Modern Architecture at Its Worst


Recommended Posts

respect for place and purpose are alive and well in Frank Gehry, Santiago Calatrava, Zaha Hadid

Gehry

lght-img02_0.jpg?itok=aqRcJpts

[....]

The item marked Gehry looks like it has been visited by a wrecking ball

Ba'al Chatzaf

More like, visited by a tornado. Tornados can leave some structures intact while making a jumbled heap of others.

Ellen

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Replies 119
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

If we start with the legitimate premise a warehouse is ugly, the architect shouldn't make ugly uglier. And why take the job?

To see an interior of a Wright house visit the Metropolitan Museum of Art, NYC. His interior work is outstanding.

www.metmuseum.org/toah/works-of-art/1972.60.1

www.metmuseum.org/collection/the-collection-online/search/7873

www.metmuseum.org/collection/galleries/the-american-wing/745

--Brant

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I guess it's a matter of taste.

Indeed, it's a matter of taste.

Post-modern buildings, to me, look like architecture in search of a gimmick.

Generally, people don't like the new, especially in architecture. They seem to need a lot of time to adjust. Psychologically, people seem to need architecture to be their sturdy connection to the past and to the concept of endurance and stability.

Future generations will be puzzled to hear today's judgments of postmodern architecture, in the same way that critics of Wright's time now sound silly and panicked (they thought that his work was "extremely ugly...a monster of awkwardness," "stark, unmodelled...rude, incomplete, unfinished," and merely an "interesting experiment...without grace or ease...at times even bizarre." )

My complaint about today's architecture is precisely that for the most part it isn't new. It's a rehash of the forms that have been in place since the end of World War II. I said earlier that modernism in the early 20th century provided a much needed revolution in design. Another such dramatic change is badly needed now. There are a few creative minds like Gehry striking out in new directions. But at the moment, he is still "one small voice" (if you'll forgive a Fountainhead allusion.)

Francisco Ferrer, on 22 Jul 2014 - 05:14 AM, said:snapback.png

Yes, Gehry is quite original, and I do like some of his work. But his designs are hardly shaping the look of America's downtowns:

His designs are influencing a lot of downtown America. Other architects borrow from him. They're a bit more conservative, but they are being influenced by him.

When downtowns in America start looking like this, we'll know Gehry is dominant. They don't. He isn't.

Gehry:

gehry_turm_01.jpg

Phoenix:

phoenix_skyline.jpg

Francisco Ferrer, on 22 Jul 2014 - 05:14 AM, said:snapback.png

I guess I'm part of that hell of a lot of people. I never miss the Guggenheim when I'm in the city or Wright's Xanadu Gallery in San Francisco.

Great! I'm glad to hear that you don't let dedication to an architectural theory stand in your way of loving architecture which doesn't fit the theory.

J

Good advice, but I haven't yet discovered a theory to dedicate myself to.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

When downtowns in America start looking like this, we'll know Gehry is dominant. They don't. He isn't.

Gehry:

gehry_turm_01.jpg

Phoenix:

phoenix_skyline.jpg

I hope that downtowns in America don't start looking like the Gehry example - though I'm not a fan of the Phoenix example.

Ellen

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I'll take Truman Capote's Diamond Iceberg any day of the week...

manhattan-skyline-at-night.jpg

Link to comment
Share on other sites

My complaint about today's architecture is precisely that for the most part it isn't new.

And I disagreed. Contemporary architecture is just as new and original as the practice of architecture has always been. There are innovators, and there are copiers, and there are traditionalists, etc. New ideas come slowly, and they are slow to be appreciated.

It's a rehash of the forms that have been in place since the end of World War II.

I disagree. Do a Google search for "architects" in an average small city in the US. They are not creating work that was (or even could have been) created at the end of WW2.

You seem to want an all-out revolution -- a total disconnect from past methods -- where I think most innovators today are more focused on subtlety and taste.

A good analogy might be music: where you want someone to invent a new instrument, with new notes, chords and timbres, and you want him to write music specifically for that instrument, others are focused on the innovations in arrangement -- despite using the same old instruments, notes, chords and timbres, they are creating original melodies.

I said earlier that modernism in the early 20th century provided a much needed revolution in design. Another such dramatic change is badly needed now.

Really? Badly needed by whom, and why? How did you come to that conclusion? How have you measured need? What's going to happen if the "design revolution" doesn't come? Will our lives be empty? Will some people die from being exposed to non-revolutionary architectural design?

There are a few creative minds like Gehry striking out in new directions. But at the moment, he is still "one small voice" (if you'll forgive a Fountainhead allusion.)

During any one time, there have always been only a few "small voices" that are exceptionally creative.

When downtowns in America start looking like this, we'll know Gehry is dominant. They don't. He isn't.

So you want someone to be "dominant," and therefore you want everyone else to copy him? That's your notion of "innovation" and "originality"? You want downtown America to have a new leader of "fabricated sameness"?

Good advice, but I haven't yet discovered a theory to dedicate myself to.

I'm sorry. You sounded as if you had a theory that you were dedicated to. My apologies.

Um, but now it seems that you kind of have conflicting expectations. You want "differentiation," but yet you seem to believe that a "design revolution" will be shown to exist only when all architects follow one leader and make downtown America look like his style.

So, it sounds as if you don't really want actual originality or innovation, but that you just personally dislike certain styles, and you want to see more of what you like -- you want your personal aesthetic tastes to become "dominant."

Maybe you should take up architecture? Lead the revolution? Do, instead of do not?

J

Link to comment
Share on other sites

My complaint about today's architecture is precisely that for the most part it isn't new.

And I disagreed. Contemporary architecture is just as new and original as the practice of architecture has always been. There are innovators, and there are copiers, and there are traditionalists, etc. New ideas come slowly, and they are slow to be appreciated.

It's a rehash of the forms that have been in place since the end of World War II.

I disagree. Do a Google search for "architects" in an average small city in the US. They are not creating work that was (or even could have been) created at the end of WW2.

You seem to want an all-out revolution -- a total disconnect from past methods -- where I think most innovators today are more focused on subtlety and taste.

A good analogy might be music: where you want someone to invent a new instrument, with new notes, chords and timbres, and you want him to write music specifically for that instrument, others are focused on the innovations in arrangement -- despite using the same old instruments, notes, chords and timbres, they are creating original melodies.

I said earlier that modernism in the early 20th century provided a much needed revolution in design. Another such dramatic change is badly needed now.

Really? Badly needed by whom, and why? How did you come to that conclusion? How have you measured need? What's going to happen if the "design revolution" doesn't come? Will our lives be empty? Will some people die from being exposed to non-revolutionary architectural design?

There are a few creative minds like Gehry striking out in new directions. But at the moment, he is still "one small voice" (if you'll forgive a Fountainhead allusion.)

During any one time, there have always been only a few "small voices" that are exceptionally creative.

When downtowns in America start looking like this, we'll know Gehry is dominant. They don't. He isn't.

So you want someone to be "dominant," and therefore you want everyone else to copy him? That's your notion of "innovation" and "originality"? You want downtown America to have a new leader of "fabricated sameness"?

Good advice, but I haven't yet discovered a theory to dedicate myself to.

I'm sorry. You sounded as if you had a theory that you were dedicated to. My apologies.

Um, but now it seems that you kind of have conflicting expectations. You want "differentiation," but yet you seem to believe that a "design revolution" will be shown to exist only when all architects follow one leader and make downtown America look like his style.

So, it sounds as if you don't really want actual originality or innovation, but that you just personally dislike certain styles, and you want to see more of what you like -- you want your personal aesthetic tastes to become "dominant."

Maybe you should take up architecture? Lead the revolution? Do, instead of do not?

J

J:

If your goal was to shut down any discussion of this topic, I'm pretty sure you can hang a "Mission Accomplished!" banner across the flight deck of ths thread. :laugh:

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Well, fools rush in...

One of my favorite buildings for it's time, it's use of plot space and the fact that it was one of the tallest buildings and had an observation deck on the roof of it's twenty-one (21) stories.

The Flatiron Building is one of the most famous historic landmarks in New York. The iconic 21 story building, best known for its triangular shape, was one of the early spectacular high-rises that have come to define Manhattan.
kveus0180p.jpg
The Flatiron Building was constructed between 1901 and 1903 at the intersection of Broadway and Fifth Avenue, at the time one of the most prominent locations in New York City. It is situated near Madison Square at the end of the Ladies' Mile, one of Manhattan's most important shopping districts at the turn of the 19th century.

Not the tallest
The Flatiron Building was designed by Chicago's Daniel Burnham as a steel-frame skyscraper clad in white terra-cotta. At 21 stories and 307 ft (93 meters), it was one of the city's tallest buildings. It was not - as is often incorrectly thought - the tallest building in the world or even the tallest building in New York (these titles belonged to the Park Row Building, built in 1899), but its singular shape and prominent location soon made it one of New York City's most famous landmarks.
kveus0611p.jpg
sveus0179p.jpg
sveus0171p.jpg


The building probably featured on more postcards than any other building of its time. Even the whole area, the Flatiron district, was named after the building. Originally the Flatiron Building featured an observation deck on the top floor, but taller buildings have taken over this function. It is still however a popular tourist attraction, and one of the most photographed landmarks in New York.

Continuing, a fact that I did not know, is that it was known as Burnham's Folly because the "expert's" thought it was going to be blown apart because of it's shape and height! Hmm, Reardon Metal.

A Flatiron
Built as the headquarters of the Fuller Construction company, the skyscraper was meant to be named Fuller Building. But the building was soon dubbed 'Flatiron' after its unusual shape, caused by the triangular plot. Even though the plot is a right triangle while a clothing iron is an isosceles triangle, the name stuck and the building was officially renamed Flatiron Building. In 1929 the Fuller company built another, much taller Fuller Building at 57th Street and Madison Avenue.

Burnham's Folly
The Flatiron Building was given another nickname: "Burnham's Folly". Many people at the time thought Daniel Burnham's triangular design combined with the building's exceptional height would not withstand strong winds. Some were even speculating how far the building's debris would spread after falling over. But Burnham was an experienced architect who knew what he was doing and his skyscraper withstood the test of time.

A...

Link to comment
Share on other sites

This by Gehry and I have never seen it!!!!

kveus11677s.jpg

NY by Gehry
  • kveus11677tsq.jpg
  • kveus11043tsq.jpg

A...

Link to comment
Share on other sites

J:

If your goal was to shut down any discussion of this topic, I'm pretty sure you can hang a "Mission Accomplished!" banner across the flight deck of ths thread. :laugh:

I think that Jonathan's goal was to have someone to batter, now that Tony appears to have deserted the "Apples..." thread.

Speaking of Gehry, and Calatrava, there was extensive discussion of these architects and others on an old thread, "Art As Microcosm (2094)."

Here's a link to a post of mine which is partway into the discussion. (Note that I corrected a misleading sentence about emotion being "there" in the artwork in a subsequent post - #116.)

Ellen

Link to comment
Share on other sites

My goal wasn't to shut down discussion, but to try to understand where Francisco is coming from with his seemingly contradictory positions.

But, wow, my politely disagreeing and asking questions, and even apologizing for misunderstanding is "battering"? Heh.

J

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I think the questions sound more like a third degree than like curiosity.

And what was with the concluding taunt, if you were merely trying to understand where Francisco is coming from?

Ellen

Frisco's too tough! Look what he did to those thugs trying to kill Hank!

--Brant

blew their f__k__' heads off!

Link to comment
Share on other sites

My goal wasn't to shut down discussion, but to try to understand where Francisco is coming from with his seemingly contradictory positions.

But, wow, my politely disagreeing and asking questions, and even apologizing for misunderstanding is "battering"? Heh.

J

Ah. The marshmallow fist inside the rusty iron glove!

--Brant

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I think the questions sound more like a third degree than like curiosity.

And what was with the concluding taunt, if you were merely trying to understand where Francisco is coming from?

Ellen

I could understand my questions sounding like a third degree grilling if Francisco had just given his tastes and opinions, but not so in the context of his claiming that a design revolution is desperately needed. If it's really that big of a concern to him, then I think that he should do something about it. He should get involved. He's identified what he thinks is an important need, so he should work to fulfill it. My comments were not a taunt, but an encouragement to act. Who else is going to do it? Who does Francisco expect to satisfy his architectural wishes?

J

Link to comment
Share on other sites

My goal wasn't to shut down discussion, but to try to understand where Francisco is coming from with his seemingly contradictory positions.

But, wow, my politely disagreeing and asking questions, and even apologizing for misunderstanding is "battering"? Heh.

J

Ah. The marshmallow fist inside the rusty iron glove!

--Brant

Why are you guys being so mean to me? Here we were having a nice discussion about architecture, and all of a sudden you start making personal attacks and battering me. I didn't expect some kind of Spanish Inquisition.

J

Link to comment
Share on other sites

My goal wasn't to shut down discussion, but to try to understand where Francisco is coming from with his seemingly contradictory positions.

But, wow, my politely disagreeing and asking questions, and even apologizing for misunderstanding is "battering"? Heh.

J

Ah. The marshmallow fist inside the rusty iron glove!

--Brant

Why are you guys being so mean to me? Here we were having a nice discussion about architecture, and all of a sudden you start making personal attacks and battering me. I didn't expect some kind of Spanish Inquisition.

J

It's so much fun to pile on! Think of it like a pillow fight.

--Brant

pow! bang! whap! whap!

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I think the questions sound more like a third degree than like curiosity.

And what was with the concluding taunt, if you were merely trying to understand where Francisco is coming from?

Ellen

I could understand my questions sounding like a third degree grilling if Francisco had just given his tastes and opinions, but not so in the context of his claiming that a design revolution is desperately needed. If it's really that big of a concern to him, then I think that he should do something about it. He should get involved. He's identified what he thinks is an important need, so he should work to fulfill it. My comments were not a taunt, but an encouragement to act. Who else is going to do it? Who does Francisco expect to satisfy his architectural wishes?

J

If I say deregulation is desperately needed because the economy has suffered from its opposite for the past 50 years, and that I wished the world worked more from the bottom up than the top down, does that mean (1) I have to be an economist with specialized knowldege, and/or (2) stand outside the Department of Labor with a protest sign in order to "fulfill it"?

Perhaps my wishes about deregulation are based on a combination of common sense, my general aspirations, and having lived in the world a bit. In other words, they are simply wishes.

I hope you take this gentle ribbing in the manner intended. I enjoy your cross examinations even when they (occasionally) make me wince.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

This by Gehry and I have never seen it!!!!

kveus11677s.jpg

NY by Gehry
  • kveus11677tsq.jpg
  • kveus11043tsq.jpg

A...

What does he have against straight lines?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

If I say deregulation is desperately needed because the economy has suffered from its opposite for the past 50 years...

Would you feel insulted and attacked if I asked you to explain the harm that you think has been done by economic regulation? Would my asking such a question be an example of verbal "battery"?

If not, then how is it insulting and an attack for me to ask Francisco to explain the harm that has been caused by aesthetic styles, and to ask him to identify the devastating consequences that will occur if his proposed design revolution doesn't happen?

PDS, if you were to assert that the color "cayenne" (Pantone 1651) has been popular in fashion for way too long now, and that the world is in desperate need of a dramatic change in fashion color preferences, would you categorize such an opinion as being in the same league as an opinion on economic regulation -- i.e., would you categorize it as being a reasonable opinion that could possibly be backed up with objective facts, or would you categorize it as a subjective opinion which cannot be backed up with objective facts, but which is nonetheless being stated as if it is objectively factual?

The issue of economic of deregulation is not limited to subjective taste. Preferences in aesthetic styles are limited to subjective taste. In any situation in which the subject is the satisfaction of subjective tastes, I think your best bet is to go out and find a way to satisfy them, and trying to do so yourself is probably going to be a lot more effective than waiting for someone else to hit on something new that you will happen to like.

I hope you take this gentle ribbing in the manner intended. I enjoy your cross examinations even when they (occasionally) make me wince.

Damn, when will you people stop viciously assaulting me?!!!

J

Link to comment
Share on other sites

If I say deregulation is desperately needed because the economy has suffered from its opposite for the past 50 years...

Would you feel insulted and attacked if I asked you to explain the harm that you think has been done by economic regulation? Would my asking such a question be an example of verbal "battery"?

If not, then how is it insulting and an attack for me to ask Francisco to explain the harm that has been caused by aesthetic styles, and to ask him to identify the devastating consequences that will occur if his proposed design revolution doesn't happen?

PDS, if you were to assert that the color "cayenne" (Pantone 1651) has been popular in fashion for way too long now, and that the world is in desperate need of a dramatic change in fashion color preferences, would you categorize such an opinion as being in the same league as an opinion on economic regulation -- i.e., would you categorize it as being a reasonable opinion that could possibly be backed up with objective facts, or would you categorize it as a subjective opinion which cannot be backed up with objective facts, but which is nonetheless being stated as if it is objectively factual?

The issue of economic of deregulation is not limited to subjective taste. Preferences in aesthetic styles are limited to subjective taste. In any situation in which the subject is the satisfaction of subjective tastes, I think your best bet is to go out and find a way to satisfy them, and trying to do so yourself is probably going to be a lot more effective than waiting for someone else to hit on something new that you will happen to like.

I hope you take this gentle ribbing in the manner intended. I enjoy your cross examinations even when they (occasionally) make me wince.

Damn, when will you people stop viciously assaulting me?!!!

J

Ah, but I don't claim you are being viscious or attacking, my friend.

I am simply observing that you are using some very strong Kenpo (also known as the "way of the fist") when perhaps some aikido would instead in order.

I happen to know that your penultimate paragraph above (I really do need to use the quote function better around here) about "subjective taste" is actually the point of your cross examination--and also the cause of your ire--because I have also observed your arguments over the years. I assumed that's where you were headed.

Others may not, and may simply tune you out. That would be unfortunate, in my opinion.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

If I say deregulation is desperately needed because the economy has suffered from its opposite for the past 50 years...

Would you feel insulted and attacked if I asked you to explain the harm that you think has been done by economic regulation? Would my asking such a question be an example of verbal "battery"?

If not, then how is it insulting and an attack for me to ask Francisco to explain the harm that has been caused by aesthetic styles, and to ask him to identify the devastating consequences that will occur if his proposed design revolution doesn't happen?

PDS, if you were to assert that the color "cayenne" (Pantone 1651) has been popular in fashion for way too long now, and that the world is in desperate need of a dramatic change in fashion color preferences, would you categorize such an opinion as being in the same league as an opinion on economic regulation -- i.e., would you categorize it as being a reasonable opinion that could possibly be backed up with objective facts, or would you categorize it as a subjective opinion which cannot be backed up with objective facts, but which is nonetheless being stated as if it is objectively factual?

The issue of economic of deregulation is not limited to subjective taste. Preferences in aesthetic styles are limited to subjective taste. In any situation in which the subject is the satisfaction of subjective tastes, I think your best bet is to go out and find a way to satisfy them, and trying to do so yourself is probably going to be a lot more effective than waiting for someone else to hit on something new that you will happen to like.

I hope you take this gentle ribbing in the manner intended. I enjoy your cross examinations even when they (occasionally) make me wince.

Damn, when will you people stop viciously assaulting me?!!!

J

Actually, Jonathan, the Francisco post is standard you. :smile: I'm not objecting. :smile: That's up to the ~victim~ :smile:

--Brant :sleep:

you gotta be you, who else could you be but--yoooouuuuuuu! :smile:

Link to comment
Share on other sites

My complaint about today's architecture is precisely that for the most part it isn't new.

And I disagreed. Contemporary architecture is just as new and original as the practice of architecture has always been. There are innovators, and there are copiers, and there are traditionalists, etc. New ideas come slowly, and they are slow to be appreciated.

Great. I'll look for it on my next visit to New York. I didn't see it last year.

It's a rehash of the forms that have been in place since the end of World War II.

I disagree. Do a Google search for "architects" in an average small city in the US. They are not creating work that was (or even could have been) created at the end of WW2.

You seem to want an all-out revolution -- a total disconnect from past methods -- where I think most innovators today are more focused on subtlety and taste.

A good analogy might be music: where you want someone to invent a new instrument, with new notes, chords and timbres, and you want him to write music specifically for that instrument, others are focused on the innovations in arrangement -- despite using the same old instruments, notes, chords and timbres, they are creating original melodies.

Here's the Lever House, one of the tired old designs of the early 1950's.

3154297959_b5d2a553e6.jpg

Here's the new Federal Building in Cleveland, one of the radical new designs of the 21st century:

9225038-large.jpg

Same instrument, new melody?

Francisco Ferrer, on 23 Jul 2014 - 04:15 AM, said:snapback.png

I said earlier that modernism in the early 20th century provided a much needed revolution in design. Another such dramatic change is badly needed now.

Really? Badly needed by whom, and why? How did you come to that conclusion? How have you measured need? What's going to happen if the "design revolution" doesn't come? Will our lives be empty? Will some people die from being exposed to non-revolutionary architectural design?

Needed by bored, decadent thrill-seekers looking for originality.

Francisco Ferrer, on 23 Jul 2014 - 04:15 AM, said:snapback.png

There are a few creative minds like Gehry striking out in new directions. But at the moment, he is still "one small voice" (if you'll forgive a Fountainhead allusion.)

During any one time, there have always been only a few "small voices" that are exceptionally creative.

If that is the case, then just a few designers overhauled the look of the centers of American cities, 1900-1950.

Francisco Ferrer, on 23 Jul 2014 - 04:15 AM, said:snapback.png

When downtowns in America start looking like this, we'll know Gehry is dominant. They don't. He isn't.

So you want someone to be "dominant," and therefore you want everyone else to copy him? That's your notion of "innovation" and "originality"? You want downtown America to have a new leader of "fabricated sameness"?

Francisco Ferrer, on 23 Jul 2014 - 04:15 AM, said:snapback.png

Good advice, but I haven't yet discovered a theory to dedicate myself to.

I'm sorry. You sounded as if you had a theory that you were dedicated to. My apologies.

Um, but now it seems that you kind of have conflicting expectations. You want "differentiation," but yet you seem to believe that a "design revolution" will be shown to exist only when all architects follow one leader and make downtown America look like his style.

I didn't say I wanted someone to be dominant. I want someone to change the five-song playlist. I'd rather have Gehry dominate for a while than have another half century of city blocks filled with walls of glass.

So, it sounds as if you don't really want actual originality or innovation,

J

If that is the case, then I am truly incompetent at expressing what I thought was a simple idea.

but that you just personally dislike certain styles, and you want to see more of what you like -- you want your personal aesthetic tastes to become "dominant."

Maybe you should take up architecture? Lead the revolution? Do, instead of do not?

Let's use your analogy of music. I loved the Beatles in the 1960's and 1970's. Then Top 40 radio ran them into the ground. I have not purposefully chosen to play a Beatles song in decades.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now