Time Magazine's Most Anticipated Building of 2007

[ignatius]

^Be sure to visit at night and walk around, not just drive by. Hopefully the lights will be on. The opening isn't until June I think and lights are not always on every night yet.

It's unfortunate the museum is only open during the day (except Fridays).

[holladay]

Originally Posted by Plasticman

I\

Basically when a bland or hideoulsy ugly building makes some "list" I picture a bunch of elitist architects standing around with glasses of brandy and basking in the rays of each others pseudo-intellectualism.

What exactly do you mean when you say pseudo-intellectualism?

[tackledspoon]

Originally Posted by realm0854

What exactly do you mean when you say pseudo-intellectualism?

It seems a common mistake to brand anybody who is more cultured and knowledgable than you are as a pseudo-intellectual. Apparently anybody who enjoys modern architecture- even the architects- enjoy the way that the enjoyment reflects on them more than anything else. People forget that there is such a thing as just regular intellectualism and that there are people who appreciate architecture for its more abstract properties.
That said, this thread as tumbled all the way down the slippery slope and while a few relevant comments are still being made, it's reached the point of quibbling and repetition. I hate to suggest the closure of a thread about such an interesting building, but the forum would probably be better served by putting a lock on this one.

[woodrow]

N'ah. It has calmed down. There were no new posts for 18 hours. Seems okay. It's worth keeping open so when forumers, like Awkab, see the addition they can comment.

[ignatius]

More pics from Tosspot's new thread, worthy of reposting here.
http://forum.skyscraperpage.com/showthread.php?t=127803

[holladay]

fantastic images ignatius (by way of tosspot...). thanks for posting

[DigitalUrbanity]

I waited to get my issue of metropolis with somewhat bigger pictures (this is a small monitor) to make a judgement, but it seems like a great project that is best experienced in person, as others have said. The glass boxes echo the blockiness of the original neoclassical structure (which isn't too remarkable by itself), and seem like they produce an inviting, dreamlike atmosphere at night.
I like the integration of the structure within the landscape, but more importantly the thought put into utilizing daylight (esp the skylights rimmed with florescents under the reflecting pool). Even If you hate the aesthetics, at least appreciate technical aspects, since some of them could be implemented in other structures with more mass appeal.

[nath05]

I really like this project. Even though it's clearly modern and artificial, there's something organic and friendly about the way the boxes rise out of the landscape. And the ethereal quality of the light emitted at night is spectacular.

[Derek]

Originally Posted by CGII

That would be 2 Penn and MSG in New York.

[ignatius]

Pardon the el cheapo 5mp camera.








carbon-based lifeforms these are




Big brother everywhere

[Raraavis]

It is hideous. The hill was much more interesting before these giant ugly geometric lamps were imbedded in it. They should have put the entire extension underground, but that wouldn't have met the number one goal of this project, feeding the architects ego.

What you pretentious architect nerds don't understand is that it was exactly your type that 50 years ago were building 12 lane freeways through the middle of cities while the nimbys were trying to save their neighborhoods. You made fun of them then for not understanding progress, just as you do now for resisting your desecration of public spaces with this kind of monstrosity.

[sakyle04]

It seems to me that this is architecture for architects. I am not an architect. I don't "get it". But who cares?

He knows that I don't review architecture for the NYT, so he isn't beholden to my opinion.

Regardless, the folks who do really like the design should probably stop taking it personally when others in the forum don't like the design.

[MayDay]

"What you pretences architect nerds don't understand"

I somewhat agree with your sentiment, but the word is pretentious. As in having pretensions...

I guess I'm just not really "wowed" by this building - particularly the praises for the "ground-breaking" translucent walls. I say this because at my alma mater, Kent State University, the School of Art building does the same thing and it was built the year I was born (1972). During the day, it's brighter because of the diffused light coming through said walls and at night it glows. Interesting? Sure. Incredibly groundbreaking? I'm going to say not so much.

[PhillyRising]

It looks much better at night when the buildings are lit up...but during the day they just look like warehouses to me. To each his own I guess....

[Raraavis]

Originally Posted by MayDay

"What you pretences architect nerds don't understand"

I somewhat agree with your sentiment, but the word is pretentious. As in having pretensions...

Damn you spell check!!

[holladay]

i love how it's fair for the forumers to blatantly bash architects personally and no moderators pop up to put a stop to it... double standard, anyone??

[sakyle04]

My brother-in-law, an architect, does not like the building.

Although, he assures me that he "gets it", he just isn't crazy about the exterior aesthetic.

[mja]

I know next-to-nothing about architecture. I am no big fan of modern architecture, but am not an unrelenting critic either.

I have to say, I kinda like this.

[woodrow]

Truly not trying to be snotty, but I have to ask - if critics of the building used the same language as supporters, would they be called out for being pretentious? I agree that the language of criticism can be a little flowery at times, but still, if one disagrees with what is being said, the easiest fall back is to attack the writer and their language.

As to what makes the building innovative, there are two reasons -

1. The glass is structural. As Mayday rightly pointed out, there have been other buildings which are largely glass, but none, to the best of my knowledge, where the glass walls are largely supporting themselves. They have pushed the current limit of the material to meet the design program, which is ultimately to bring as much light into the INTERIOR as possible,which leads to -

2. Tremendous amounts of natural light in a museum. The Bloch Building is bringing unprecendented amounts of natural light into galleries which will have frequently fragile art. The technical aspects of this are remarkable. Whether or not this will be considered as great, or even good, architecture is up to the viewer.

[Clevelumbus]

Won't the natural light fade the art?