Atlantic Yards Development - Commercial, Residential, Retail, NBA Arena

[RJW]

Hear, Hear!

[Fabrizio]

Well, so much for intellectual curiosity...

RJW: "And to say... "but today we have other expectations from architecture ...even from a concert hall or a museum" completely fails to recognize the tightrope an architect treads between what he would build, what the architecture is purposed for and what the client will pay for."

No, not at all.

Creating buildings that include great public spaces, or are at least people friendly, has little to do with budget. And yes, today we certainly DO expect great public spaces from public buildings like concert halls and museums.

How is the space in and around the building used by the public? Is it inviting? Is it a gathering place? Does it encourage people to linger and enjoy themselves or does it repel? Are the spaces well organized and easy to "read"? Or are they confusing? Are there places in and around the building for people to gather and socialize, or does the building encourage people to just pass by and pass through. Do the spaces promote a feeling of security and safety, or a subtle feeling of wariness? Is the building a place you want to return to?

The Bilboa is stunningly beautiful, no question, but it is actually hostile to vistors... that´s what I saw and felt... the building is in many ways a failure. The Modern Museum in NY is a million times more hospitable (and includes a great public space: it´s sculpture garden). The Metropolitan Museum... even the NY Public Library, have delightful public spaces in front of them that are vibrant with activity (although perhaps more from a happy combination of factors instead of original intent). These spaces enrich the community Even (the roundly critised) Lincoln center with it´s "let´s-meet-at-the-fountain" fountain and room-like park in front of it´s library, are pretty good spaces. The Bilboa is dead by comparison.... with a rather hostile environment in and around the building. (do see the photos in the link I provided) I could only visit quickly his buildings in Dusseldorf because of a rainy, blustery day, but that complex also struck me as being a place that could only repel activity around it. I did not visit the inside.

You don´t need an extra budget to create successful spaces.... it depends on the will and talent of the architect. It depends on his choices. And you cannot tell me that having friendly public spaces "was not his (or the clients) intention".

And I bring up these points because public spaces are what a city is all about.


Ablarc: your comment: "And I think our expectations for a concert hall or museum are about the same as always."

You know that it is not true. Today a museum is expected to be (rightly or wrongly) much more than the purely accademic experience it once was...not only in it´s cultural program, but also in it´s architecture and the use of it´s building.... and that´s why I mention the Brooklyn Museum as an example. The intention of it´s renovation was to make the museum more "inviting" and to create a more vibrant public space at the entrance. Whether the renovation was successful or not is another story....

That will also be a high priority with the Lincoln Center renovation... because welcoming public spaces are what we expect today in cultural buildings.... unlike in the early 60´s when the complex was built.

I am interested to hear more of Lofters experience with the Disney concert Hall. The photos honestly don´t look that promising....I also don´t know if it´s so important if this building connects to the rest of the neighborhood... it is LA after all.

[RJW]

Fabrizio, again I will just say that the works you continue to site and the Atlantic Yards development are just to dissimilar to compare. Narrowing your to criticism to his public spaces makes for some good argument but fails to mask the relentlessly negative assessments of nearly every aspect of Gehry's work that you have repeatedly made throughout this thread.

The Modern Museum in NY is a million times more hospitable (and includes a great public space: it´s sculpture garden).

I agree that MOMA is great...

You don´t need an extra budget to create successful spaces.... it depends on the will and talent of the architect. It depends on his choices. And you cannot tell me that having friendly public spaces "was not his (or the clients) intention".

...but the commitment of MOMA's directors to the sculpture garden was immense (and costly) if you consider the value of the real estate the garden occupies and that despite all its new square footage the permanent collection floors run out sometime around minimalism. I have interests other than architecture in that museum and would have gladly given up the garden for another permanent exhibition floor. I love the museum's garden space but I love its collection even more. Everything in a development is a compromise of one interest for another.

[Jasonik]

This is a case where Gehry provides street level retail with a rain awning and an open corner with a raised entry. People are always hanging around here. It has a bus stop in front and a subway station in the basement.

[360 Newbury]...won the Parker Award as the most beautiful new building in Boston.

[ablarc]

RJW, MOMA’s sculpture garden doesn’t even qualify as a public space; you have to pay (and plenty!) to get in.

And street friendly? You can't even get to it from the street.

It's a private space that the public is admitted to for a fee, and therefore irrelevant to the present discussion.



Jasonik, I'd forgotten about that Boston building; it blipped off the radar. To be fair, it's only partly Gehry. Here the client wanted a building that engaged the street so he could sell records.

[RJW]

RJW, MOMA’s sculpture garden doesn’t even qualify as a public space; you have to pay (and plenty!) to get in.

And street friendly? You can't even get to it from the street.

It's a private space that the public is admitted to for a fee, and therefore irrelevant to the present discussion.

ablarc… My mention of MOMA's sculpture garden is in reference to Fabrizio's using it as an example of a "great public space" (in contrast to Gehry’s work at Bilbao, he thinks) and has nothing to do with being street friendly (the two, I do not believe, need be indivisibly linked for the purposes of this conversation). Also, your narrow definition of a public space while logical (must not be pay for access) is not necessarily shared by all, illustrated by the examples repeatedly posted in this thread by numerous contributors. I simply took his example of a great public space and illustrated a hypothetical conflict of interest germane to his assertion that a client’s desire for a “great public space” is always a client’s top priority and always, in the absence thereof, the failure of the architect to deliver.

[lofter1]

Here's my two cents about the new MoMA:

The upper galleries are terrific, especially the top floors. However...

The spacial layout of the entry way -- from the street level lobby to the 2nd floor galleries -- is incredibly awkward. Once you clear the ticket taker then the expanse of the Garden greets the visitor with a beatiful vista -- but that platform space gives you little sense of where you are and where you might want to go.

The main stairway is around a corner -- and gives you no sense of arrival until you get 2/3 of the way up. It is also too narrow (despite it's fairly significant width) for the numbers of people using it. Once you reach the top of the stairs it's a traffic jam while people try to figure out where the hell they are and where they should be going (and not in the sense that the options expand your mind with possibilities -- it's just spatially unclear where one is).

The elevators are hidden away around another corner -- which makes you feel like you're going up to someone's office. The escalators are lacking any sense of space around them -- and any sense of where they are taking you (it's more like moving up the back way at Macy's).

Granted MoMA was dealing with an existing set of buildings and a lot of limitations. But the the flow of the building does not work -- until you get into the galleries, where the layout is a vast improvement and the top-most galleries are truly glorious.

[RJW]

Granted MoMA was dealing with an existing set of buildings and a lot of limitations. But the the flow of the building does not work -- until you get into the galleries, where the layout is a vast improvement and the top-most galleries are truly glorious.

Agreed though we really are now off topic.

[Fabrizio]

From Gehry to the MOMA...very off topic yes... but you know this stuff is the nitty-gritty of architecture. We can do post, after post, of "I like it" ..."I don´t like it"...."Gee, how many feet do you think it is going to be?" but isn´t nice to really get into the workings of buildings and really examine an architects work.... posting photos... links... examples... taking a stance, building a case? I know it seems too much for some of you and I´ll stop.

Ablarc: geeez....My post about the Moma garden has N O T H I N G to do with entrance fees for gosh sakes.... What are the ELEMENTS in architecture that make great public spaces?

Uh... never mind.

[Alonzo-ny]

Its not a poor critisism to point out that gehry does the same wavy stainless steel or whatever metal crap all the time. There is a big difference between a signature and using the design almost all the time, especially when the original design wasnt that good. I dont care how many people it attracted to bilbao but that isnt the measure of a great building

[RJW]

Its not a poor critisism to point out that gehry does the same wavy stainless steel or whatever metal crap all the time. There is a big difference between a signature and using the design almost all the time, especially when the original design wasnt that good. I dont care how many people it attracted to bilbao but that isnt the measure of a great building

"The measure of a great building..." well, pray do tell, as you do so seem to presume to know in every instance and in every man's eye, now and for all of time and throughout the entire universe, what the measure of a great building is.

[Ninjahedge]

Architectural designs are like shoes.

Some people like, some people hate.

But what is the purpose of a pair that you need to take off in order to get anywhere?

(PS, if the shoe fits....Build it)

[RJW]

Architectural designs are like shoes.

Some people like, some people hate.

But what is the purpose of a pair that you need to take off in order to get anywhere?

(PS, if the shoe fits....Build it)

A conundrum indeed.

[Fabrizio]

RJW: Instead of going after Alonzo´s somewhat clumsy means of expression, try adressing his point.... because it actually is very interesting.

Can an architects signature style become an overly familiar bag of tricks? Predictable? CAN Gehry be accused of this?

[BrooklynRider]

Some of his designs are familiar. A lot of his designs are quite original. Many of his designs are familiar and / or orginal and just ugly. Not every conceptual design should be built. I think he suffers from not having very good clients (i.e. clients who are so reverent that they dare not push back on his surrealist take on design).