Time Magazine's Most Anticipated Building of 2007

[CGII]

Originally Posted by hauntedheadnc

Okay, the interior is supposed to be so splendiferous that it makes up for the outside looking like a glorified trailer. The inside is colorless and lifeless and doesn't make up for a damn thing.

But, what do I know -- I'm just a member of the public. We're just the ones who have to use these buildings, so what do we know? Certainly not as much as all the architects who went to school and everything. When architects get pissy at people who call them on their uninspired and dull designs, I'm reminded very much of your average campus radical. I'm sure anyone who has been to college remembers them. They were always blathering on about what was best for The People, which in reality translated to "what I and a bunch of my friends think is best for The People."

Mind you what the public wants is this:



According to that any criticism of sprawl is an attack on the true desire of the people.

[hauntedheadnc]

Not really... All you're showing in that picture is that the public likes familiar shapes. That's a house, and while it is large and suburban, it looks like a house. It does not look like a melted trailer.

[john doe]

Sorry, but I don't see anything interesting about this builidng.

Perhaps Time will next be nominating the Ford Taurus as the most anticipated car of 2007, and Date Movie 2 as the most anticipated movie of 2007?

[trueviking]

i wish people in north america could learn to appreciate things like light and shadow, volume, proportion, rythm and scale as much as they do replicas of 2000 year old greek temples.

[holladay]

Originally Posted by trueviking

i wish people in north america could learn to appreciate things like light and shadow, volume, proportion, rythm and scale as much as they do replicas of 2000 year old greek temples.

people like us live on the wrong continent. i keep hoping things will change one day but maybe it's futile. oh well, at least ill never give up trying.

[BTinSF]

I kind of like the outside. I think almost any other apporach would have been a travesty--either a modernist pseudoclassicism or a full-bore traditional classicism would probably have looked pathetic next to the existing structure. So why not go minimalist?

On the other hand, the inside reminds me of many a low budget high school corridor in the 60's. This is an art museum, right? I don't see any art (except one bit of bronze).

[BTinSF]

Originally Posted by CGII

Mind you what the public wants is this:

No. What they want is this:



What they get is what you posted (courtesy of Toll Brothers).

[trueviking]

Originally Posted by realm0854

people like us live on the wrong continent.

yup...

[BnaBreaker]

Originally Posted by realm0854

people like us live on the wrong continent. i keep hoping things will change one day but maybe it's futile. oh well, at least ill never give up trying.

oy vey

[holladay]

hey, im not on a pity party. you just dont know few architects really get the chance to build bold designs in america.

[BnaBreaker]

Originally Posted by realm0854

hey, im not on a pity party. you just dont know few architects really get the chance to build bold designs in america.

lol I know, I know...but it did sound pretty pitiful

[CGII]

Originally Posted by hauntedheadnc

Not really... All you're showing in that picture is that the public likes familiar shapes. That's a house, and while it is large and suburban, it looks like a house. It does not look like a melted trailer.

People don't want to live in the cities anymore, does being pro-transit and pro-urbanity make you against the will of the people?

[hauntedheadnc]

Originally Posted by CGII

People don't want to live in the cities anymore, does being pro-transit and pro-urbanity make you against the will of the people?

Nice try, but no. My approach is to fix what went wrong with the inner city to make it appealing again, plus to either cajole or force developers to offer real choice instead of just screech about how a government is denying that when it takes a smart approach to growth. You fix the problems, and people move back in. I can think of four neighborhoods in my city alone that were dead and buried twenty years ago that are thriving today because people banded together to fix what went wrong. That, and when you make it as easy for developers to offer urban development as it currently is for them to build suburban development, then people will finally have the real choice between urban and suburban. That doesn't put me against the will of anybody except perhaps for developers who hate being told that they have to be responsible toward the community for a change.

[woodrow]

Originally Posted by BTinSF

I kind of like the outside. I think almost any other apporach would have been a travesty--either a modernist pseudoclassicism or a full-bore traditional classicism would probably have looked pathetic next to the existing structure. So why not go minimalist?

On the other hand, the inside reminds me of many a low budget high school corridor in the 60's. This is an art museum, right? I don't see any art (except one bit of bronze).

Good point about the outside. Even more so when you are there. The glass is pretty damn cool. I don't think it is entirely successful when the day is bright, but mornings, evenings nights, and cloudy days - super cool

As to the interior, they spent much money and that will be more apparent. The glass was quite expensive and high structure costs.

The reason you don't see art is that most of the pictures thus far have been of lobby and corridor spaces. This is a LARGE addition - like 165,000 sq ft. Look for many more pictures later.

Here's a link to one photo from METROPOLIS

http://www.metropolismag.com/cda/pop...eshow_speed=10

It is photo 8 from the series of 15. The N-A has a blog of sorts with updates about the addition. This has some photo's as well.

http://www.nelson-atkins.org/blog/

They are letting the photo's dribble out - to increase interest and excitement?

[CGII]

Originally Posted by hauntedheadnc

Nice try, but no. My approach is to fix what went wrong with the inner city to make it appealing again, plus to either cajole or force developers to offer real choice instead of just screech about how a government is denying that when it takes a smart approach to growth. You fix the problems, and people move back in. I can think of four neighborhoods in my city alone that were dead and buried twenty years ago that are thriving today because people banded together to fix what went wrong. That, and when you make it as easy for developers to offer urban development as it currently is for them to build suburban development, then people will finally have the real choice between urban and suburban. That doesn't put me against the will of anybody except perhaps for developers who hate being told that they have to be responsible toward the community for a change.

So then what is the difference between educating the public about poor planning and poor architecture?

The architect I worked for last summer essentially believed that it is necessary for the public to be knowledgeable and reasonable in their opinion of architecture. NIMBY groups are very prime examples of the public knowing what it wants, so the obvious choice would be to simply give the people what they want, a surface parking lot instead of a money generating, beautiful project, as building on that site is against the will of the people. The architect said far too often his firm would encounter NIMBY groups whos complaints include, 'It's too complex.' or, 'I don't like the colour,' or, 'It's ugly and I don't like it at all.' Would it then be the wise decision to give these groups what they want, and cover the building's detail with grey, faux ornament that meets the public's definition of good?

I think a lot of you are being far too harsh on this buiding, hopefully it's simply because it just isn't deserving of the title 'Most Anticipated Building of 2007 (which it isn't).'
First off, there is far too much misguided concern about the interior. The first rule in designing a gallery is to not distract from the art. If the building overshadows the art, what is the arts purpose? If you all lament the dullness of the interior of this building, I can't imagine what you must think of the interior of National Gallery of Art, The Art Institute of Chicago, or the Detroit Institute of Art, all classically styled galleries that I'm sure you all eat up as being Beaux Arts masterpieces.
Surely this must be the bane of existance:

Now while the exterior is far more subject to opinion, I think you are all far too harsh on this as well. The building becomes a part of the enviroment, it walls in the surrounding park land as if it were a quiet garden, a sort of court for the museum. The buildings blend with the hills as to break up and hide the mass of the galleries within, and the exposed 'stations' don't serve so much as magnets for attention, but more as support for the historic main building, a prelude that leads the eye to the real focus of the space, the original museum. Would you prefer this gentle, rater unobtrusive wing, or a predictable, brutal mass of glass to span the whole length of the lot?

[holladay]

thank you, CG, for some very fine arguments

[woodrow]

ditto

People are going to find the interiors rather dynamic. The change in grade, the perspectives down corridors and up into the lenses, etc.

The light will be ever-changing.

I will say it again; walking around, even on just the outside, is a wonderful experience.

CGII - the "most anticipated" is kinda silly, but I know there are many in the field, from architects to critics, excited to get into the space. It is absolutely my most anticipated building this year, but wouldn't neccessarily be anyone elses.
What is your most anticipated building of 2007. Hey - good thread topic?

[hauntedheadnc]

Originally Posted by CGII

So then what is the difference between educating the public about poor planning and poor architecture?

The difference is that richly-ornamented buildings are not poor architecture, no matter if the current architect's creed dictates that all must genuflect in front of the Seagram Building, or if it's more convenient, a refrigerator carton, seeing as how they look basically the same.

Now, that little bit of sarcasm is my personal view on things. In reality, I like contrast in architecture and there is room for variety. What I hate is how I'm told I must discard the old and embrace the new just because, basically. I'm supposed to have evolved to the point that I nearly orgasm at the sheer gorgeousness of a blank white wall apparently.

To me that is such a cop out. Anybody can lay a rectangle on its side, punch a few dents in it and call it the masterpiece of our time. It takes real skill to expertly carve a row of saggy-boobed ladies holding up a heavy cornice, like you'd find at the model railroad museum in San Diego. I appreciate real skill much more than I do lofty, but ultimately meaningless ideals. This is why I think Philadelphia City Hall is one of the finest buildings on earth, and I dismiss this museum addition as looking like a row of unusually large portable classrooms.

Most modern architecture is very much like most modern art -- any idiot can shit in a trashcan and call it art, but it takes actual skill to sculpt a lifelike human face. Tragically, somehow -- and don't ask me how -- the shit-in-a-trashcan style of both art and architecture has gained a large and slavishly-devoted following who will fawn over it as though it was something as intricate and wondrous as the Paris Opera House.

First off, there is far too much misguided concern about the interior. The first rule in designing a gallery is to not distract from the art. If the building overshadows the art, what is the arts purpose? If you all lament the dullness of the interior of this building, I can't imagine what you must think of the interior of National Gallery of Art, The Art Institute of Chicago, or the Detroit Institute of Art, all classically styled galleries that I'm sure you all eat up as being Beaux Arts masterpieces.

I agree that the interior should not detract from the art. In fact, I like the contrast of intricate, beautiful old artworks in a stark setting, just as I'd love to see really bland and typically boring pieces of modern art displayed against a backdrop of marble columns and statues. However, when people began to first discuss how awful the exterior is, we were assured that the interior made up for it, which is surely does not in any shape, form, or fashion. I expect a museum interior to be more concerned with showing the art than showing off itself, but when I was told the interior was better than the exterior, I felt distinctly gipped to learn otherwise. There's nothing special whatsoever about either.

Now while the exterior is far more subject to opinion, I think you are all far too harsh on this as well. The building becomes a part of the enviroment, it walls in the surrounding park land as if it were a quiet garden, a sort of court for the museum. The buildings blend with the hills as to break up and hide the mass of the galleries within, and the exposed 'stations' don't serve so much as magnets for attention, but more as support for the historic main building, a prelude that leads the eye to the real focus of the space, the original museum. Would you prefer this gentle, rater unobtrusive wing, or a predictable, brutal mass of glass to span the whole length of the lot?

The sole good thing about this building is the way it melds with the land. That is attractive. It could have been done in so many different better ways though than to have it end up looking like an extremely upscale trailer court.

[CGII]

Originally Posted by hauntedheadnc

The difference is that richly-ornamented buildings are not poor architecture, no matter if the current architect's creed dictates that all must genuflect in front of the Seagram Building, or if it's more convenient, a refrigerator carton, seeing as how they look basically the same.

So, only decorated, exuberant buildings are attractive, and only buidlings without ornament are ugly?
So, anything simple cannot be beautiful just because apparently anyone could design it?

This building is incredibly richly ornamented. According to you, 'richly ornamented buildings are not poor architecture.'



Simple cannot be beautiful because it resembles a commonly used shape?



Pshaw! Anyone can take an elementary school jungle gym structure and put glass over it! What a cop out!

Originally Posted by hauntedheadnc

Now, that little bit of sarcasm is my personal view on things. In reality, I like contrast in architecture and there is room for variety. What I hate is how I'm told I must discard the old and embrace the new just because, basically. I'm supposed to have evolved to the point that I nearly orgasm at the sheer gorgeousness of a blank white wall apparently.

Who is telling you to have an orgasm for this building? Who is telling you to disregard classical architecture? Who is telling you all history must be abandoned to pursue modern identity?

Originally Posted by hauntedheadnc

To me that is such a cop out. Anybody can lay a rectangle on its side, punch a few dents in it and call it the masterpiece of our time. It takes real skill to expertly carve a row of saggy-boobed ladies holding up a heavy cornice, like you'd find at the model railroad museum in San Diego. I appreciate real skill much more than I do lofty, but ultimately meaningless ideals. This is why I think Philadelphia City Hall is one of the finest buildings on earth, and I dismiss this museum addition as looking like a row of unusually large portable classrooms.

If you want to see a cop out, look at this:



A building is a cop out when it focuses too much on itself and not at all on those who use and interact with the building, focuses nothing on the enviroment, and can be built at any location whatsoever as a 'plop a landmark.'

Who cares if something is simple? Something has to have loads of overdone ornamentation to be beautiful? Louis Sullivan would like to have a word with you. His skyscrapers were considered naked and inhuman when they were built, and other architects would joke, 'Need a butterknife to smear your ornament, Louis?' What's so awful about streamlining and keeping things simple?

Originally Posted by hauntedheadnc

Most modern architecture is very much like most modern art -- any idiot can shit in a trashcan and call it art, but it takes actual skill to sculpt a lifelike human face. Tragically, somehow -- and don't ask me how -- the shit-in-a-trashcan style of both art and architecture has gained a large and slavishly-devoted following who will fawn over it as though it was something as intricate and wondrous as the Paris Opera House.

Actually, it would be FAR easier to design something like the Opera Garnier as a building:essentially, follow the basic vernacular for theatres, add some exaggerated features (such as domes, or cornices), and then commision sculptors to slather the building in ornament. Granted, the result is beautiful, but the work on the part of the architect is rather minimal when compared to the architect of the musuem in question, who must honour nature, the city, the original museum, and the art. What did the architect of Opera Garnier have to do? Build a big building.

In addition, you must realize that due to the increase in America's and Europe's quality of life, exuberant sculpture on buildings as seen on the scale of the 19th and early 20th century is no longer feasible. You simply can't afford to build another Opera Garnier or another St. Pauls Cathedral, or another Penn Station, or another Singer Building. It's just not an option.

Originally Posted by hauntedheadnc

The sole good thing about this building is the way it melds with the land. That is attractive. It could have been done in so many different better ways though than to have it end up looking like an extremely upscale trailer court.

Well, you could have done it the Gehry way, and make it look like shreds of aluminium in a pile, you could have done it the Calatrava way, paint lots of curved metal white and involve some sort of 'interactive' and moving aspect, you could have done it the Piano way and make a glass box with some screens, you could do it the corporate way and just build a glass box over the site, or you could do it the way it was and be the least invasive to the landscape by putting the structure underground, essentially, with stations that peak out of the ground to provide points of entry for both humans and light. I honestly think they did quite nice the way they did.

Overall it sounds more like you dislike anything new and like anything old.

[raisethehammer]

what a boring piece of crap.