Replies to This Discussion

Permalink Reply by Ryan A. Waggoner on March 29, 2010 at 8:17am

wow, not even attempting the "lettuce" approach...

• ▶ Reply

Permalink Reply by Trace One on March 29, 2010 at 8:28am

here's a better link

http://www.arcspace.com/architects/sejima nishizawa/ century museum/century museum.html

• ▶ Reply

Permalink Reply by Jason T. Radice on March 29, 2010 at 10:08am

Methinks an unemployed architect could teach them something more relevant first. They won the Pritzker for that stuff? It'a awful! And not much of a portfolio, either. When are museums going to learn that this "signature" building stuff only leads to failure and massive expense? Roof leaks, poor lighting for the works (um, sunlight degrades color, folks), and the complete anthesis for, design psychology wise, what is proper for a museum. Let alone the waste of space.

• ▶ Reply

Permalink Reply by Chad Crutcher on March 29, 2010 at 10:53am

One must remember that both the architects and the museums are often seeking to create a building that is an iconic work of art in its own right. Problem is, designing to create an icon is far different than designing a successful building that becomes an icon. This is not a specific critique of these architects or their buildings. I have my opinions, but my subjective view remains essentially meaningless when considering the bigger issue as framed by the first sentence.

Do well doing good.

• ▶ Reply

Permalink Reply by Jason T. Radice on March 29, 2010 at 2:00pm

I can thing of plenty of musuems, art or otherwise, that fit the role of the iconic building, that still function as museums. Many of the "famous" (really, infamous) modern museums try to be that art, while the collection or the works suffer. Pei's East Gallery of the National Gallery is falling apart, and taxpayer dollars are required to reclad the entire exterior as the stone panels are about to fall off. It has little gallery space, instead, a huge atrium, library, and awkward angled steps take up valuable space. The gallerys are convuluted, and exhibtions often span floors, making it difficult for those with children or disabilities. Additionally, very little of the permannent collection can be displayed due to limited hanging space, in fact, most what is on display is in the basement. Libeskind's new Denver gallery has horrendous roof leaks, as do many Gehry buildings. Where to even start with Wright's Guggeheim in NYC.

Done well? Calatrava's Milwaukee Art Museum, although gallery space is limited there, too, due to programming the client wanted in the space. Eero Saarinen’s War Memorial Building, which is attached, provides the bulk of space for exhibitions. Richard Meier's Getty complex in LA is fantastic. The only gallery I have visited where the modern architecture blends smoothly with the classical works within. That was the result of years of compromise on the part of the architect, yeilding to the board. Gehry's Bilbao is also an amazing work. These all share one common element as they are all removed from their context by distance or terrain.

In context work, such as the American Folk Art Museum (down the block from MoMA) is modern, yet restrained, and fits well with it's surroundings. MoMA itself fits well wtihin it's block, though the interior could be much better. The expansions to The MET in NYC are also done very well, fitting with the historic architecture without overwhelming it.

I guess my longwinded point is that the museum committes should focus on the function, space, and flow of the museum first, instead of focusing on the image of the building. Any architect worth their salt can design around the program to created some kind of icon, hopefully in context with its surroundings. This problem also goes for modern libraries, which suffer from the same design problems, such as roof leaks and too much sunlight, which degrades the books. Universities with "collections" of architecture are learning these lessons as well.

• ▶ Reply

Permalink Reply by Richard Longman on March 31, 2010 at 10:48am

Jason, to the done well list I think you should add the Kimbell Art Museum in Dallas by Louis Kahn, architect, and George Patton, Landscape Architect.

The building has never been pretentious and the landscape is just a sensitive. There is a matching level of design refinement and style, modernist, that blends well.

Which brings me to a question. Do you think that the landscape architectural design field is keeping up the architectural field in terms of theory, styles and experimental works? Sure there are some LA' out there doing cutting edge design but aren't they few and far between. Where as the architectural field has gone into what has seem a design style frenzy these last years by Stararchitects I don't see the same intensity by LA's. And, I have to admit, architects are easily and quickly influenced by what other architects are doing but not so much LA's from what I see. There appears to be a pace that the architectural field moves at that's different.

How many landscape architectural practices are know for their modernist designs and think about how many modernist architects there are....it's not even close. I think that it's easier for architects to find interior designers that share the same design philosophy than to find landscape architects that share their philosophy.

Minimalist architecture I admit is an acquired taste and minimalist landscape design....is well....not even being championed by any LA's I can think of. I, like many here, don't appreciate SANAA's work but they are not the first Pritzker winners that have a minimalist bent... I think Peter Zumthor may fall close to a minimalist.

Which brings me back to my first observation...the Kimbell had a matched pair of designers. From what I see that's not the case for SANAA's projects. I think LA are leaving ourselves out in the cold...not because of architect's egos but because we're not keeping up.

• ▶ Reply

Permalink Reply by Jason T. Radice on March 31, 2010 at 7:03pm

Good points. Not familiar with the Kimbell, plus I really don't like Louis Kahn (everybody, in Shatner voice...Kahn!!!!). I detest brutalism. Anyway, I looked at it on Bing, and the building does transition well into the landscape. The landscape is extraordinarily simple and clean, well suited to the building. Very mid-century. Kinda makes you want a loaf of bread, no? (That’s okay; we have a wedding cake for a museum here in DC)

I think there are many reasons for a general lack of modernist LA work. Number One is materials. We only have so much we can work with, and what we can do with it. Stone, concrete/brick, plants, steel; that’s about it. Add the limited canvas of the ground plane, plus, our stuff has to function, and it can be tough to reinvent the wheel in LA. Thankfully, the last five or so years have been great for innovation in the LA field, with many new and quality choices coming in both hardscape and landscape materials.

The recent unimaginable progression in architecture can be directly related to huge advancements in technology. It had never been possible to engineer the structures of these buildings without the aid of computers. Then again, many of the advancements are not without their failures. It will be interesting to see in 20 years how well these state-of-the-art buildings hold up. Many are already having SERIOUS problems requiring expensive repairs and redesigns for failed components

Second. Modern LA installations tend to date much more quickly than their buildings. And, if not meticulously cared for, the plantings tend to get overgrown and are cut. Or they die and are not replaced. This happened with many of Halprin's works, which explains why many of them have been demolished. Some modernist LA designs actually look ridiculous only few years after installation. Many LAs can design, but they don't think 20 years down the road when the plants mature. Totally changes the design.

LA modernism develops slower than the architecture. And that’s a good thing. Our designs evolve. The LA design is usually done in reaction to the building; again, limiting what can be accomplished. LAs tend to be more restrained, and more in control of their materials. Dare I say; we actually have taste? There have been a few modernist LA projects that I think were not at all done well, and I’m expecting them to be redesigned or removed altogether in a few years.
.

• ▶ Reply

Permalink Reply by Trace One on March 29, 2010 at 2:12pm

I agree, Jason..I just don't understand how architects can continously ignore the ground plane, the world around their building as being opportunities for amazing landscape designs that live up to their buildings..The construction aspects of these super-stylistic buildings, like IM Pei in Wash DC that you mentioned, is absolutely correct..
But these SANAA buildings - god, I almost flipped when I saw the three big staked trees and little else around the one museum..

We need star landscape architects, to balance the architects..I wouldn't mind a little lack of functionality, if the design was exciting and thought-provoking..
I love the getty in LA also..the garden is really fun...and the designer of that garden is NOT an LA, I think..
We are too modest, perhaps, we need some arrogant personalities in our midst..

• ▶ Reply

Permalink Reply by Jason T. Radice on March 29, 2010 at 3:21pm

The SANAA buildings, I laughed at that same photo with the three twigs sticking out of lawn. If you look more at their work, the buildings all look about 1/3 done. I know its minimalist, but that is ridiculous.

You're right with the Getty...an artist designed the main garden at Getty with a horticulturist, and Olin did the rest of the grounds. Meier was FURIOUS about the central garden, because the artist was not under his control (sound familiar?). Most architects like to have the building stand alone, out in the open, for all to marvel at. Very few architects think of the site in the design, and leave it to a third-party LA to deal with it after the building designed. Under their thumb, of course.

I totally agree the architects NEED LA's to pull off the total package. Most architects can't design a sidewalk correctly (I have visual and experiential proof), let alone landscapes/hardscapes. I have always practiced in architecture and development offices to try to do just that. It's been a long uphill battle, with limited amounts of success.

Times they-are-a-changin', thankfully. See Walter Hood's design at the DeYoung Museum in San Fran, or Gustafson Guthrie Nichol's design at the National Portrait Gallery under Norman Foster's curvy-sky-light. GGN has also been tapped to design the grounds for the American Museum of African American History. As well, Jones & Jones with the late EDAW did a great job with the American Indian museum. The mandatory inclusion of LA's from project inception on major government projects should help with some of these issues as well. But these commissions are few and far between, and seem to go to the same firms all the time.

LA's, by nature, are not remotely egotistical as architects. I've met many Starchitects over the years, by and large, their pomposity and arrogance knows no bounds (Gehry was very nice, however). LA starchitects are much more approachable and courteous, often not leaving the room until they talked with everyone who wanted to chat. As far as ego, I'll volunteer to take up that mantle. Who's with me?

• ▶ Reply

Permalink Reply by nca on March 29, 2010 at 4:29pm

We need more big egos in LA, but more importantly we need more big doers in my opinion. Several 'High End' firms we see in LA Mag weekely are doing the object thing, but I think they're going in the wrong direction--thats why arch like sanaa just go ahead and skip the landscape.

I think the profession is quickly evolving. There was a time or a generation in which landscape architects eagerly submitted to the will of the 'master architect,' engineer, etc, but I think times sure are changing. I heard Gehry speak about the return of the 'master architect' on one of his older TED talks from the mid 90's (?). I think there probably has been a resurgence of the master architect, but the projects have also become more complex, requiring better collaboration. I think it's a matter of taking control of our craft and taking ownership of our medium. Kind of sounds like I've been listening to NPR all day..ugh..and I have.

If anyone here hasnt already, keep an eye on the Archinect project of the week, or whatever they call it that appears on their homepage each week--So many of the projects are simply object buildings in a stark and barren landscape--Evidently this is the work the architecture community is hailing as great. I think the arch practice is heading away from human scale objectives and more toward tack-together gadgetry and objectification.

• ▶ Reply

Permalink Reply by Tanya Olson on March 29, 2010 at 7:35pm

Can you STAND the bare dirt under the stools in the lawns? DId they think no one would ever site on the stools? Hey, everyone knows you can't be a minimalist with any plant other than turf. aaagh!

• ▶ Reply

Permalink Reply by Trace One on March 29, 2010 at 4:11pm

Ha! you're nominated, Jason, if you want to be an arrogant starlarchitect..! hee hee! and yes, the deYoung is pretty wonderful, as is the American Indian in D.C...good points..!
so how does one go about boosting one's arrogance credentials?
:)

• ▶ Reply

• ‹ Previous
• 1
• 2
• Next ›
• Folio