Frank Gehry and architecture in general

[UglyCasanova]

I may not be in norm regarding Frank Gehry, but I think most of his buildings are hideous. The reason I bring this up is from reading an article that someone finally realized that his design sucks and he was "fired" from designing the WTC Performing Arts Center in New York.

I think Gehry's designs are endemic of modern architecture and the problems therein. Modern architects strive to create the next big thing, a standout building that everyone goes "awe that's genius!" but they fail to incorporate it into the surroundings. A building shouldn't be an island in a city, but rather blended in to create a whole greater than the sum of its parts. Many cities like Paris and Vienna have amazing architecture, but really what sets them apart is how they all meld together in more or less a unified design framework. By having a unified sense of style and design the cities look, well, nice.

London is the opposite of those; what is London architecture? To me it is a city that is defined by many buildings that standing alone look if not beautiful at least interesting, but there is no rhyme or reason as to why they are what they are given their location so everything looks bizarre and disjointed. Too many architects trying to have their buildings stand out rather than fit in.

At least they shut down this cubed monstrosity, but I worry that NYC might fall victim to this as well. And I've never been one to care much for the simple is better design. Whether it be the Parisian elegance or New York's Art Deco, a bit of ornamentation and grandiose gives the buildings and the cities they reside character and flair. Plain rectangles of concrete and glass is really quite boring, and out of place squiggly lines, twists, and curves are quite simply that: out of place.

 

[lxskllr]

At least they shut down this cubed monstrosity, but I worry that NYC might fall victim to this as well. And I've never been one to care much for the simple is better design. Whether it be the Parisian elegance or New York's Art Deco, a bit of ornamentation and grandiose gives the buildings and the cities they reside character and flair. Plain rectangles of concrete and glass is really quite boring, and out of place squiggly lines, twists, and curves are quite simply that: out of place.

Not really a big follower of architecture, but I think the 20s and 30s were the zenith of American design.

 

[Humpy]

So you're saying an iceberg shaped building looks out of place in NYC?

 

[Exterous]

Modern architects strive to create the next big thing, a standout building that everyone goes "awe that's genius!" but they fail to incorporate it into the surroundings.

If anything architects have less freedom of design than ever before. So many rules, regulations, owner requirements even political games that its rare to see a true architect's design

During my architectural schooling and initial work there was a huge push to integrate and work with existing surroundings but reality was a rude awakening. Everyone else involved wanted a 'Look at ME' structure or wanted the design to exactly match the existing with no middle ground. I don't think a single one of my initial designs looked anything like what was finally approved for building. Its one of the reasons I left the field

As for London, while I don't like all the designs (the giant dildo Gherkin) I find a lot of interesting and unique buildings there. You say there is no rhyme or reason but London frequently has no plan other than representing a broad need or desire of the times. Just look at the riverside that was heavily developed in the 1980s - a lot of ad-hoc low rise buildings and (short) towers with no real style or substance and certainly no 'grand plan' of development or cohesiveness.

If you want a planned 'old world' styling go to Rome or Paris. If you want an invigorative and inventive city scape go to London (currently). They are attacking new designs with abandon now that the height restriction is gone and I think the collective 'design' is a fresh breath of fresh air in the stuffy old world city areana because they aren't afraid to take risks and are required to play it safe like Paris or Rome with their endless rules and design approvals. I would concede that its possible some might say they are taking too many risks but there are a lot of innovative ideas being tested in London right now and I think that makes it an exciting place to explore

 

[darkswordsman17]

I don't really agree OP. You know that the Eiffel Tower was one of the things you are arguing against, right?

Limiting design just homogenizes everything into a mass of bland crap. A lot of the architecture that's hailed as great now was once considered awful blights for how they didn't fit into their surroundings.

Especially for a city like NYC that's supposed to be such a diverse melting pot, I think you'd want to offer diverse buildings.

 

[rockyct]

I agree that Gehry is stretching a bit now with his designs, but I think London does modern architecture fine. I figure that the iconic ones will remain in 50 years but the mistakes will be torn down then so kind of the best from the era remains.

 

[tesher]

I think beauty is in the eye of the beholder, but there are some kinds of symmetry and asymmetry that can be pleasing. It all depends on who is looking.

 

[phucheneh]

What the hell is going on with that building pictured above? It's like one of those joke 'LOL ARE YOU GOING BLIND?' images...was it designed to be blurry?

And what the shit is that abortion behind it? Looks like it's made entirely of recycled window frames.

edit: Oh, but I do like the design linked to in the OP. The pile-of-boxes look is interesting and seems to suit the subject matter. Although the model looks like it was built by a kindergartner.

 

[phucheneh]

Oh, I see what goes on here.

It's the window treatment. How terrible. The shape of the building is fine with me, but whoever designed those windows needs a bullet in the face.

 

[Imp]

He did one renovation in my city and there's one new project planned. Can't say I'm a big fan of either. They're definitely unique.

 

[Ns1]

the walt disney hall is dope as fuck

 

[UglyCasanova]

I do like the Disney hall, but I still think that architecture needs to take it's surroundings into consideration. Not even that - the form and details, style and character, the essence itself of the buildings and landscape and culture the building resides in should be the driving factor in design. Architects are designing buildings with disregard of the fact they are also designing the community itself, and an out of place building to me creates a disjointed feel to the area around it.

I love old world architecture found across Europe, and as you look from big cities to small villages the class and elegance is defined by one driving force: the harmony and unity found in the architectural style. In these places the sum is greater than the parts. The richness comes not just from the amazing design of one particular building, but the way it fits into the bigger picture it resides in. I think Gehry and the like get so wrapped up in making the next big thing they disregard this; the result is no harmony, no unity, and a feeling of awe at the uniqueness of the structure but nonetheless it being out of place and a blight on the look and feel of the neighborhood around it.

I think they need to experiment, need to be creative and daring, but do so in a thoughtful way that takes into account the culture and style of where the structure is going. My $0.02.