Reply With QuoteFound this cool shot...
No, it sucks out loud. Gehry is sooooo overrated and that very prominent debacle is proof #1.
Found this cool shot...
Looks good to me.
While I think Ghery is somewhat overrated, I think that this is his element. Something that isnt too big. He should really stick to doing low-rise/landscape tyep architecture. The piece in Brooklyn (Atlantic Yards) is terrible.Originally Posted by STR
Any chance NYC could ever get something like this??? It is really a beautiful, open, interactive and artistic modern park. Bravo Chicago!
Rated and Overrated
If most folks rate you high and you've won a lot of awards, some folks are bound to think you're overrated. If most folks rate you low, some will rise to defend you (except perhaps if you're Thomas O'Hara).
Highest general ratings belong to Gehry, Calatrava and Foster. These are the commonly-held-to-be-geniuses. Because they're high rated, people take potshots at them. Love them or hate them, we expect much from these characters. Wannabes in this department: Koolhaas, Eisenman and Zaha Hadid. The former is so terrible that some folks mistake his work for genius, the second is just a fast-talking wiseguy even when he’s doing architecture, and the latter is baffling and unprolific enough to be as yet unknowable.
Just below them are Piano, Rogers and Meier. These guys are the best of the journeymen and they sometimes strike out, but they're also a bit less subject to negative criticism because they're less challenging and people have lower expectations for them.
Then come Gwathmey, Tschumi and Libeskind. Enough better-than-average to be sporadically controversial. Overreachers, and notable as much for striking out as for hitting homers. But still good enough to hate.
The next tier contains Polshek, Diller & Scofidio (the first team on this list), and Rafael Vinoly. Nobody hates these folks because they’re not good enough to hate, so they’re easily overlooked. Shall we call them high-mediocre? Though truth is, they sometimes do truly reprehensible work, such as the Lincoln Center or Brooklyn Museum redesigns.
Almost everyone belongs in the next tier, which is notable for interchangeability and a certain…shall we say…anonymity of design. Nobody can remember any names in this group except that of Costas Kondylis, who is king.
And at the bottom are the active despoilers, the old moles who work so patiently and tirelessly to assure New York’s future ugliness. The name Thomas O’Hara stands out here.
Have I missed anyone?
You can add Gene Kaufman to O'Hara's category. You can add David Childs to Kondylis' category (or maybe just above). He's nothing special, but he doesn't produce as many bad designs as Kondylis. For that matter, you may want to categorize SOM (they're prolofic enough). What about Pelli? Cook + Fox? FX/Fox Fowle? KPF? They're also pretty well-known. Then you've got some Europeans to include: Nouvel, Herzog de Meuron, Christian de Portzamparc, as well as some other random ones: Ten Arquitectos, Mayne (Morphosis), Michael Graves, Arquitectonica, Maki, Robert A.M. Stern. I could go on for a while. Whether all these need to be included, I'm not sure. But they're certainly famous enough that even I'm aware of at least one of their major projects, and I've never taken a class on architecture or read a book on it.
Pianoman, that's a great list of further names to stuff into categories. I bet we'd pretty much put them in the same places, you and I. Come to think of it, we'd probably get pretty substantial agreement across this board. And why not? After all, we're dealing with reality.
You want to do the honors?
Should this be a separate thread?
Sure a bunch of well-informed people on this forum. How did you get that way?
It's simple: I read the forum. I first discovered it probably about two and half years ago, and it's amazing how much knowledge I've retained just from reading most of the threads. And it's not just the articles that are posted. Many people here truly do know a lot, and I've absorbed a good amount from them. Architecture is certainly a focal point, but we talk so much about urban design, history, culture, and sociological issues, and it all builds. Sometimes I'll start talking to someone about an issue discussed on this forum, and I'm surprised how long I can go on about it. In any case, the forum's a gem, and it has really gotten me interested in architecture and all the issues that go along with it. I'm thinking of taking some classes on it next semester.
On the subject of a new thread, I'd sure be willing to help out. Can't say I have quite enough free time to put it all together right now, but I think we've got a good starting point right here in these last few posts. It could be like that thread about "Architecture as Art", and we'll throw in a survey. I'm sure it'll get a large response.
Be prepared for the BS you're sure to be fed. Being a forumer, you're equipped to see through it, but that may not be the case with your classmates who will probably accept everything at face value. When you're finished you'll know why the development process is so screwed up: folks with heads full of stuff that ain't so.
^^We could also chalk up Pei Cobb Freed to that list, as well as Perkins Eastman.
Not quite sure how you want to do this. Would this be a thread focused more on architects working in New York, or architects in general? God knows, there are many great firms that keep most of their work local. I can think of a few based in Chicago who rarely venture out of that area, for example.
It's a New York forum.
Pelli should be in that group just below Calatrava Gehry and Foster.
is that an answer
Posting Permissions
Bookmarks