Quote:
Originally Posted by apetrella802
she is a rather mediocre architectural critic. She uses "off the shelf" material and what is in the general understanding of what is in the "public domain" Case in point: the architects of the new Barnes said one of their major design considerations was to place a monumental presence on the BFP but they were very interested in moving people from the general noise, and frenetic activity of the Parkway itself. They wanted people who arrived by foot from the BFP to move gradually to a more and more serene environment until they entered the building. This would mimic to some extent what they experienced out at Merion. This they accomplished with the passage through a grove of pine trees and then a Zen like walk through Japanese red maples alone a shallow pool of still water which covered a bed of smooth rounded stones. So this is what Inga dismisses as cutting the Barnes off from the Parkway. We once had a architectural critic who operated in the same realm as Paul Goldberger(NYT), his name was Thomas Hinde.
|
See, this is actually a point in her favor. The architects made the mistake of thinking that mimicking the outdoor experience at the old Barnes was somehow more important than connecting the building to the parkway and the city. Just from a purely objective standpoint, the whole point of moving the thing is that it was too secluded and disconnected to make enough money to cover it's costs. On a more subjective note, I'd imagine most posters on this particular website would agree that street level urban presence is a more important consideration on the parkway, and saying that it can't be done while preserving some sense of seclusion is a bit of a cop out. This is getting off topic, but the point is, Inga's priorities are in the right place for the most part. She can be overly critical (and actually, in some cases, not critical enough), but in general she at least criticizes the right things.
Threaded Mode