Grass covered building in Seoul, Korea
I don't care about the grass-covering per se but offer this photo only to show that even a most "cutting-edge avant-garde" building can be part of a good urban streetfront. Style is secondary.
You know about the issue. Right? If not,
first Fifty-nine and a half minutes of brilliance, thirty seconds of hauteur
and then Does Fallows accept Gehry's lame excuse? What would Jane Jacobs think?
•••
Maybe Frank Gehry was rude; maybe Fred Kent was rude. Who knows. In the long run who cares except People magazine. It doesn't really matter. Everyone gets a little tense at times and speaks out in a socially-inappropriate way; maybe that's what happened in Aspen. Let's put personalities aside.
The important issue is that we need vigorous and sophisticated discussion about our cities. This little contretemps at Aspen could be a great springboard.
I was sorry that I witnessed those thirty seconds. They are impossible to forget and entirely change my impression of the man. I was more amazed when part of the audience, maybe by reflex, applauded. When the video of this episode goes up on the Ideas Festival site, judge for yourself. (italics added)
Hope Fallows is correct.
Fifty-nine and a half minutes of brilliance, thirty seconds of hauteur.
"Celebrity architects and good urban design don't necessarily go together, as the architects tend to focus on their building and not the overall neighborhood."
Well said. But of course the whole issue is that there is no reason that "celebrity architects and good urban design" cannot reach an accord. People love the glitz and fantasy of starchitecure. It's show-biz and good for business in establishing a brand or an institutional reputation. It's even got a name: the "Bilbao Effect." So it will be with us so long as people want to preen, get attention and further their own goals i.e. forever. The question is how to mold such desire for attention -- the desire for a unique and stand-apart "precious object" -- into something not socially obnoxious.
Grass covered building in Seoul, Korea
I'm not a restauranteur, but I've worked in plenty of restaurants, and I watch Kitchen Nightmares. Any time I hear about a restaurant with a huge menu that's having financial trouble, I say, well there you go. Having a huge menu means you have to have a huge variety of ingredients sitting around, some of which may only be used in one or two dishes. If no one comes in to order those dishes, the ingredients go bad and have to be thrown out. Why not focus your menu on a couple pages of excellent dishes that you have fresh ingredients for on hand? The food ends up being better, and the money you're throwing in the garbage each week goes way down. Posted by Fangdoc on July 12, 2009 at 6:11 AM 19
In fact, Fangdoc, I have wondered why there aren't restaurants with EXTREMELY simple menus. I am thinking of one I'd like to see named "STEW." It would serve just two main dishes — two types of stew: one with meat and (hold your hat) one vegetarian.
Daniel Nairn on Fred Kent vs. Frank Gehry
What's interesting to me is what makes this different from the British debate. It is actually more about function than about style. It's notable that Kent is not quibbling with the aesthetic properties of Gehry's buildings, nor is he questioning their status as works of art. He is casting doubt on the way these buildings are used by people on a regular basis and how they interact with a surrounding urban environment. It's an empirical question, very American actually. Everyone knows Gehry's buildings, particularly the Guggenheim in Bilboa and the Walk Disney Theater in Los Angeles, have become tourist attractions and sites of pilgrimage for modern architecture buffs. Kent is asking how they are used by people who are there for reasons other than seeing the building itself, what role they play in Jane Jacob's "ballet" of urban life. (italics added)
I used to think that a topic like -- oh, let's see, US-China friction -- was controversial, or climate change, or Google-v-Microsoft, or McNamara-v-Rumsfeld. That was before I innocently stepped into the crossfire concerning the effect of "star-chitects" like Frank Gehry on the urban landscape.
There's a very simple explanation: the work of guys like Gehry (of course all architects, to be fair) impacts enormously and directly in our daily lives. Politics at the local level is almost entirely land-use politics. It is only global journalists like Fallows who seem to ignore the great interest in what can best be called urban design— and usually very crudely expressed — which people at the neighborhood level have in what is built in their neighborhood.
Commenter Daniel Nairn in post immediately below this one believes that the "insistent character" ignored by Gehry was none other than Fred Kent, who if you don't know is one of the most knowledgeable, astute etc etc people working to make cities more comfortable for walkers. He founded and still leads Project for Public Spaces.
It's not clear if he does.
The story so far: Frank Gehry (so famous as to need no descriptor such as "star architect") appears at a conference in Aspen and and takes questions from the audience.
Fallows' take — Fifty-nine and a half minutes of brilliance, thirty seconds of hauteur — (he was there):
The second or third was from a fairly insistent character whose premise was that great "iconic" buildings nonetheless fell short as fully attractive and effective "public places," where people were drawn to congregate and spend time. He said he was challenging Gehry to do even more to make his buildings attractive by this measure too.
Putting aside the de haut en bas "insistent character," Fallows restates the starchitecture question in a fair if unenthusiastic way and he doesn't seem to grasp the importance of the question. But he is rightfully shocked by Gehry's rude answer and it is that rude response which is the subject of his post here, which chides Gehry for his tone (though not for Gehry's lack of response.)
Gehry didn't like the question and said that the indictment didn't apply to his own buildings. He said that the facts would back him up -- and as the questioner repeated the challenge, Gehry said that he found the question "insulting."
Fair enough. The guy did keep pushing. On the other hand, anyone who has ever appeared in public has encountered questions a hundred times as personally challenging as this.
But the questioner asked one more time, and Gehry did something I found simply incredible and unforgettable. "You are a pompous man," he said -- and waved his hand in a dismissive gesture, much as Louis XIV might have used to wave away some offending underling. He was unmistakably shooing or waving the questioner away from the microphone, as an inferior -- again, in a gesture hardly ever seen in post-feudal times.
I was sorry that I witnessed those thirty seconds. They are impossible to forget and entirely change my impression of the man. I was more amazed when part of the audience, maybe by reflex, applauded. When the video of this episode goes up on the Ideas Festival site, judge for yourself.
I think Gehry's behavior is weird long before his overt rudeness. Gehry refuses to answer the question and claims his buildings don't fail in creating public places.
Well Mr. Gehry, climb down off that horse. It's for us, the public judgment over decades, to say whether you produce urban architecture or not. It is not for you to pass judgment on whether your architecture helps create a city or just a big suburb.
No fool Gehry. He can recognize a useful ally i.e. a writer widely respected (and correctly — I think Fallows is one of the most perceptive and balanced socio/political critics we have) , with access to reputable media and best of all with no obvious experience in writing about buildings and the cities they make. So he emails Fallows, whom I gather he doesn't know. Fallows posts the email. Gehry writes:
Dear Mr. Fallows -
Fair enough - your impression. I have a few lame excuses. One is that I'm eighty and I get freaked out with petty annoyances more than I ever did when I was younger. Two, I didn't really want to be there - I got caught in it by friends. And three - I do get questions like that and this guy seemed intent on getting himself a pulpit. I think I gave him an opportunity to be specific about his critique. Turns out that he followed Tommy Pritzker [the moderator of Gehry's session] around the next day and badgered him about the same issues. His arguments, according to Tommy, didn't hold much water. I think what annoyed me most was that he was marketing himself at everyone's expense. I apologize for offending you. Thanks for telling me.
Best Regards,
Frank Gehry
Yes it was good of Gehry to make the gesture of an apology.
But overall his "apology" was a veiled attack on a perspective which he wouldn't name and with which he wouldn't deal.
The perspective, of course, is that "starchitecture" can and most often does have a negative impact on cities. And that as a (or the) leading starchitect, Gehry should be willing to answer the question, the question being, framing it in terms of a battle of the celebraties: What would Jane Jacobs think of Gehry's work? Does Gehry's work meet, on any fairhanded assessment, "the Jane Jacobs test" for a good street and city? I say it fails profoundly.
And one can agree or disagree with my own ultimate conclusion, but I was sorry to see that Gehry was unable/unwilling to address the issue. He dismisses the question with an ad hominem attack and appeals to the authority of "Tommy" (Pritzker — presumably of the family which has done its own share of city-destruction through its usually anti-urban hotels) that the "insistent character's" questions are unimportant. But the question is important and deserve Gehry's response.
Fallows characterizes the apology as "classy." I see nothing classy in it except that it pretends to be an apology which is better than no apology at all.
My own view is that one can thread the needle — it is in fact possible for starchitecture to be good urbanism if it is done with urbanism in mind. No time for the explanation right now but the solution is extremely simple. Why won't Gehry take up the issue? He must be able to see how profoundly un-urban a building Disney Hall is. And he's gotta be able to see the extremely simple solution. Why the silence? Let it rip Mr. Gehry. Come down off your throne.
•••
Sorry about the weird formatting. I am having trouble figuring out the new TypePad.
Has New York Lost Its Great Chance With Frank Gehry?
“Starchitecture” is a glib neologism that reduces hard-won reputations and decadelong undertakings to little dabs of glitz. Gehry can hardly bring himself to utter the word, but the mere mention triggers a tirade revealing deep wells of grandiosity and resentment. “It suggests an egomaniac trying to flaunt his wares at the expense of the public. It’s an opportunistic journalistic trick. There’s so much bad stuff being built that people don’t address, so they fasten on the half of one percent that gets into uncharted territory for humanistic and idealistic reasons. There is ego involved; everyone has to have that, or they don’t do much. But architecture has always been a very idealistic profession. It’s about making the world a better place, and it works over the generations, because people go on vacation and they look for it. When I go to Bilbao, they want to touch me. If I were an egomaniac, I’d just move there.” (italics added)
"...humanistic and idealistic reasons." Giving Gehry the benefit of the doubt, we humans have such power of self-deception.
Prime central London residential property prices have recorded their first quarterly growth since starting their slide from the peak of September 2007, according to a new report. Pent up buyer demand, which built up through 2008 and the early months of this year, has flowed into a market that is increasingly short of quality stock, says the latest quarterly index from Savills Research.
We should thank Prince Charles for his intervention and ask him not to do it again.
On the substance Charles appears to have been correct about the weakness of Lord Rogers' design. Not only the general public and the Chelsea neighbors but the Qatari investors should thank him for helping avoid a mistake.
But I am still troubled by the constitutional issues involved with unaccountable political power in the hands of a Royal family.
At the human level I sympathize with Prince Charles' activism. He has ideas about how the world can be a better place and wants to see those ideas manifest. Such activism by a member of the Royal family, so far as I understand it, comes up against a British constitutional history covered with blood.
What to do? The obvious choices are silence or abdication. The former deprives us, the worldwide public, of an intelligent voice for sustainable and walkable cities. The latter is of course an enormous personal sacrifice. Perhaps there are other possibilities.
Lord Rogers:
Quinlan Terry:
Is there really much to say? If nothing else, Terry's open space will have more value to the residents.
Who is Quinlan Terry? Yes, he is the architect pushed-forward by Prince Charles. See Quinlan & Francis Terry Architects. (He practices with his son Francis.)
My immediate reaction On looking at the firm's web page (and tempered as I looked further) was a mixture of disbelief, humor and I have to admit a little envy. The Terry firm seems to specialize in gorgeous houses for rich people, along with some commercial and public buildings, also for rich people. "Harrumph. Of course a Prince of Wales would choose architects like that. What do they know about the common people" And then I thought well of course Charles would logically suggest such an architect, as the project, Chelsea Barracks, is very much ado about housing for rich people. And of course Prince Charles knows, being one, what rich people like.
(More on the economics of Chelsea Barracks in a succeeding post.)
The envy kicked in when I explored further on the site and saw these absolutely gorgeous houses. houses. Here's one.
You'd have to be an unimaginative barbarian to not like that house. But there is a touch of humor in the site's comments on Ferne Park. (no "e" in "park" btw):
Ferne Park is a modest sized country house constructed in the English Palladian tradition...The front door leads into a large square hall with freestanding Doric columns. The house stands in a central position in a park, its four symmetrical elevations visible from all sides.
A "modest sized country house?" on property large enough so that one can see all 4 elevations from what looks to be at least 100 yards away? Modest? I guess it is if you spend time in palaces.
But there is more than eye candy to the Terrys' classicism. See particularly Quinlan Terry's thoughtful essay "Designing a Sustainable Future" (go to "Essays and Lectures" on left side of Quinlan & Francis Terry Architects.) One big argument for classicism. as Terry see it, is environmental sustainability. Classical buildings (if built using classical methods) will last longer. The simplest way to save resources is to build to last and build in such a way that the structure minimizes energy use on an initial and ongoing basis i.e. full life-cycle analysis. For example:
2. Second, we ought to consider the expense, in environmental terms, in the manufacture of the materials we specify. Here again, stone, brick, lime mortar, slate and timber all get an A rating whereas steel, reinforced concrete, large areas of glass, aluminium, and pvc get a B or a C rating. Stone is already in the ground and simply needs to be cut out and transported to site, whereas the energy consumed in producing modern materials is phenomenal.
Lots of interesting thoughts here though I think our human propensity to apply a very high discount rate to the future — "the value of a dollar this afternoon versus a dollar ten years from now" — makes it difficult for us to justify spending for the long term. It takes disposal income and sophistication to think ahead; that's why (as one modest example) you see street trees (which are basically very inexpensive to install) in rich neighborhoods but not in poor ones.
At any rate, there is far more to classicism in the way the Terry firm sees it than visual style, which reinforces my own disappointment with the way the media is handling this Rogers vs Windsor/Terry debate.
A danger of this clash of titans' — Prince Charles vs. Lord Rogers — is that the colorful personalities and constitutional question will obscure the substantive issues of urban design and planning which presumably lie between them.
So far the media has been predictably derelict in its silence on the substance of the dispute. It has been presented as a dispute of purely visual style: Rogers' modern and Charles/Terry's' classic.
In my mind, for it to be a legitimate dispute of general public interest it must transcend the merely visual or the hackneyed cliché 'of "height, bulks and scale" into compelling matters of overall urban policy, livability, walkability etc etc. Is this dispute a real one? Well I certainly suspect it might be but who knows for sure.
On the one hand we have world-famous architect Rogers who in other contexts has actively urged and argued for the re-urbanization of England: for revitalized High Streets, less wasteful land use practices, walkable and urbane neighborhoods etc etc. His design must be tested against such criteria.
On the other hand we have the barest outline of a plan from architect Quinlan Terry, Prince Charles choice for project designer. The Prince has a long history of urging, supporting and even developing (at Pondsbury) traditional pedestrian-oriented communities. So, too, his design (of course, Terry's really) must also be tested against the same criteria as Rogers', along with impact on neighboring historical structures and overall natural resource use -- the "sustainability" issues.
So how do the two designs compare? Darned if I can tell.
Based on the descriptions and drawings I have been able to find in the media, I find it impossible to say. As I have written, my own prejudice is toward Charles. But I can't show you drawings which show how Terry's design is a true sidewalk-oriented pedestrian-promoting one while Rogers' is not. The data is not available. We need some good site plans and elevations, especially showing the the manner in which the buildings enfront the street and how the walker will encounter them. But such drawings are not easily found (by me, anyway) on the web. If anyone has a suggestion on where to find them, please let me know.
Take one example. Though never discussed with any precision much less sophistication, urban design writ large is at the center of the Chelsea Barracks dispute between Prince Charles andLord Rogers, about which I have been posting in the past few days. But I bet not one in a hundred citizens of the London neighborhood where the project is to be built (and in itself a well-informed group) could describe with any accuracy what one sees/senses as one walks at street level around and through Rogers’ design.
And that's true for any one of these development disputes in any nation at any scale. The project is usually presented and then discussed in terms of the 1000-yard view — what it looks like from a great distance. But in reality, people experience a building from close-up.
So if you are presenting a building to anyone, take a pedestrian level view and “walk around the proposal,” stopping every 20-30 feet to describe what’s there and what one would be seeing.
I promise, you will be quite surprised at what your audience learns and in fact what you, as a project proponent/opponent/analyst, will learn.
Developers ‘run plans past Prince Charles’ to avoid rows later
Boris johnson deputy Kit Malthouse relieved by Chelsea Barracks decision
What a relief! An act of large-scale vandalism has been averted. London should be grateful to the Qataris for their wisdom in turning away from yet another glass and steel disaster. It is my fervent hope that the developers will now work on a proposal that enhances and embraces Chelsea and the Royal Hospital.
This decision should mark a turning point in development in the capital. No more concrete, no more glass and steel. Brick and stone and slate must be the way forward, so that in 100 years time Londoners will still recognise their own city. (emphasis added, on the absurd and adolescent.)
"...another glass and steel disaster...." and "No more concrete, no more glass and steel. Brick and stone and slate must be the way forward..."