm against obstructionism we see happening.
Steven, I'd love a design like the WWII memorial as much as the people who actually use it seem to. I understand it isn't "overwhelming" or abstract enough for some peoples tastes, but I assure you for the actual users, those issues are the last thing from thier mind. But this goes to the heart of a debate over architecture's public role. To some, it's important to be on the cutting edge of an agreed upon evolutionary trajectory, while to others it's important to handle the programatic and contextual issues first, wherever history might place it.
davvid, I actually agree that the interference with the process is a litle disconcerting, but in this case I think it's valid for the reasons I stated (which we won't agree on). The arrogance I see is more in the actual shape of the design rather than the architect himself. Gehry seems quite mild mannered in the interviews I've seen of him, it's the scale I find arrogant, like the party guest that sucks all the oxygen out of a room, this design overwhelmes the site.
I agree that this debate has been played out precicsely becasue some see it as a proxy for their own ideological points of view, but I think it's lazy to ascribe that as a casue to ignore the criticism in this case. While some have tried to claim this is all about some classical organization's tight pants, I can assure you that in DC, the criticism has come from all corners. Gehry will hold his ground, and lose credibility in the process, but that's how he was taught. Never back down from a public that's too stupid to know what's best for them.
i'm not against classical nor always for modern. but i am a proponent of good work - the best we can do, in cases of memorials for national figures. the vietnam memorial is among our best, as are the jefferson and lincoln. the wwii is not. it's clumsy classicism, poorly conceived - a compromise. i also think the recently opened mlk memorial is poorly realized.
you're right, the wwii's weakness doesn't reduce its use: those who visit ANY monument are there for different purposes. but its impact could have been enhanced through a better design.
i think i'm having a different argument than whether this memorial by gehry is good and should be built or not. i'm interested in what a designer's responsbilities are - and to whom? that's the reason for my questions above. gehry made his best proposal for people who selected him and then approved his work. the subsequent soap opera is kind of ridiculous. despite his willingness to redesign multiple times, gehry was never going to be able to make his work acceptable to the b-team that now seems to be in charge. maybe he should have quit before his name got dragged through the muck, but it sounded like he believed strongly enough in his proposal to stick with it.
so, re: the pro/con argument. the scale will be the trick. this is a huge space and i think it demanded a large-scale response in order to have any kind of impact. it doesn't bother me at all that gehry's scheme is mostly park. the jefferson memorial wouldn't be as powerful without the lake, nor would the washington be as powerful without the reflecting pool and the lawn.
i hope whoever takes the eisenhower on after gehry gives up will consider this full space - the influence of the large building facades surrounding it, and the car scale/movement which will have a big effect - and won't give us something puny and polite.
...some classical organization's tight pants... LOL at this, Thayer. Very funny.
I do agree with you that the metal screens are likely to be less ephemeral and fabric-like than we architects often want and may also carry an unfortunate connotation of fencing. Also, I just saw an article that said that someone - maybe the National Park Service? - predicts that the cables supporting them will have to be replaced every five years, which seems like a fairly excessive maintenance cost.
Re: the Enfant plan: this site was given to the competition entrants as is. All of the entries I've looked at today show the same angled pedestrian path that Gehry shows. If anyone is unhappy with the major moves of erasing two roads and three islands to make a single site, that criticism rests on the memorial planners, not on any of the designers.
Everything Steven has said about the responsibility of an architect to the client who hires them, not to subsequent critics who involve themselves in the process, is correct. I applaud Gehry, in this instance, for sticking to his guns. He's famous and respected enough that the loss of this commission won't hurt his reputation in the least. What pains me is that whatever design might come after him is very unlikely to be anything interesting.
Clients are not all-knowing. Part of an architect's responsibility is educating them. Another part is being sensitive to their concerns.
I'm against obstructionism we see happening.
Obstructionism in one form or another is the result of competitive a society. When all sense of community has been destroyed it's every man for himself. Thus what we see being played out is simply a reflection of our culture.
Which goes straight back to my comments about process. Aesthetics remain subjective and will always be so. I detest the memorial proposal (as well as practically everything Gehry has done) but none of that precludes him from producing a functioning memorial. In order to accomplish that he needs to treat the stakeholders as part of the team. A community, so to speak, where everyone works together to accomplish a higher goal.
In order to accomplish that he needs to treat the stakeholders as part of the team. A community, so to speak, where everyone works together to accomplish a higher goal.
which stakeholders?! those who hired him and approved of what he completed, or those who came after and asked him to redo it?
Steven, like it or not, his "clients" changed during the course of this process as happens to architects from time to time. Also, the public nature of this commission and site by default makes the public part of the stakeholding community, even though they are not strictly liable to the outcome. Is it fair to bowl over the complaints of those current stakeholders even though you might have gotten your approvals from the previous people? I don't think so. Gehry should be able to design for this new environment, but I think he is constitutionally incapable of that kind of flexibility, which is odd since his design method is slightly capricious.
miles’ comment above is spot on, then. the fragmentation of the public stakeholders’ opinions will make it (nearly?) impossible to arrive at a satisfactory and worthy memorial to eisenhower. if all stakeholders must be pleased, it ain’t gonna work. a broad public - despite what you suggest - is not homogenous in its expectations.
Brig. Gen. Carl W. Reddel, executive director of the memorial commission: “We have an excellent and inspirational design, and we have a solid plan for the way ahead,” he said at the hearing. “We believe this memorial will serve to educate and motivate young and old, American citizens and international visitors.”
if a gehry-hostile client is asked to approve a gehry scheme – no matter how negotiated – it probably isn’t going to happen.
re: gehry should be able to....: it’s not reasonable to ask gehry to do work in a way that the office doesn’t work, and I don’t think that’s arrogance. "constitutionally incapable", maybe. FOG is built on a way of working, upon which its economic and technical model is based.
would you hire a.zahner metals as your metal stud contractor? they're probably constitutionally incapable.
time to start again.
Who suggested that addressing the broader criticisms would result in complete satisfaction? Also I don't think it's fair to characterize those who criticise Gehry as "gehry-hostile" (all though it does have a certain ring to it). As I stated previously, the arrogance charge (from me) has more to do with the actual design than the designer.
But I agree that he's constitutionally incapable of this level of revision, and that's his perogative. Afterall, as you say, "it's not reasonable to ask gehry to work in a way that the office dosen't work"...what a luxury! I also agree that it's time to start again.
All of this is tangible testimony to the fact that Frank O. Gehry was a terrible choice to design a monument in Washington DC.
^ Especially when they could have gotten Hadid.
Why not dust off this Gehry design here. I thought it was 'cool' much better than whatever this memorial is. I think he is having problems because his design is meh.
http://archinect.com/news/gallery/77134030/2/national-art-museum-of-china-entry-by-gehry-partners
Steven, I was once told by a politician that a successful negotiation was one in which nobody was happy. This is a poor model for any kind of success. And unless somebody - preferably some recongnized and respected - takes a different approach success is impossible.
why not just write a check to frank for his study model that will pay for his time and materials.( he probably had to go to home depot to get a big enough diameter wooden dowel for his mega columns and those trees ain't cheap.) and start over with a new architect or maybe with a competition that will give the deciders an option to choose the best of the rest.
As if Frank really needs another check.
Although after the Disney and MIT debacles you never know.
Also from Guardian link
"A new visitors’ center at the Vietnam Veterans Memorial, expected to open in 2016, will controversially transform Maya Lin’s masterpiece of mournful sobriety into a full-blown, 35,000-square foot display featuring digital and interactive elements".
Did everyone already know about this? Feel like am just hearing about for first time... doesn't sound promising...
Egad. They've got to put a fucking gift shop everywhere.
$85 Million New Construction: 2-story, 40,000 sf education center. The good news is it's mostly underground.
The Education Center at the Wall
Nam and Miles,
Its also disconcerting for reasons other that the poor design choices.
There has been criticism about the Pentagon's effort to commemorate the 50th anniversary of Vietnam and the way that misinformation is working its way into educational material.
http://www.onthemedia.org/story/rewriting-history/
Excellent point, thanks. One of the great things about the Vietnam Memorial is the lack of editorializing. One can be sure that the educational center will not show - among other things - napalmed civilians, My Lai or the effect of Agent Orange on vets.
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.