the space between us

August 3, 2004 11:40 AM

Starchitects."There's a point where an architect crosses the line to the nether side of celebrity. The projects become less about exploring the unknowns inherent in a new commission and more about giving clients the sort of signature piece they're paying for."
posted by plexi (30 comments total)

I haven't seen the new Gehry building being talked about in the article, anyone got a link to a shot of it?
posted by mathowie at 12:00 PM on August 3, 2004

The museum where I work hired Michael Graves to design our new wing. I really don't like the design (it's essentially a big box with some fake columns attached, glommed onto the side of an already-mismatched building), but I can't realy convince anyone around the office. The pretty-much-universal reply is "but it's Michael Graves!"
posted by COBRA! at 12:05 PM on August 3, 2004

Nice article, plexi. The "we want that style/design" mentality exists in most areas of design/creativity where clients are involved, not just architecture. It is a sad fact that it takes brave (or clueless) clients to accomplish something noteworthy these days.

Other starchitects (might) include: Richard Rogers, Toyo Ito, Rem Koolhaas (to some extent), Tadao Ando, Robert AM Stern, Renzo Piano...
posted by shoepal at 12:09 PM on August 3, 2004

Heh.
posted by davidmsc at 12:22 PM on August 3, 2004

Actually, this is much more relevant. But still - heh.
posted by davidmsc at 12:24 PM on August 3, 2004

I was checking out photos here, Matt.

Looks like crap to me.
posted by mr_crash_davis at 12:39 PM on August 3, 2004

anyone got a link to a shot of it?

I have some here. See pictures 13-27. (sorry about the kludgy Adobe Photoshop Gallery Template, it's just a quick and dirty way to get the pics up while I redesign the site.)

I actually like it.
posted by dnash at 12:40 PM on August 3, 2004

See also Richard Meier.
posted by LionIndex at 12:42 PM on August 3, 2004

Slate has done an excellent series of articles on starchitecture.

Give That Man Another Guggenheim!

Fetish Items of the Rich and Famous

Do Unbuilt Architects Get Paid?

Deconstructing Hadid

Going Dutch

It's an interesting issue. Here's a nice little ditty about the designer of Berlin's Holocaust Memorial, and how you don't want a starchitect to build your house.
posted by putzface_dickman at 12:46 PM on August 3, 2004

Meier is, if anything, worse than Gehry. Gehry has been (up to now) rather predictably unpredictable, but it appears that since Bilbao there is some expectation that he stick with his 'metallic swirls' technique. Still better than the nautical theme Meier is famous for.

On preview, I have never been particularly fond of Graves. Living in Portland, OR, I was constantly presented wth his 'Portland Building,' which is something of a postmodern monstrosity, if you ask me. At least Gehry makes interesting looking buildings.
posted by amauck at 12:52 PM on August 3, 2004

davidmsc, be careful or you'll get hama7 involved.
posted by amauck at 12:54 PM on August 3, 2004

MY office has helped finance projects by at least 6 starchitects.
I live in a city with 2 Peter Eisemann buildings. What you get with a starchitect is (1) higher costs, but a higher profile for fundraising, (2) extra national press coverage for the daring design, (3) additional visitor who want to see the new building , at a slightly higher rate than if the building was designed by a mortal.

You also can have a major funder who has insisted on this architect, who think's they are a genius and blocks any changes you want to make to the visionary design, even if they are unsuitable to your programming needs.

You can end up with high maintenance costs - Eisemann once said that maintenance issues were below him to consider.

In the case of Hadid and the CAC, you end up with a great building well suited for its use. This happens sometimes. But, if it doesn't happen early in the design phase, its impossible to fix later. There are issues with getting changes from a starchitect, some personality problems, some are emperor's new clothes problems like COBRA! points out. Keep in mind, the organization that ultimately has to live with the finished project is locked into its facility problems for a good 25 years because of the bond funding used to get these built.
posted by putzface_dickman at 1:07 PM on August 3, 2004

Those who hire Frank Gehry now don't want him to explore new directions. They are collecting a Gehry the same way they might acquire a Matisse or a Picasso.

I can't believe this hasn't come up until now, but is this brand consciousness (fetishism) run amok? Seriously, once you have a designer house, what's next?
posted by psmealey at 2:18 PM on August 3, 2004

Most of the "starchitects" (oh how I loathe any cutesy "x-chitect" neologism) mentioned in this thread, and Gehry and Liebeskind in particular, have managed to create new "languages" (or, perhaps more precisely, "idioms"), something which is notoriously difficult to achieve in any artistic field.
So to accuse them of continuing to explore their particular vision of architecture is naive at best, mean spirited and petty at worst.
No true artist of any kind seeks to surprise or entertain critics, but rather to move in whatever direction his or her talent impells.
posted by signal at 2:40 PM on August 3, 2004

putzface_dickman: The Holocaust Museum was designed by Liebeskind, not Eisenmann.
posted by signal at 2:58 PM on August 3, 2004

Note, this post got really big, so I posted it to my website

I really think that the problem with Gehry, is that he is trapped in his fame. Once he completed the Guggenheim Bilbao, and everyone went nuts over it, that is all he has been allowed to do. Client’s love that stuff: it is flashy without being terribly earth shattering, his designs make for fairly pretty pictures, and for awhile institutions who had "graduated" to the next level just had to have a Gehry building. So, there are literally hundreds of Bilbao’s around the world, with different programs (internal space requirements), different locations, different users, all built at a different point in time.

Read more »
posted by plemeljr at 3:14 PM on August 3, 2004

signal: The point is, Gehry used to create a new language with practically every project he did, or at least he refined the language he was currently using. Then he tried something different. Since Bilbao, he hasn't been able to do that because of client demands. The clients are the ones hampering his creativity, not us jaded hipsters. I don't know the degree to which that's happened with Meier and Graves, although I never liked Graves that much.
posted by LionIndex at 3:16 PM on August 3, 2004

Wow, I visited Chicago in the fall and saw that thing in the middle of construction. I thought it was a new, poorly placed airline terminal. But I guess it's supposed to be there. It's awesome when architecture works so well in its surroundings. That was sarcasm.
posted by crazy finger at 3:27 PM on August 3, 2004

Hadid's CAC is a great building that is totally unsuited for its use. Muschamp may love it, but the curator doesn't.

dnash love your pic #27

Gehry doesn't give a damn about what museums need and neither do most of the architects bidding on them (the exception is Rem Koolhaas, he has some far-out ideas, but one of these days he is going to figure it out). Every musuem director wants their bilbao and no one will ever get one without the methodical planning that was also included in the Bilbao urban situation.
posted by jmgorman at 3:38 PM on August 3, 2004

the NYT just had an article on Gehry's upcoming Museum of Tolerance in Jerusalem. pic included--ugh. Some of his early residential work is wonderful tho--corrugated steel, and low-cost stuff--and very real in a way his swirling stuff isn't.

Calatrava's things are all swoopy and winglike--from bridges to buildings (I love them, but think it may be too soon to say he's stuck.).

You really do have to wonder about clients and what would really be better for the intended use, or whether they wouldn't get a new wing/building at all unless they went to a famous-name architect.
posted by amberglow at 3:51 PM on August 3, 2004

LionIndex: I see your point, but I think we should give Frank et al the benefit of the doubt as regards their actually developinig an individual style and exploring it fully.

crazy finger: I thought it was a new, poorly placed airline terminal.

Architecture is constantly being criticized for not conforming with people's expectations of what it should look like, or reminding them of something else. This is inevitable in such a highly visible and political activity, I guess, but it still strikes me as odd that you so often hear comments like "it looks like a shoe", "it looks like a camera", "it looks like whale". Ok, it looks like X, so freaking what?
posted by signal at 3:55 PM on August 3, 2004

signal: Frank said in the article he wanted to do something different but was expected to turn out another titanium lotus.
posted by LionIndex at 4:03 PM on August 3, 2004

Crazy Finger, if you were in Chicago last fall then I have to say you can't really know much about the Gehry pavillion's surroundings, as the park wasn't complete and open until last month.

It should be noted that because the location is lakefront parkland, there is some sort of Chicago ordinance restricting the construction of buildings - so basically they asked Gehry to make something they could call a sculpture to get around the ordinance.

In my opinion, of all the projects on which Gehry has used the swirling metal sides, I think something like this - a band shell - is probably a more appropriate use of such sculptural forms. It goes well with the classical music that will predominantly be played there. And the trellis stretching over the lawn gives the whole thing the feel of a domed ballroom. I read one critic (in the Tribune, I think) compare it favorably to Chicago's other outdoor classical music location, Ravinia, where there also is a pavillion and a lawn but the two are completely separate. With Gehry's, those on the lawn and those in the paid seats all feel like they're sharing the same space and experience.

Oh, and the Gehry pavillion looks really cool at night, lit up with color washes.

I must say though, the real star of Millennium Park is Anish Kapoor's "Cloud Gate" sculpture. A huge bean-shaped mirror. I think it's something about how it pulls reflections from the city, the sky, and the viewer all together into the one shape that makes me like it so much. And the underside with its deeply curved dome that seems to cause infinite reflections. Very cool.
posted by dnash at 4:07 PM on August 3, 2004

article on Gehry's upcoming Museum of Tolerance

Wait? There's really going to be a Museum of Tolerance? Don't those people watch South Park?

The boy's parents are having their book of the month club meeting where they are discussing a Nancy Drew mystery, when the boys come home and try to tell them about Mr. Garrison's behavior in class that day. The parents decide their children need to go to the Museum of Tolerance, to get educated. The tour guide and the parents accompany the children through all of their exhibits and prove that they are tolerant of anything, except the guy who is smoking...

posted by dnash at 4:14 PM on August 3, 2004

dnash, love those photos. Thanks for sharing. You might enjoy this post from yesterday. (self-mefi-post-link, but chicago relevant)

Re: Kapoor
His installation at the Tate Modern (lobby) in 02/03 was amazing. I can't wait to see Cloud Gate in person.

jmgorman, what about Koolhaas' Seattle library? (or the IIT building?)

amberglow, I'm a total sucker for Calatrava's stuff.
posted by shoepal at 4:28 PM on August 3, 2004

dnash, i thought of that as i was reading the article--there's lots and lots of skepticism about the whole project--and rightly so.
posted by amberglow at 4:34 PM on August 3, 2004

Shoepal - thanks, glad you liked the pictures.

FYI, the Cloud Gate will be covered up again in September for some finishing work, I think for about two months. They need to finish soldering and polishing the welds joining the steel plates so that I gather it will ultimately appear seamless. They went ahead and opened it unfinished when the rest of the park opened because it was close enough to done, and would have looked bad to still be under cover during the big opening. (The park as a whole is about 4 years late and a few million dollars overbudget.)
posted by dnash at 4:36 PM on August 3, 2004

Oh, and the Gehry pavillion looks really cool at night, lit up with color washes.

I agree that the night view is one of the the coolest things about the Gehry......it is also neat to get off the EL at Washington and Wells, and look east to see it at the end of the canyons of office buildings. The bean is great too....more cool than the Crown fountain, which I give about three months before it breaks.
posted by Durwood at 6:23 PM on August 3, 2004

I haven't been to the seatle library yet, but a number of librarians I know *love* it. The IIT building is really cool, a bit dated with the icons everywhere, but very cool none-the-less. It some how even works with Mies all around.
posted by jmgorman at 7:21 PM on August 3, 2004

On Eisemann and the Holocaust Memorial. It is distinct from the museum.
posted by putzface_dickman at 3:35 AM on August 4, 2004