In Los Angeles, a Gehry-Designed Awakening

[Jularc]

In Los Angeles, a Gehry-Designed Awakening


http://graphics8.nytimes.com/images/2007/04/18/business/18real.600.jpg
William A. Witte of Related California, whose parent, Related Companies, is overseeing a development on
Grand Avenue in Los Angeles.


By TERRY PRISTIN
April 18, 2007

LOS ANGELES — The influx of thousands of new residents has reinvigorated this city’s downtown in recent years, but most of the development has been clustered on its southern end, near the Staples Center, the sports and entertainment arena.

For more than a decade, however, Eli Broad, a billionaire and civic leader, has envisioned a vibrant focal point for the city — “a place where people from all communities want to gather,” as he put it — on the opposite edge of downtown. That section, known as Bunker Hill, is home to some of the city’s leading cultural institutions and architecturally significant structures, but they are scattered amid a hodgepodge of unsightly parking lots and drab government buildings.

Now Related Urban, the division of the Related Companies that developed the massive Time Warner Center at Columbus Circle in Manhattan, is poised to try to fulfill Mr. Broad’s ambitions. By the end of the year, the company expects to begin demolition for the first phase of a $2.05 billion mixed-use project along Grand Avenue, opposite the Walt Disney Concert Hall.

Designed by the concert hall’s architect, Frank Gehry, the Grand Avenue development will echo the Time Warner Center in some respects — the plans call for a five-star 275-room Mandarin Oriental Hotel, luxury condominiums, restaurants run by celebrity chefs and an upscale food market. But it is also expected to feature terraces and rooftop gardens to take advantage of the mild climate, the developers say.

Included in the $750 million first phase, which extends from First to Second Streets and reaches 35 feet from Grand Avenue to Olive Street, are 400 condominiums in two towers, 48 and 24 stories respectively, to be priced at around $1,000 a square foot or higher; 100 apartments devoted to families earning less than $35,000 a year; 284,000 square feet of retail space; and a 16-acre park linking the Music Center and City Hall to replace an unused swath of sloping green space near the government buildings.

As part of an agreement with community groups and public officials, Related Companies is to advance $50 million of its ground-lease rent toward the cost of the park. The agreement also requires Related and its tenants to meet specified hiring and wage goals and to set aside one-fifth of the units for low- and moderate-income residents. In exchange, officials have agreed to just under $100 million in subsidies, principally from hotel tax revenues, said William A. Witte, the president of Related California.

The City Council and County Board of Supervisors recently gave their blessing to the project, and Mr. Gehry said he expects to complete the design in June.

Rather than compete with his concert hall, with its billowing stainless-steel walls, the glassy Grand Avenue development should play a “supporting role,” Mr. Gehry said, adding that “you don’t put a bunch of iconic buildings one next to the other.” With construction costs rising, the architect said he has had to “adjust the project to that reality” by, for example, searching for less-expensive materials.

Unlike the planned Atlantic Yards development near downtown Brooklyn, which is Mr. Gehry’s other major urban project, Grand Avenue has engendered few fireworks. But some opponents maintain that subsidies are not justified for a project intended primarily for wealthy residents. They say the developer is already getting a break on the land.

Joel Kotkin, a Los Angeles resident and author of “The City: A Global History,” also argues that Los Angeles is a decentralized place with a number of lively downtowns, including Santa Monica, Pasadena and West Hollywood. In his view, the city would do better to nurture organic downtown neighborhoods, like its fashion district, “instead of replicating experiences you can get anywhere.”

But Mr. Broad said that piecemeal development of the city- and county-owned sites would have been a mistake. “I was fearful we would have unplanned development there that would create a mess,” he said. He also said that allowing the developer to define the project ensured that it would be economically workable. “You’ve got to find a developer that’s got the experience to make it work from a commercial point of view,” he said. “Without understanding what is going to work financially, you end up with no project.”

Since 1999, when the local zoning ordinance was changed to allow residential conversion of older office buildings, more than 1,500 units of housing have been built or are under construction downtown, said Carol E. Schatz, the president of the Los Angeles Downtown Center Business Improvement District.

About 29,000 people live downtown, many of them young, well-paid single people who walk to work, according to a recent survey. They are also urban pioneers who are undaunted by the many homeless people who camp out downtown. The new residents are also willing to drive five miles or more to shop for groceries. In July, however, a long-awaited 50,500-square-foot Ralph’s Fresh Fare supermarket is to open at Ninth and Flower Streets, said Terry O’Neill, a spokesman for the chain.

For the first time in memory, a number of office tenants, including Perkins Coie, a law firm, and Psomas, an engineering firm, have been migrating from the West Side to downtown, where rents are cheaper, said H. Carl Muhlstein, an executive vice president at Cushman & Wakefield.

These rents are rising, yet vacancies also increased last year, from 11.9 percent to 15.2 percent. Mr. Muhlstein attributed the rise in vacancies to the consolidation of the Los Angeles Unified School District’s headquarters and the merger of Sanwa Bank and Tokai Bank.

In addition to Grand Avenue, another megadevelopment is planned for downtown Los Angeles — a $2.5 billion entertainment and retail complex known as L.A. Live, which is under construction next to the Staples Center. Developed by the arena’s owner, AEG, it is expected to cater to sports and pop music fans and offer some of the flash of Times Square.

The Related project, by contrast, is designed to appeal to older, more affluent residents, including international buyers and others seeking a downtown pied-à-terre offering hotel services and restaurants. “That’s something that L.A. hasn’t seen,” Mr. Witte said.

Related Companies has not announced any retail leases yet, although Kenneth A. Himmel, the chief executive of Related Urban, said two potential anchor tenants for the freestanding retail structures were talking with Mr. Gehry.

Rick J. Caruso, the developer of the Grove, the popular open-air retail and entertainment center near the Farmers Market at Third Street and Fairfax Avenue, said Related was unlikely to have a problem attracting a supermarket and other stores to serve its residents. But he said downtown might not be ready for larger retailers that need to draw from a large base of customers. “The jury is still out on the retail,” Mr. Caruso said.

The Grand Avenue project is getting started at a time when the market for high-end condos appears to be softening. In December, KB Homes withdrew from its partnership with AEG to build a 54-story hotel and condominium project at L.A. Live. A planned condominium tower designed by Thom Mayne at Broadway and 11th Street was shelved after it was unable to attract financing. And Standard Pacific Corporation abandoned plans to buy a new building near Union Station and sell its 272 units as condominiums. But Mr. Witte said projects that faltered were not in desirable locations. “The best-located projects are doing very well,” he said.

Victor B. MacFarlane, a managing principal of MacFarlane Partners, one of Related’s investment partners in Grand Avenue, said he was not worried about the market’s long-term prospects.

“There’s no question that the condo market right now is softer,” he said. “But we believe that in two or three years it will be different. We believe that downtown L.A. is for real and not just a flash-in-the-pan trend.”


http://graphics8.nytimes.com/images/2007/04/18/business/18real1.650.jpg
The Grand Avenue development in downtown Los Angeles.


Copyright 2007 The New York Times Company (http://www.nytimes.com/2007/04/18/realestate/commercial/18real.html?ref=realestate)

[Quixote]

Three Frank Gehry masterpieces right across the street from one another. Ahhh, can't beat that!

[edluva]

masterpieces? - hah

[Quixote]

They don't get awarded Pritzker Prizes for nothin'! ;)

[Buckeye Native 001]

I wish Gehry would go back into the hole from where he came... :hell:

Sorry, I appreciate modern design, but I can't stand Gehry.

[JRinSoCal]

What's the tall tower on the lower right-hand corner of that model picture?

[Quixote]

I wish Gehry would go back into the hole from where he came... :hell:

Sorry, I appreciate modern design, but I can't stand Gehry.

One word. Unconventional.

[ocman]

What's the tall tower on the lower right-hand corner of that model picture?

Library tower.

edit: nevermind. the lower right is just a block. I'll be surprised if anyone knows.

[ltsmotorsport]

I seriously can't stand his highrise designs. It's like a child stacked blocks on one another and called it architecture.

http://www.bright-start.com/ProductImages/Toddler%20Baby%20Blocks.jpg

A MASTERPIECE!












Gimme a break.

[johnnypd]

I seriously can't stand his highrise designs. It's like a child stacked blocks on one another and called it architecture.



A MASTERPIECE!












Gimme a break.

Right, and they look like they're made out of wood too! and there's no windows. rather worrying for the new tenants i imagine.

[dktshb]

Right, and they look like they're made out of wood too! and there's no windows. rather worrying for the new tenants i imagine.
:haha:

[Quixote]

It's just a matter of opinion. I personally love Frank Gehry. Disney Hall is a symbol of everything that is Los Angeles.

[Buckeye Native 001]

I respect that some people do like Gehry's work, I personally think that his (and Liebeskind's) designs are pretentious.

Plus, since the Bilbao Guggenheim, Gehry's been doing variations on that clump of twisted metal design year in and year out. I could write a whole damn book on why I dislike his work...

[Marcu]

I respect that some people do like Gehry's work, I personally think that his (and Liebeskind's) designs are pretentious.

Plus, since the Bilbao Guggenheim, Gehry's been doing variations on that clump of twisted metal design year in and year out. I could write a whole damn book on why I dislike his work...

Right. It's the lack of originality that bothers me. That and the fact that every city must have one. Although I'm not complaining about Chicago's Millenium Park bandshell.

[BrandonJXN]

What's the tall tower on the lower right-hand corner of that model picture?

I think it's a apartment tower. One Bunker Hill I think it's called. Or Bunker Hill Towers or something.

:shrug:

[fflint]

Disney Hall is a symbol of everything that is Los Angeles.
You know, for those of us who don't particularly care for Gehry's designs, that's not a compliment to LA.

[holladay]

im not so sure gehry is the best architect for LA to use as a catalyst for urban redevelopment but okayyyyyyyy...

[ocman]

im not so sure gehry is the best architect for LA to use as a catalyst for urban redevelopment but okayyyyyyyy...

Well, actually he did prove to successfully catalyze the building spree in downtown with Disney Hall as he did with the town of Bilbao. It would be hard to argue that he didn't have a positive effect in urban redevelopment in either case.

Personally, as long as he isn't using steel in this new development, I'm happy. Although the project isn't as street focused as it should be.

[citywatch]

You know, for those of us who don't particularly care for Gehry's designs, that's not a compliment to LA.
Considering the almost uniformly negative or "zzz" press that greeted the opening of SF's concert hall in 1980 (the one near SF city hall), both for its design & acoustics, I'll take Gehry and his hall.

[MayDay]

I don't always like Gehry's building designs, but I adore his jewelry line from Tiffany & Co. ;)

http://www.clevelandskyscrapers.com/gehryring1.jpg

http://www.clevelandskyscrapers.com/gehryring2.jpg

http://www.clevelandskyscrapers.com/nyc07/nyc07_60.jpg

[Buckeye Native 001]

Right. It's the lack of originality that bothers me. That and the fact that every city must have one. Although I'm not complaining about Chicago's Millenium Park bandshell.

I've got to give him props for mocking himself on The Simpsons, though. That was amazing. :tup:

[glowrock]

I've got to give him props for mocking himself on The Simpsons, though. That was amazing. :tup:

That was one of the best damn Simpsons episodes ever!

Aaron (Glowrock)

[edluva]

They don't get awarded Pritzker Prizes for nothin'! ;)

no, they don't get awarded for nothin'. Gehry probably got awarded for reasons which are only tangentally related to good architecture, as with various other pritzker prize winners. the pritzker has become a joke.

[holladay]

ummm... pritzker is a serious prize?? bah, it's political and it's self-congratulatory...

some of the past winners are a testament to how inane the whole pritzker awarding process has been since its inception.: philip johnson, kevin roche, i.m. pei, christian de portzamparc, kenzo tange, gordon bunshaft; not one of these architects was remotely original; and don't even try to say pei...

[fflint]

[/b]
Considering the almost uniformly negative or "zzz" press that greeted the opening of SF's concert hall in 1980 (the one near SF city hall), both for its design & acoustics, I'll take Gehry and his hall.
Wait, 1980? San Francisco? Huh?

Considering that is such a complete non-sequitur, it can only make sense within the "versus troll" context.

I still dont like Gehry's designs, and no amount of the gratuitous anti-SF trolling that has become so common on this forum will change that.

[Quixote]

You know, for those of us who don't particularly care for Gehry's designs, that's not a compliment to LA.

Well, as I said before, it's just a matter of opinion. What constitutes great architecture is completely subjective and ambiguous. You can interpret it in anyway you want. What I like about Frank Gehry is that he has his own style and isn't afraid to be different. In that sense, I personally find his work to be quite fascinating. But people are different.

[CGII]

It's just a matter of opinion. I personally love Frank Gehry. Disney Hall is a symbol of everything that is Los Angeles.

Well then, why would he put everything that is Los Angeles in Bilbao, Spain?

[Quixote]

Well then, why would he put everything that is Los Angeles in Bilbao, Spain?

The Walt Disney Concert Hall is located in Bilbao, Spain?

[Buckeye Native 001]

Yeah, its called the Guggenheim.

Case Western Reserve University and the University of Minnesota have Guggenheim/Disney Halls as well.

[Quixote]

So they use the same signature cladding. Big deal.

[Quixote]

And whether or not you are a fan of Gehry's work is totally irrelevant. Regardless of your opinions, this could be a GREAT thing for DTLA. Look at what WDCH did for DTLA. Gehry can only help.

[holladay]

Gehry's magnum opus is his personal residence in Santa Monica of 1979-82. Second place is his Venice Beach House from the same period.

In a league of their own are his cardboard furniture pieces, which are unquestionably fantastic.

Bilbao was a good wake-up call. Everything after has been regurgitation.

LA would do better to embrace Thom Mayne as their spokesman. He had the vision to publish "LA Now." Gehry, on the other hand, is becoming increasingly irrelevant.

In the future people will likely view him as a hack - even more than they do already.

[ocman]

The only similarities between Guggenheim and Minnesota are that they are both by Gehry and are both made with the same metallic material. And that's pretty much where it ends.

Architects repeat themselves. It's just the reality. It's asking way too much for an architect to reinvent the wheel with every design. Everyone here gets that Gehry bashing is popular. Personally, I don't like most of his buildings, but I think that its the rule rather than the exception that architects tend to have more failures than buildings that succeed. Gehry has a lot of failures that are beyond awful. At the same time, when his buildings succeed, they really succeed.

There are two structures where Gehry deserved every accolade that was lavished upon him: Bilbao and Disney Hall, where he was at the peak of media lovefest. Some of his works such as the Chicago band shell and Minnesota are admirable structures. His failures are footnotes that I don't see taking away anything from those accomplishments.


Regarding the pritzker prize winners, IM Pei and Philip Johnson, regardless of their originality, have atleast a couple of great structures for each. No matter what the French say, they are lucky that Pei was chosen to do the Louvre extension.

[citywatch]

Wait, 1980? San Francisco? Huh?
You're not aware of the history of the home of the SF Symphony (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Louise_M._Davies_Symphony_Hall)? That bldg & the one built in NYC about 20 yrs before it were both notorious for their poor acoustics, & they received a lot of shrugs or yawns, at best, from design & architecture critics. BTW, they've both been extensively remodeled on the inside over the yrs, but still are considered as lacking in really good sound.

They are classic examples of the kind of planning that orchestras should avoid.

[citywatch]

LA would do better to embrace Thom Mayne as their spokesman. Why? The bashing that his new Caltrans bldg has received (aka the "death star") would suggest he's no more embraceable than Gehry. Personally, I think Mayne's bldg is perfectly fine, but others don't agree.

There's a saying "love me or hate me, just don't ignore me," & a lot of major new bldgs often end up simply ignored.

[fflint]

[/b]
You're not aware of the history of the home of the SF Symphony (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Louise_M._Davies_Symphony_Hall)? That bldg & the one built in NYC about 20 yrs before it were both notorious for their poor acoustics, & they received a lot of shrugs or yawns, at best, from design & architecture critics. BTW, they've both been extensively remodeled on the inside over the yrs, but still are considered as lacking in really good sound.

They are classic examples of the kind of planning that orchestras should avoid.
There was no reason to introduce, out of the blue and with no tie to the ongoing discussion, the topic of San Francisco's this or that or the other in the first place. We were discussing Gehry and downtown LA. You only brought up SF at all because I happen to live here. Lame.

[Modern Design]

I´m a huge fan of modern design but i think Gehry designs are overrated...:yuck:

[citywatch]

You only brought up SF at all because I happen to live here. Lame.Quite honestly not. The examples of the bldgs in SF & NYC have been well documented for a long time, & before Disney Hall was completed a few yrs ago, ppl who followed the history of such projs were getting very antsy & nervous. I was one of them. Even more so since another new music hall built in Philadelphia over 5 yrs ago repeated the disappointing track record of the bldgs in SF & NYC.

[fflint]

So this is a discussion about New York, San Francisco and Philadelphia...right. Gotcha. That certainly explains the thread title.

[dktshb]

And whether or not you are a fan of Gehry's work is totally irrelevant. Regardless of your opinions, this could be a GREAT thing for DTLA. Look at what WDCH did for DTLA. Gehry can only help.

Get DTLA featured in a few more car commercials? :shrug:

[CGII]

So they use the same signature cladding. Big deal.

So they use the same signature cladding, BIG DEAL? The signature cladding is the entire architectural statement of the Disney Concert Hall, and to you it is the perfect manifestation of LA. Well, guess what, here's LA in Minneapolis:

http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/4/41/Weisman_Art_Museum.jpg/800px-Weisman_Art_Museum.jpg

Pure LA in Bilbao, Spain:

http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/d/de/Guggenheim-bilbao-jan05.jpg

Pure LA in Chicago:

http://p.vtourist.com/2191260-Approaching_the_Jay_Pritzker_Pavilion-Chicago.jpg

Pure LA in New York:

http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/thumb/6/60/Fisher_at_Bard_College.jpg/800px-Fisher_at_Bard_College.jpg

So, if all those buildings embodie LA, I have to say Gehry is quite a hack to deliberately ignore the uniquness of his project's enviroments just to photocopy the style of Los Angeles.

[BrandonJXN]

While I love the Disney Center (even moreso after running all throughout it's folds and the garden in back) and have high hopes for Grand Ave, one would hate him more if he designed a plain Jane box. Gehry isn't for everyone which is why he's a famed architect.

With that said, the EMP in Seattle is gross. It looks like a bunch of vaginas.

http://www.thecityreview.com/phaid55.jpg

[Quixote]

So they use the same signature cladding, BIG DEAL? The signature cladding is the entire architectural statement of the Disney Concert Hall, and to you it is the perfect manifestation of LA. Well, guess what, here's LA in Minneapolis:

...

So, if all those buildings embodie LA, I have to say Gehry is quite a hack to deliberately ignore the uniquness of his project's enviroments just to photocopy the style of Los Angeles.

LOL. You obviously misinterpreted my comment from the very beginning. Gehry himself, who has established Los Angeles as his home, is rather the symbol of LA, and his numerous architectural statements all over the city are a testament to that. While the signature cladding is his trademark style, it's not his only style. Check out his Santa Monica residence. It doesn't look anything like WDCH.

So, in a way, Gehry DOES bring a little bit of LA to those aforementioned cities. The point I was trying to make with WDCH is that that is his signature LA "masterpiece" in his own city. Los Angeles is Gehry's source of inspiration and it's where he experiments with architecture. His desire and willingness to be different is characteristic of LA's unconventional ways and how it refuses to be just another ordinary city. Los Angeles is Gehry's city.

[holladay]

[/b]Why? The bashing that his new Caltrans bldg has received (aka the "death star") would suggest he's no more embraceable than Gehry. Personally, I think Mayne's bldg is perfectly fine, but others don't agree.

There's a saying "love me or hate me, just don't ignore me," & a lot of major new bldgs often end up simply ignored.



Thom Mayne is perhaps the best voice on matters of architecture and urbanism that LA has produced. The lack of support for his work, even among Los Angelenos, is a real shame. The Caltrans building, while notably not among his best works, does happen to be his most visible commission in LA and perhaps to his disadvantage. Thom Mayne has quite a lot to say about urbanism and the architecture discipline but few people give him enough attention to understand his work. The thing about Gehry is that he is anti-academic. He professes to have no ideology about cities or architecture and he does not concern himself with greater conversations about what changes we can make to the environments we live in. His work is overtly formal but proposes no solutions or answers.

For this reason, LA should pay more attention to Thom Mayne, its real leading architect, if it wants to get a discussion going about what the future might hold. Every Angeleno should read "LA Now" to gain a little more understanding about what the city has become at the start of the 2lst c. and what new directions it seems to be going in.

[fflint]

CGII, you forgot to include a photo of the purest essence of LA crossing over a Chicago roadway.

[holladay]

What constitutes great architecture is completely subjective and ambiguous. You can interpret it in anyway you want.

I couldn't disagree with this statement more. It is a very common misconception in American society that architecture is purely a subjective discipline based on aesthetics. While this may be somewhat truer about "interior design," architecture is a very theoretical and philosophical discipline. I'm not talking about the work of most conventional corporate practices, I'm talking about the work of serious, critical architects. They are very small in number worldwide. Unfortunately, I have to tell everyone, Gehry is not a member of this architectural community. He is a formalist, not a thinker. His work has merit but because he nowadays tends to get so caught up in his sculptural forms that ultimately he has reduced his respect among the entire educated architectural community. Even Thom Mayne has made harsh public statements about him.

I think it is high time the American community woke up and tried to think about architecture a little bit before dismissing or hailing it for its formal qualities. Works of architecture are interpretive, they have to be thought about and experienced. What makes a great work of architecture is the level of thinking that went into it, not merely its formal realization. Buildings are like books, however the meaning tends to get lost on most people because they don't even try to consider what the architect is trying to say through her/his work. Really the best way to learn how to interpret a building is to stop making judgments and start asking more questions. However, equally important is learning how to differentiate between Architecture and buildings...

[holladay]

Check out his Santa Monica residence. It doesn't look anything like WDCH.

So, in a way, Gehry DOES bring a little bit of LA to those aforementioned cities. The point I was trying to make with WDCH is that that is his signature LA "masterpiece" in his own city. Los Angeles is Gehry's source of inspiration and it's where he experiments with architecture. His desire and willingness to be different is characteristic of LA's unconventional ways and how it refuses to be just another ordinary city. Los Angeles is Gehry's city.

I agree with the part that LA is Gehry's source of inspiration and it has been the city's liberal culture that has fostered his experimentation.

The first part, about Gehry's Santa Monica house... I would be interested to find out what you thought Gehry was doing with his house? That project is not about style, it's about an idea. I mention this because, as I said earlier, the idea is what makes a building great, not the appearance. Gehry's house makes its meaning very clear because it's very specific. Bilbao or Disney Hall have no such meaning.

[Quixote]

But you just DID 'interpret' architecture right there. You said it yourself that you couldn't disagree more with my statement. Well, I couldn't disagree more with your statement. Obviously there's no right or wrong here. It's just a matter of OPINION. I think Gehry's architecture is great. You don't seem to think so. Architecture is subjective. Some people like Mies Van de Rohe's building in Chicago whereas others look at it as just another ordinary box. You see, it IS subjective. We could go on with this discussion all night. We would still be going around in circles. I respect your OPINION. I actually understand very well what you're saying that it's the idea behind the work of art. Surely Gehry had an IDEA in his head when he designed WDCH. As for aesthetics, I don't think it's based purely on looks. Some people think Gehry's WDCH is ugly. Some don't.

And to address your argument of it's the level of thinking behind the architecture that really matters, it IS important. But many of you have your own OPINIONS and you expressed them when some of you said that Gehry is like a child who stacks blocks on top of each other and calls it 'art' without putting any thought into it. Whether or not you believe that is all open to INTERPRETATION.

[holladay]

No, you're flat wrong. I'm an architect, I design buildings, I spend my life studying the work of other architects. I'm telling you the discipline is not subjective. I think I should know...

[holladay]

Architecture is not about liking/disliking. It's not a formal pursuit. Appreciating architecture means learning to understand ideas about architecture. Most people will never even understand the truth in this statement.

[Quixote]

^I understand what you're saying.

But I don't know why you're trying to educate me on how to appreciate architecture. It's wrong telling someone how to appreciate something, especially when it comes to art/architecture.

It's similar to abstract art. You can paint an entire canvas in one color and call it 'art.' One would argue that there's no logic or reality behind such work. Another would argue that it appeals to the senses and the emotions.

[holladay]

Now having said this, this is not an architect being a snob. This is an architect saying that the public doesn't want to understand the theory that goes into architectural production. Koolhaas, Eisenman, Nouvel, Mayne, H & de M... each of these guys is participating in a discourse about architecture. Their works communicate ideas to each other. The formal aspects are only a small part of the picture.

[Quixote]

^But is one's opinion toward a certain design just solely based on the theory, the idea behind the design? Coming from a professional in the industry who doesn't really express a liking toward Gehry's work, I would expect such a statement.

[holladay]

Okay fine, but why don't you respond to my question about Gehry's house?

Just show me that your appreciation is a little more than skin-deep. Give a little credit to your opinion rather than just saying "architecture is subjective!" I'm not telling you WHAT to think. I'm just telling you that architecture is evaluated on the basis of ideas. We can disagree all day long on what we like/dislike. The important thing is to bounce the ideas back and forth. That's what architects do. That's my entire point.

[holladay]

Hey, I stated earlier in this thread that Gehry's house in Santa Monica is fantastic. I can defend that argument completely in terms of ideas.

Frankly, as an architect myself I will tell you that I don't evaluate architecture in formal terms. I don't even think in formal terms. I never ask myself "is this going to look cool??" Instead, I ask "what is this building doing? what is this element doing?" This is the nearly universal approach to architecture that most critical architects take.

[Quixote]

Okay fine, but why don't you respond to my question about Gehry's house?

Just show me that your appreciation is a little more than skin-deep. Give a little credit to your opinion rather than just saying "architecture is subjective!" I'm not telling you WHAT to think. I'm just telling you that architecture is evaluated on the basis of ideas. We can disagree all day long on what we like/dislike. The important thing is to bounce the ideas back and forth. That's what architects do. That's my entire point.

I would like to point out again that I agree with you for the most part. Understanding the idea behind the design is very important. It's much like traveling to a foreign country, meeting new people and learning about new cultures that differ greatly from yours. You might not agree with the customs, morals, traditions, etc. belonging to that culture, but you MUST respect it and really try to understand how other people live.

As for Gehry's Santa Monica residence, again it's the desire to be different. The desire to stand out, to be creative, to be innovative, to be provocative, to be sleek, to be cutting edge, to be "cool," to be beautiful, to be ugly, to be extreme, to be open, to be "out there," to be full of life, to be full of enery, to have a feeling of distinguishment and prestige, to be rough around the edges (literally and figuratively), to appeal to the senses, to inspire others to strive to be different and feel good about themselves, to to mix a variety of different shapes, sizes, colors, textures together to create something unparalleled in creativity and ideology. That is the universal logic, reality, idea, thought process behind Gehry's work IMO. And that is EXACTLY how I view Los Angeles and what I take back from it. You see, even I can find a way to APPRECIATE Gehry's work for what it stands for, the IDEA behind it. And that has nothing to do with aesthetics.

Just wanted to let you know that I enjoyed this civilized debate. Really, it was great! You have definitely changed the way I think about architecture in general...to a certain extent. :)

http://farm1.static.flickr.com/110/283912438_c41313e566_b.jpg
From Flickr, by Greg Headley

[dktshb]

So they use the same signature cladding, BIG DEAL? The signature cladding is the entire architectural statement of the Disney Concert Hall, and to you it is the perfect manifestation of LA. Well, guess what, here's LA in Minneapolis:

http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/4/41/Weisman_Art_Museum.jpg/800px-Weisman_Art_Museum.jpg

Pure LA in Bilbao, Spain:

http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/d/de/Guggenheim-bilbao-jan05.jpg

Pure LA in Chicago:

http://p.vtourist.com/2191260-Approaching_the_Jay_Pritzker_Pavilion-Chicago.jpg

Pure LA in New York:

http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/thumb/6/60/Fisher_at_Bard_College.jpg/800px-Fisher_at_Bard_College.jpg

So, if all those buildings embodie LA, I have to say Gehry is quite a hack to deliberately ignore the uniquness of his project's enviroments just to photocopy the style of Los Angeles.


:previous: :previous: :previous:
I agree the design isn't unique and maybe I just can't appreciate this form of architecture but I do think The Disney Concert Hall looks better than the others. Here's a photo from:
http://images.search.yahoo.com/search/images/view?back=http%3A%2F%2Fimages.search.yahoo.com%2Fsearch%2Fimages%3Fp%3Ddisney%2Bconcert%2Bhall%26fr%3Dyfp-t-501%26toggle%3D1%26cop%3Dmss%26ei%3DUTF-8&w=500&h=375&imgurl=danzukowski.blogs.com%2Fphotos%2Flos_angeles_on_foot%2F07disneyhall.jpg&rurl=http%3A%2F%2Fdanzukowski.blogs.com%2Fphotos%2Flos_angeles_on_foot%2F07disneyhall.html&size=32.9kB&name=07disneyhall.jpg&p=disney+concert+hall&type=jpeg&no=11&tt=8,279&oid=a607f365ae630af4&ei=UTF-8

www.danzukowski.com

http://i8.photobucket.com/albums/a28/dktshb/Untitled-1copy-1.jpg

Also those photo's seem to come from wikemedia.org, vtourist.com, etc., so I think Fflint would understandably request that you name the source of those photos... he seems to have been distracted by the point you were trying to make to another forum member that he overlooked it.

[Quixote]

Even though it's off topic, I kind of like the architectural discussion/debate going on in here. Here is another one of Gehry's "masterpieces" to discuss about it:

http://farm1.static.flickr.com/55/106124504_e546a5d2c6_b.jpg
From Flickr, by musiquegirl

[holladay]

Glad you enjoyed the debate. The feeling is mutual.

I rather appreciate your explanation for why you like Gehry's work. What you said applies both to his house and to his later work as well.

Here's my contribution: Gehry's house, formerly an anonymous 1930s Neo-Dutch Colonial in a neighborhood of equally ordinary early 20th c. builder revival houses, has been stripped of its old identity and reconceptualized as a strange testament to the collision of time, culture, and materials. The old house, functioning very much like an orderly, dignified house of its day "should", was a bastion of parlors, formal living and dining areas, neatly planed and machined ornamentation, and relatively closed and cellular spaces. Gehry felt both the need to respond to a shift in time and to a shift in domestic lifestyle. His reworking of the interior was an attempt to break out of the colonial box. The kitchen was "popped" off the side, its roof was lifted and left open to the sky. The interior walls, previously adorned in plaster and mouldings, were stripped to their bare essence to reveal the naked structure underneath. The entire house, which had once been considered a neat, orderly thing, was suddenly transformed into a violent juxtaposition of materials and spaces that are seemingly incongruent to one another. In his choice of materials for inside and outside Gehry opted for chain link, corrugated metal, fiberglass, plexiglass, cinder block, and plain 2x4s. These materials are the overlooked FUNDAMENTAL materials of modern American construction. Usually they are, however, hidden or relegated to uses that are considered ancillary or unimportant. Gehry placed them front and center as a way to showcase both their importance and their potentially transformative effects. This both shocked and enraged many of his neighbors for years and, subsequently, helped Gehry establish his voice within the emerging LA architecture community of the 80s. Gehry quite enjoyed the notoriety because it proved to him that by being so potentially destructive to the status-quo with his work he was spurring discourse and engagement of the public with architecture. Furthermore, he was actually relishing the techonological, economic and cultural shifts of the late 20th c. and trying to find a new voice of expression that was capable of broadcasting and capitalizing on the contradictions and heterogeneity of modern life and society.

[holladay]

^hrmmm... what to say about Chiat Day? it was one of gehry's first steps in the wrong direction, IMO. it is a building that is yet again about incongruency and juxtaposition. three volumes clumped together, each one articulated as if it were an independent piece. one of the volumes just 'happens' to be a giant pair of binoculars. apparently this may have some personal significance for the clients, im not too sure... anyway, what else is there to say? the interior environments? they are typical 80s offices. then there is the fish boardroom... ok, so nobody really know why that's there except that gehry loves fish and uses them throughout his work. (arguably, in this vein, bilbao could be considered a giant fish sculpture and the titanium cladding might be scales). at any rate, i can't elaborate more on chiat day because that's all there is. if the building was more thought-provoking i could ramble for hours...

[edluva]

my problem with gehry extends to the many other starchitects who have gained stature over the past few years for their outlandishly shocking designs.

gehry's buildings beginning with chiat day onward do embody some traits which are reflective of his angeleno influence. in my opinion, they embody the two-dimensional flatness which stem from the disposability of the pop-culture and auto-commercialism that LA has come to be defined by. while some of his buildings do include incongruent floor-plans, this incongruency is arbitrary - imo, gehry isn't making any sort of intellectual discourse about the value of such incongruency, not at least like how bernard tschumi would. people who say otherwise are reading way too deeply into him. these floor-plans are merely side-effects of his true architectural intentions. if you watched his documentary, you'd have already known this.

instead, gehry's efforts are almost exclusively spent producing aesthetically pleasing two-dimensional images out of his buildings so that they can be viewed, admired, and photographed from an objective distance. they're "pretty" and eye-catching. the same goes for his buildings' interiors - they're made to be viewed as one views artwork, a billboard, a movie, or some car-wash signage on santa monica blvd. The self-consciousness and vanity of his buildings embody the attention-grabbing aspect of LA's commercial landscape mentioned above. For this, gehry deserves credit, regardless of whether he was conscious of it, since it is as an artist that gehry brings this part of LA to light for the rest of us...because as an artist, we should ever expect that gehry limit himself to the rational or conscious realm.

But we're not talking about art, we're talking about architecture - a field which dapples as much in the rational as well as the intuitive. We should remember that architecture is not a conduit for an individuals ego the way art is. Here, Gehry makes no effort to expose the structural innards of his buildings as he once did with his private residence - in fact, his buildings now tend toward the polar opposite with their prodigious but pretty metal facade envelopments...which to me suggests either of two things: that gehry consciously understood some aspect of the deconstruction movement with the santa monica house before deciding the movement was an architectural dead-end, or that his old santa monica residence was simply a "one-hit wonder", whose success is as much a mystery to gehry himself.

If you follow gehry, I think it's easy to see that he works almost entirely out of his gut, and that he never really had a formal statement to make with any of his works, including his earliests. Gehry is not a particularly rational individual, not even for an architect. So he refuses to acknowledge the more functional or mundane aspects of architecture such as urban design, spatial programming, etc. Because of the superficiality and exterior-obsessed nature of his buildings, I feel as though he may as well be labeled as the greatest shed-decorator of all contemporary architects.

If there's anything provocative about gehry's work, it's not via gehry acting as provocateur or anything like that, but rather through the irony that stems from our own interpretation of his place in pop-history. The fleeting admiration that gehry and many other starchitects garner from the masses belongs to the realm of pop-art and commercialism - it's no testament to gehry's architectural prowess, that's for sure. Meanwhile, true architecture will continue to be defined by intellectuals who have scarcely the opportunity to test their theories for the fact that our world discourages experimentation of the substantive kind. They suffer the same lot as the true urban planners.

To say Gehry is the greatest architect would be the greatest insult to architecture as an intellectual field. I don't dislike gehry's work because it's "uncool" or "unsleek" or "unbeautiful". In fact, I find most of his buildings quite beautiful and imaginative. If they weren't, gehry wouldn't have gotten so marketable. Instead, I dislike the fact that gehry is commonly ascribed to "good architecture" when in fact his stuff is scarcely architecture to begin with. Gehry is an artist, a sculptor, or a painter, before an architect.

[holladay]

^ A rare SSP posting of a well-informed opinion on the subject of architecture. Thank you, ed. I'm sure very few people will read through all of what you wrote and even fewer will see its truth. But it didn't go unnoticed by everyone...

[bjornson]

Wow, what a well rounded post. Provides great insight and information for a paper I'm writing. I never think of architecture like that.

[fflint]

Guys--you've got to credit your photos. CGII...

[bricky]

Architecture is not about liking/disliking. It's not a formal pursuit.

Who cares what the architect is trying to state? When I walk into a building, or walk by a building, the last thing I think about is "now... what is the architect trying to say?" Instead, I might think, "wow this is a beautiful building that enhances the look of the neighborhood", or perhaps "this building is so well layed out".

I would wager that 99.9% of the population looks at architecture in a similar way. Who are architects supposed to serve? And what is wrong with focusing on aesthetics and functionality? I would much prefer a beautiful useable building that "has nothing to say", to an ugly building that expresses some "idea".

[holladay]

Well hurray for you bricky. Enjoy your blissful ignorance and dismiss an entire profession. You're right that most people think this way. It's why architects are so marginalized and discredited in our society.

It's not solely architects' fault that they are viewed as elitist. The public has little interest in the merits of their work. Ever read "The Fountainhead" by Ayn Rand? True visionaries are usually ignored by the masses because their work is controversial or totally misjudged.

[fflint]

Well hurray for you bricky. Enjoy your blissful ignorance and dismiss an entire profession.
It's no worse than your position, which advocates for an entire profession to dismiss the public--a public that is physically forced to live in an environment designed by that profession.

[Rufus]

Well hurray for you bricky. Enjoy your blissful ignorance and dismiss an entire profession. You're right that most people think this way. It's why architects are so marginalized and discredited in our society.

It's not solely architects' fault that they are viewed as elitist. The public has little interest in the merits of their work. Ever read "The Fountainhead" by Ayn Rand? True visionaries are usually ignored by the masses because their work is controversial or totally misjudged.

I could hardly believe you were being serious while reading this. Get over yourself! So what if 99% of the population doesn't care what an architect has to say? Why can't architecture be nothing but beautiful and functional? It doesn't always have to "mean" something.

[holladay]

A couple of things: I don't advocate the ENTIRE building industry to ignore the public. Millions of buildings are constructed worldwide each year. Only a few hundred of them are works of architecture. The rest are just buildings... Even all the stinkin' towers on SSP don't qualify as architecture. Architecture is a theoretical discipline with buildings as its medium. Building, on the other hand, is just a process of making places to live in. The two coexist in the world. I don't have any problem with building, which is basically merely a business. But I don't practice architecture as a business, I practice architecture as a design process. Function and beauty are of course very important to what I do. However, its actually the design process which is most enjoyable for me. It's choosing what's important and making decisions at a variety of scales simultaneously. It's juggling ideas and achieving multiple readings. It's making elements come together to build a narrative. It's a lot more experiential and engaging than merely trying to design something that is 'beautiful.' Besides, what's the point of regurgitation? I would never want to be the kind of architect who merely copies details from someone else. I prefer to continue the evolution and try new things. It's inevitable that some people will criticize what is new, and architects do often make a lot of mistakes. But experimentation is the great part of being an architect.
.. and the great thing about works of architecture is that they can be read and interpreted. You actually figure out how the building was designed, what the architect was doing, what the architect was questioning. Design is a very stimulating act and it can be equally stimulating for the observer. I can't make anyone care about architecture. If you refuse to try to appreciate it then it's your decision. However, I love architecture and I love the act of design and I can understand buildings. And I would not compromise on any of that for a public that doesn't care. A computer scientist doesn't care if you have a moral opposition to technology. He will still make new programs that further obligate the entire world to become dependent on computers. An architect, however, is really powerless. He can't get anything built that isn't approved by the client. A lucky architect is one who can find a certain segment of the population to support his work and give him commissions. As long as he pleases those people then basically why not screw everyone else? This is not nearly as detrimental as the computer scientist because the impact is so much smaller and slower. But yet people don't look at architects that way. They see them as criminals.

[slide_rule]

err, maybe you shouldn't draw such a distinct line between the highest profile starchitecture and the nondescript stuff solely built to justify a profit? i'm an architect who is also frustrated with the desire for double height foyers and brass and marble. but i do think it's counterintuitive to view everyone else as unwashed. btw, i don't like ayn rand.

IMO, celeb architects do the profession a disservice when they appear in the media using questionable analogy to link their big budget designs with obscure philosophy. lay people could be won over, but many see past the BS, and see ALL architects as esoteric, borderline frivolous pseudo-intellects. sometimes architects are promoted like rockstars or actors. it may be good for the architects in question, but the vast majority of architects do mundane yet useful things (e.g. conforming to code), yet these architects are again perceived as nonessential fluffy intellects. at least no-name architects can still make a living, whereas no-name actors are confined to nonrelated jobs, but i digress.

a prerequisite for the celeb architecture is money and media exposure. it's just reflective of the age we live in. thus adulation for gehry, hadid, eisenman, koolhaas, etc., has to be tempered with the fact that their 'fame' most likely is not solely reflective of their architectural merit. you could argue that it takes talent to win over a wealthy benefactor or book publisher; but then it would be more reflective of that architect's ability to raise money/garner publicity. architectural merit is different from salesmanship.

furthermore, architects do have a place, even with the mundane. working with strict budgets shouldn't be seen as waste of time. one could argue that it's more challenging to design practical buildings than it is to create and promote shock value architecture.

[holladay]

First, I hate Ayn Rand as well, but I do give her argument some credit.

Well it's not about starchitects vs. regular folks. I understand what you're saying about the media culture that architects exploit to get noticed. A lot of the best architects can't get anything built because they can't get any recognition. This includes the young generation and many older architects who have had to turn to teaching as their main endeavour. Given the choice between a relatively small career with few good commissions and a celebrity status with big budgets and totally free reign it's no wonder that so many architects opt for the star route. But part of this trend is the fault of the public. Since -especially in America- the public has so little regard for architecture, it is a really hard struggle for an architect to try anything new. People don't want to pay for it, contractors don't want to build it, the client is scared of it, zoning won't allow it. I'm no big fan of the starchitect system but I do wish that the general public was more receptive. In Europe the general attitude towards modern architecture is a lot more favorable and this is in spite of the fact that they have far more starchitects than we do. So I wouldn't say the starchitects completely discredit the discipline through their antics. It's a cultural mindset. All the people on this forum who like modern skyscrapers but hate modern architecture are proof of this significant mind-block.

[slide_rule]

starchitect is a strange term. we usually think of the avant garde deconstructivists with their shards and blobs. but if 'celebrity' were stressed more than the architectural clique itself, then people like leon krier and duany qualify as well. past starchitects could encompass people such as michael (yuck) graves too. basically, starchitecture should refer to architects whose celebrity status allows their rhetoric/work to be elevated above common rational scrutiny.

there's a general aversion to modern architecture in america. much of it is due to the obvious destruction perpetrated by supposed modernist planners such as robert moses. thus, anything with the aesthetics of modernism is somehow seen as bad architecture. conversely, many view retro architecture as good, simply because it harkens back to the pre-auto, mixed use era.