Great Architecture In Las Vegas; Stop Laughing And Take A Look [Archive]

DMark

08-02-2009, 02:56 PM

Yes, Las Vegas is hardly known as the bastion of great architecture, but thought I would show you a photo of the new Cleveland Clinic Lou Ruvo Center for Brain Health being built on the corner of Bonneville and Grand Central Parkway. It was designed by Frank Gehry.

No, this is NOT a joke photo, this is the construction that is underway. I think it is a work of art, but others think it is an eyesore. You decide (http://www.flickr.com/photos/26758067@N08/3764303488/).

It is actually a pretty amazing intersection, with the Premium Outlets on one corner, the Clark Count Government Center on another, and the World Market Center on another corner - I list this as a go-to in my Cheap Thrills section of my website, should you want to remember this when you come to Las Vegas to visit.

gardentraveler

08-02-2009, 03:00 PM

I wonder how hard it is to design a building that looks like it's doing the opposite of what it's supposed to.

I'm still deciding what I think of the building.

MichaelQReilly

08-02-2009, 03:05 PM

What an ugly piece of garbage.

faithfool

08-02-2009, 03:06 PM

I absolutely LOVE it! How interesting and thought-provoking. Now I'll have to look up more of his stuff.

stpauler

08-02-2009, 03:23 PM

On the plus side, it would confuse airplane-flying terrorists....

silenus

08-02-2009, 03:27 PM

I agree with the first respondent on the photo page. If you have brain problems, this building will make them worse.

friedo

08-02-2009, 03:58 PM

Somebody needs to step up and put a motherfucking bullet in Frank Gehry's motherfucking head. Why do they keep building this shit?

friedo

08-02-2009, 04:14 PM

I absolutely LOVE it! How interesting and thought-provoking. Now I'll have to look up more of his stuff.

You know what? A building should not be "interesting" and "thought provoking." This is a brain hospital. There's nothing wrong with building an aesthetically pleasing or even beautiful structure, but if I need to consult a fucking neurosurgeon I don't want to be wheeled down a series of twisting corridors modeled by crumpling up big pieces of sheet metal.

A good architect designs buildings which meet the needs of their occupants while looking good. You know why Frank Lloyd Wright was a shitty architect? Because a lot of his buildings, while beautiful from the outside, are gigantic pieces of shit. Take a tour of Falling Water some time. In addition to all the cantilevers that nearly fell over, you'll notice the whole place has too-low ceilings, weirdly angled internal walls, a bathroom the size of porta-potty, and mold caused by having a waterfall in the house. Sure, it's pretty, but would you want to live there? As a home, it utterly fails to perform it's function.

Frank Gehry is even worse. His buildings are all failures, but they don't even pass muster as works of art. They are fugly beyond description. They create huge amounts of unusable, wasted internal volume with all their annoying curves. They stick out like a sore thumb's sore thumb. Several of his buildings heave leaky roofs and ventilation problems, because, guess what, you can't fucking properly drain a roof that was designed by having a fat guy jump up and down on a pile of Legos!

You know what an ice dam is? Ask the lucky folks at MIT, the nation's premier engineering institution, who were stupid enough to build one of these Gehry monstrosities in which to educate the future brilliant minds of the world. Yet despite the utter disaster that is the Stata Center, people still come to this nincompoop to design yet another public space debacle.

Let's save conceptual art for people who can be safely ignored by those of us who want to contribute something to society. If you're going to design public buildings in which normal people are expected to function, you should know how to actually do that instead of being an egomaniacal bastard bent on ruining the art and science of architecture.

Snowboarder Bo

08-02-2009, 04:26 PM

You know what? A building should not be "interesting" and "thought provoking." This is a brain hospital. There's nothing wrong with building an aesthetically pleasing or even beautiful structure, but if I need to consult a fucking neurosurgeon I don't want to be wheeled down a series of twisting corridors modeled by crumpling up big pieces of sheet metal.

A good architect designs buildings which meet the needs of their occupants while looking good. You know why Frank Lloyd Wright was a shitty architect? Because a lot of his buildings, while beautiful from the outside, are gigantic pieces of shit. Take a tour of Falling Water some time. In addition to all the cantilevers that nearly fell over, you'll notice the whole place has too-low ceilings, weirdly angled internal walls, a bathroom the size of porta-potty, and mold caused by having a waterfall in the house. Sure, it's pretty, but would you want to live there? As a home, it utterly fails to perform it's function.

Frank Gehry is even worse. His buildings are all failures, but they don't even pass muster as works of art. They are fugly beyond description. They create huge amounts of unusable, wasted internal volume with all their annoying curves. They stick out like a sore thumb's sore thumb. Several of his buildings heave leaky roofs and ventilation problems, because, guess what, you can't fucking properly drain a roof that was designed by having a fat guy jump up and down on a pile of Legos!

You know what an ice dam is? Ask the lucky folks at MIT, the nation's premier engineering institution, who were stupid enough to build one of these Gehry monstrosities in which to educate the future brilliant minds of the world. Yet despite the utter disaster that is the Stata Center, people still come to this nincompoop to design yet another public space debacle.

Let's save conceptual art for people who can be safely ignored by those of us who want to contribute something to society. If you're going to design public buildings in which normal people are expected to function, you should know how to actually do that instead of being an egomaniacal bastard bent on ruining the art and science of architecture.

Well, I certainly wouldn't go as far as your first post, and though this one echos my sentiments, it's still a bit harsher than I feel.

I think Gehry is a brilliant man to be able to design a structure with that shape that can be feasibly built, but I also think a) it's totally the wrong fucking thing to build for a brain center and b) it's not going to be a problem-free construct once finished and c) it's going to waste a ton of space (and money) that could have been better utilized on, ya know, patients and research.

I like wacky buildings, but I don't like them all and I don't like them just because they're wacky.

MarkofT

08-02-2009, 04:49 PM

The Gehry portion is just a facade, more of a fancy porch then a useful building. There is a conventional structure behind it.

Jenaroph

08-02-2009, 04:55 PM

I absolutely LOVE it! How interesting and thought-provoking. Now I'll have to look up more of his stuff.

Oddly enough, as unique and creative his buildings are supposed to be, after seeing several they all tend to look (http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Medienhafen-Gehry-2005.jpg) pretty (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Wfm_stata_center.jpg) much (http://www.achievement.org/autodoc/photocredit/achievers/geh0-030) the (http://www.achievement.org/autodoc/photocredit/achievers/geh0-028) same. (http://nickpoint.files.wordpress.com/2008/10/gehry-business-education-building-case-western-reserve-cleveland.jpg) This new center doesn't break the mold, it's yet another twisty building with shiny stuff. Maybe they're trying to drum up business by making people's brains hurt.

faithfool

08-02-2009, 04:57 PM

mswas

08-02-2009, 04:59 PM

I think it's hideous.

Sunspace

08-02-2009, 05:12 PM

*blink*

How hot does it get in Vegas?

apollonia

08-02-2009, 05:27 PM

Hopefully they have fantastic air-conditioning. It hit 115 when I was on vacation there last weekend.

sleestak

08-02-2009, 05:47 PM

Well I googled around a bit and couldn't find any linkage to internal pictures of Mr. Gehry's work, so I can't comment on anything but the stuff I've seen of his from the outside. I still think it looks fabulous and I do like buildings that are "interesting" and "thought-provoking," and am perfectly fine with folks that don't. But it would be great if we had a contrasting article on how awful, non-functional and damaging his designs are.

Link (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Stata_Center). Check out the lawsuit section.

Another link (http://www.theglobeandmail.com/news/arts/article7201.ece). Related link (http://www.mediabistro.com/unbeige/architecture/more_information_on_frank_gehrys_leaking_art_gallery_of_ontario_111649.asp).

Gehry is a hack.

Slee

Tamex

08-02-2009, 06:03 PM

The only Gehry building I've been in is the Weisman Art Museum at the University of Minnesota (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Weisman_Art_Museum). It was rather normal inside. The tin-foil stuff is a facade. I used to live in the residence hall behind it, and they didn't even bother with the facade for that side--it was just a very plain red brick building.

I think the design works for an art museum, but that brain center looks a bit disconcerting.

ralph124c

08-02-2009, 07:07 PM

Gehry's buildings do not age well-the MIT Stata center leaks and is already deteriorating-I predict the dump will wind up being torn down within 20 years.
Also, the buildings are far from 'green' -they are energy hogs, and impossible to cool. The roofs will probably be problematic as well-tons of leaks from those long creased seams. All in all, impractical and bizarre-contrast the Stata Center withe the old main MIT buildings (built ca. 1900)-which will be around in AD 2100?

Isamu

08-02-2009, 10:27 PM

It's a symptom of having more money than sense.

DMark

08-02-2009, 10:31 PM

Kind of surprised so many people really hate this.

I have driven by it and maybe you have to see it in person, but it does have a major "wow" factor going on. I think it is really interesting and can't wait until it is finished to go in and see what that front part of the building looks like from the inside.

panache45

08-03-2009, 12:05 AM

Cat Whisperer

08-03-2009, 12:14 AM

Somebody needs to step up and put a motherfucking bullet in Frank Gehry's motherfucking head. Why do they keep building this shit?
Seconded. Architects need to have a governing body made up of regular folks who have to pass all designs - the stupid-ass shit needs to stop. If the only way you can get your designs to look interesting is to make them look melted, you're in the wrong field.

Dewey Finn

08-03-2009, 09:36 AM

Clothahump

08-03-2009, 09:42 AM

Little Plastic Ninja

08-03-2009, 10:20 AM

Not Gehry, but a similar notion: the addition to Royal Ontario Museum. I remember seeing it from the outside and remarking to my friends: "It looks like that gorgeous old building is being raped by a UFO (http://frasconimusic.com/blog/wp-content/pictures/ROM.jpg)." Or that crystalline entity from Star Trek, on further contemplation.

I remember staring at it for a few moments, trying to figure out how you could fit actual walls and floors inside. It does make a bit of sense to construct a modern art space in an unusual way, but in another thirty years it will look as pathetically dated as the hideous dull late 60s brick monstrosities like the Jester Center (http://www.utexas.edu/maps/main/buildings/jes.html) (This picture does not do the building the injustice it deserves. You cannot smell the place) or the famously hideous Burdine, looking somewhat presentable in this shot (http://www.flickr.com/photos/zug55/3362326082/). At least this building is made up of right angles; ugly and boring and unlike the rest of the university as it is, at least it is fairly easy to navigate.

For the sake of reference, most of the rest of the university looks like this (http://www.utexas.edu/maps/main/buildings/ahg.html) or this (http://www.utexas.edu/maps/main/buildings/gar.html). The occasional huge ugly brick things do not match the lovely old buildings at all, and stuff built in the last decade tends to look more like this. (http://www.utexas.edu/maps/main/buildings/nms.html) Appealing, sound, working with the theme of the buildings around it. Not everything new and interesting needs to be jarring.

Hampshire

08-03-2009, 10:30 AM

Ghery seems to not understand the most basic rule of architecture, Form Follows Function.
Like others have said that works fine for an art museum or some wacky theme restaurant but come on, a brain research center?
While Gehry has no care in the world over how functional his buildings are I do have to wonder why the hell somebody would hire him to design this type of building. You want something designed to meet the needs of doctors and patients in the most efficient and functional way you don't hire someone like Gehry.

Dewey Finn

08-03-2009, 11:17 AM

Ghery seems to not understand the most basic rule of architecture, Form Follows Function.
"Form Follows Function" is not the most basic rule of architecture. It is a principle associated with much modern architecture of the twentieth century. But most architecture is not of that type. (If the rule were universally applied, you wouldn't have the decoration of Beaux-Arts architecture (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Beaux-Arts_architecture) or the crown molding in a Victorian house.)

Zsofia

08-03-2009, 11:23 AM

faithfool

08-03-2009, 11:28 AM

Link (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Stata_Center). Check out the lawsuit section.

Another link (http://www.theglobeandmail.com/news/arts/article7201.ece). Related link (http://www.mediabistro.com/unbeige/architecture/more_information_on_frank_gehrys_leaking_art_gallery_of_ontario_111649.asp).

Gehry is a hack.

Slee

Thanks for the information Slee. While I still like the looks of the buildings like this, I must admit my error in adoration if they truly are not optimal internal structures. As they seems to be the case, I owe a mea culpe to friedo. I shouldn't have been so caught up in the design's 'wow' factor.

That said, I bet in the hands of a more competent architect they could make these exact same choices and yet produce a lovely and functional edifice. It's a shame that Gehry opts not to and leaves devestation in his wake.

Little Nemo

08-03-2009, 11:40 AM

I have no use for Gehry's designs. They're impractical and poorly designed as buildings. And they're unattractive and formulaic as works of art.

Chronos

08-03-2009, 11:51 AM

"Form Follows Function" is not the most basic rule of architecture. It is a principle associated with much modern architecture of the twentieth century. But most architecture is not of that type. (If the rule were universally applied, you wouldn't have the decoration of Beaux-Arts architecture or the crown molding in a Victorian house.)Those also follow the rule of Form Follows Function: The function of crown molding etc. is decoration, and the form follows that function.

But the primary function of a brain research center is brain research, and so the primary form of the building should follow that function. That means efficient use of space, easily-navigable hallways, interiors that provide for an aesthetically comfortable working space, etc. If you want to also make it decorative on the outside, that's fine, but only in so far as it does not interfere with the primary functionality.

Dewey Finn

08-03-2009, 11:54 AM

Some of that molding is quite functional - picture rails are very useful.
True, but my point was that "form follows function" has specific meaning in architecture and results in buildings like the Seagram Building (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Seagram_Building) in Manhattan. Don't get me wrong; I like the Seagram Building. But the lack of ornamentation in much modern architecture is boring. Gehry's work is considered "postmodern", which is the movement that responded to the lack of ornamentation of the modernists. (Note that I may be talking out of my ear; I am not at all an architect, but am an interested layman.)

Dewey Finn

08-03-2009, 12:02 PM

Those also follow the rule of Form Follows Function: The function of crown molding etc. is decoration, and the form follows that function.

But the primary function of a brain research center is brain research, and so the primary form of the building should follow that function. That means efficient use of space, easily-navigable hallways, interiors that provide for an aesthetically comfortable working space, etc. If you want to also make it decorative on the outside, that's fine, but only in so far as it does not interfere with the primary functionality.
As MarkofT says above, there is a more conventional building behind the weird facade. See the Wikipedia article (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lou_Ruvo_Center_for_Brain_Health) for more info, and an overhead view of the model.

gotpasswords

08-03-2009, 12:31 PM

You know why Frank Lloyd Wright was a shitty architect? Because a lot of his buildings, while beautiful from the outside, are gigantic pieces of shit...

Frank Gehry is even worse. His buildings are all failures... Several of his buildings heave leaky roofs and ventilation problems, because, guess what, you can't fucking properly drain a roof that was designed by having a fat guy jump up and down on a pile of Legos!

Funny you should mention bad roofs. FLW's Marin Civic Center (http://www.greatbuildings.com/cgi-bin/gbi.cgi/Marin_Civic_Center.html/cid_1837791.html)has been plagued with roof leaks ever since it was built.

smiling bandit

08-03-2009, 01:01 PM

I lvoe discussions of Gehry. It always goes something like this:

That is so COOL!

It doesn't work.

It's cool!

I doesn't work.

It's cool!

I doesn't work.

It's cool!

I doesn't work.

smiling bandit

08-03-2009, 01:03 PM

"Form Follows Function" is not the most basic rule of architecture. It is a principle associated with much modern architecture of the twentieth century. But most architecture is not of that type. (If the rule were universally applied, you wouldn't have the decoration of Beaux-Arts architecture (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Beaux-Arts_architecture) or the crown molding in a Victorian house.)

No. As you say, it has a more specific meaning in modern architecture, but the concept and its applicaiton ARE architecture, and have been since early uhmans first started making lean-to's. You might say this is the only principle in architecture, which is why I''m not surprised, in this decadent and moronic era where sacrasm is considered wit, that its lack is considered greatness.

Shirley Ujest

08-03-2009, 01:12 PM

It's a symptom of having more money than sense.

Bingo.

aruvqan

08-03-2009, 01:56 PM

Those also follow the rule of Form Follows Function: The function of crown molding etc. is decoration, and the form follows that function.

But the primary function of a brain research center is brain research, and so the primary form of the building should follow that function. That means efficient use of space, easily-navigable hallways, interiors that provide for an aesthetically comfortable working space, etc. If you want to also make it decorative on the outside, that's fine, but only in so far as it does not interfere with the primary functionality.

I look at that silly building and really have to wonder how navigable it is ... I mean people going there or at least many of thema re going to be having cognitive issues and having that pile of whack is going to be stressful to find a path through [hansel and gretel's breadcrumbs? Huge ball of twine?]

MichaelQReilly

08-03-2009, 10:22 PM

MichaelQReilly

08-03-2009, 10:23 PM

Except that there are buildings that initially are not liked by the general public but are so later. I'm trying to think of an example, but can't at the moment.

That's not to say that Gehry's work is among these. I'm not a huge fan of his.

The usual example given is the Eifel Tower; and the story has been used to justify every hideous atrocity built over the last 75 years.

Mighty_Girl

08-04-2009, 04:35 AM

You know what? A building should not be "interesting" and "thought provoking."

[...]
If you're going to design public buildings in which normal people are expected to function, you should know how to actually do that instead of being an egomaniacal bastard bent on ruining the art and science of architecture.I snipped your post for brevity, but there wasn't a letter or comma wasted. I agree with every word of it. I have some choice words for bad architects, specially those that disregard the environment for which they design. I could say more, but I already feel my blood pressure rising....

I lvoe discussions of Gehry. It always goes something like this:

That is so COOL!

It doesn't work.

It's cool!

I doesn't work.

It's cool!

I doesn't work.

It's cool!

I doesn't work.One does not contradict the other.

Shagnasty

08-04-2009, 05:01 AM

You know what? A building should not be "interesting" and "thought provoking." This is a brain hospital. There's nothing wrong with building an aesthetically pleasing or even beautiful structure, but if I need to consult a fucking neurosurgeon I don't want to be wheeled down a series of twisting corridors modeled by crumpling up big pieces of sheet metal.

A good architect designs buildings which meet the needs of their occupants while looking good. You know why Frank Lloyd Wright was a shitty architect? Because a lot of his buildings, while beautiful from the outside, are gigantic pieces of shit. Take a tour of Falling Water some time. In addition to all the cantilevers that nearly fell over, you'll notice the whole place has too-low ceilings, weirdly angled internal walls, a bathroom the size of porta-potty, and mold caused by having a waterfall in the house. Sure, it's pretty, but would you want to live there? As a home, it utterly fails to perform it's function.

Frank Gehry is even worse. His buildings are all failures, but they don't even pass muster as works of art. They are fugly beyond description. They create huge amounts of unusable, wasted internal volume with all their annoying curves. They stick out like a sore thumb's sore thumb. Several of his buildings heave leaky roofs and ventilation problems, because, guess what, you can't fucking properly drain a roof that was designed by having a fat guy jump up and down on a pile of Legos!

You know what an ice dam is? Ask the lucky folks at MIT, the nation's premier engineering institution, who were stupid enough to build one of these Gehry monstrosities in which to educate the future brilliant minds of the world. Yet despite the utter disaster that is the Stata Center, people still come to this nincompoop to design yet another public space debacle.

Let's save conceptual art for people who can be safely ignored by those of us who want to contribute something to society. If you're going to design public buildings in which normal people are expected to function, you should know how to actually do that instead of being an egomaniacal bastard bent on ruining the art and science of architecture.

You are my twin on the general view of architecture. I think I am well overdue for one of my regular Frank Lloyd Wright hate posts but I will just use your comments as a proxy for now because that is what I always say anyway.

The Las Vegas building in the OP is hideous. I literally gasped when I opened it and certainly not in a good way. Unless I can give myself a good concussion to get rid of the mental image, the rest of my day is ruined and I certainly can't eat breakfast now.

Scuba_Ben

08-04-2009, 08:57 AM

That building looks like it has severely localized gravity sources.

Gary "Wombat" Robson

08-04-2009, 09:18 AM

As MarkofT says above, there is a more conventional building behind the weird facade. See the Wikipedia article (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lou_Ruvo_Center_for_Brain_Health) for more info, and an overhead view of the model.What a horrible article!

I love the way the first paragraph opens with "The Lou Ruvo Center for Brain Health (LRCBH) opened on July 13, 2009" and the second paragraph opens with "The Center will open late fall in 2009 (which month is not advertised)."

It's also good that the article puts the Gehry question to rest by explaining that he's a "world-renowned architect."

And after looking at that low-res picture included with the article, it appears that the back of the building isn't a whole lot better than the front. It just looks like a bunch of carelessly-stacked children's blocks.

Little Nemo

08-04-2009, 09:51 AM

I've been inside one of Gehry's buildings, and felt very disorientated and claustrophobic. I couldn't wait to get out. But it's not PC to hate his work, so I refer to him as the Emperor's New Clothes of architecture."Not PC"? Has anyone claimed that hating Gehry's work is an example of anti-semitism? Anti-Canadianism?

My guess is that you're misusing the term "PC" as a catch-all phrase for anything you dislike that other people defend. But political correctness has nothing to do with a discussion of Gehry's architecture. At most, his work is defended by a misplaced sense of trendiness.

Scuba_Ben

08-04-2009, 09:54 AM

I love the way the first paragraph opens with "The Lou Ruvo Center for Brain Health (LRCBH) opened on July 13, 2009" and the second paragraph opens with "The Center will open late fall in 2009 (which month is not advertised)."
Fixed, per WP:SOFIXIT

Terrifel

08-05-2009, 01:21 PM

Well, if you are trying to promote yourself as the best brain institute in Las Vegas, people are probably going to laugh anyway, so why not have fun with it.

A quick Googling seems to indicate that, incredibly, no one has yet coined the term "Gehrrible." I offer it as a neologism to describe architecture of a certain quality.

Skara_Brae

08-05-2009, 01:29 PM

I misread the thread title as "Greek Architecture" and my first thought was "That's not Greek at all!" :smack:

Troy McClure SF

08-05-2009, 02:32 PM

*blink*

How hot does it get in Vegas?

Funny you should mention that. His Disney Concert Hall (http://www.flickr.com/photos/troymccluresf/sets/72157594586345487/) in downtown LA has caught a lot of flak for essentially being a giant mirror than reflects (even more) heat and sun down around the neighboring sidewalks and streets. Probably shoulda seen that coming, Frank.

I'm not sure I'd say I hate him, but his work could certainly use a little more variety. Though I do like his Pritzker Pavilion (http://www.flickr.com/photos/lospringer/3791195502/) in Chicago.

scarbrow

08-06-2009, 03:58 PM

Amber in Treasury

08-06-2009, 08:51 PM

Gehry seems as fresh as a Summer's Eve to me.

Amber in Treasury

08-06-2009, 09:07 PM

the famously hideous Burdine, looking somewhat presentable in this shot (http://www.flickr.com/photos/zug55/3362326082/).

Jesus that's fugly. The pattern alone is barftastic.

TruCelt

08-06-2009, 09:38 PM

I'm not a big Gehry fan, but like many modern artists, I can acknowledge the artistry behind his work without necessarily being touched by it.

I do think, however, that the use intended for that building is entirely incompatible with such a potentially frightening exterior. Hopefully it is possible for patients to enter through the parking garage and never see the exterior.

It strikes me as cruel IMHO to force someone seeking help with brain - and usually therefore perception - problems to confront something so unsettling.

Amber in Treasury

08-06-2009, 10:10 PM

It strikes me as cruel IMHO to force someone seeking help with brain - and usually therefore perception - problems to confront something so unsettling.

THIS.

Also, reading some quotes from Gehry himself in the linked articles (thanks for the links Dopers, btw), I'm becoming more and more disgusted. The man really seems to suffer from a severe case of cranio-rectal inversion.

smiling bandit

10-16-2009, 01:17 PM

To the charge that his designs don't work, I have to assert that the Disney center does exactly what it was designed for. when you go for a concert, you can hear every little thing clearly. A soloist can play quietly on stage, and be heard clearly throughout the entire seating area. I've heard classical music on many stages around the country, and the Disney center blows them all away.

Also, I can't find a cite, but I thought all the mirroring kept the building itself cooler. I suppose from McClure's post that it's at the expense of the surrounding area.

I just followed a link here fro another thread,m and I wanted to respond to this.

I seriously doubt that Gehry had any damn thing to do with the ocnert hall itself unless he mimcked somebody else's pattern. Acoustics are not maddening, but it still takes some special skills and physics-knowledge to understand them, and I've never heard of an architect who could do both. It's simply not something they casually deal in.

DiosaBellissima

10-16-2009, 02:59 PM

I was on a date a few weeks ago and we drove by that. I literally stopped midsentence and said, "What the FUCK is that?"

pharris

10-16-2009, 03:17 PM

When an irate, insane gunman got into the Gehry-designed Case Western School of Management in 2003, the police had a very difficult time subduing him because of the crazy weird angles in the building.

And it's ugly.

Dinsdale

10-16-2009, 03:27 PM

I'm not sure I'd say I hate him, but his work could certainly use a little more variety. Though I do like his Pritzker Pavilion (http://www.flickr.com/photos/lospringer/3791195502/) in Chicago.

Yeah, I've never seen or been in one of his "buildings", but the bandshell in Millenium Park seems to work adequately, and looks pretty sharp. I've been there on summer days, tho, when that south-facing aluminum reflected considerable heat . . .

kidneyfailure

10-16-2009, 07:56 PM

As a proud Las Vegan, I say:

Damn, that is ugly...

lissener

10-16-2009, 11:17 PM

Gehry's a genius who's done more to give architecture a kick in the ass than anyone since Mies van der Rohe. So some of his buildings leak. That's not the overall designer's job. You think Gehry works out where every electrical socket goes, or what kind of seal will go around the windows? The lead architect works with other architects whose job it is to flesh out the details. If the architect starts with a design that the detailers can't make work in practice, it's their responsibility to tell him that.

In any case, he's at the vanguard of inventing an almost entirely new vocabulary of space. Kill him for having to work out a few details along the way? What the fuck ever. That's pretty small-minded: you can't move one of the most ancient and entrenched art forms forward until you solve all the background details.

Cat Whisperer

10-16-2009, 11:21 PM

I was on a date a few weeks ago and we drove by that. I literally stopped midsentence and said, "What the FUCK is that?"
We saw it off to the side as we were driving around Vegas last week, and that was almost our reaction too - "Yup, that really is unattractive."

Lobot

10-17-2009, 03:17 AM

Except that there are buildings that initially are not liked by the general public but are so later. I'm trying to think of an example, but can't at the moment.

Try the Sydney Opera House. Still, that looks positively conservative compared to Gehry's buildings, going by the examples provided.

Mosier

10-17-2009, 04:32 AM

jjimm

10-17-2009, 05:09 AM

I think Gehry's Bilbao Guggenheim is pretty amazing.

But that Vegas building is a disaster, primarily for being deeply insensitive to its purpose. What an egotistical ass.

Mr Happy

10-18-2009, 08:23 AM

I absolutely LOVE it! How interesting and thought-provoking. Now I'll have to look up more of his stuff.

I'm calling you out on the wanky comment.

How is this building "thought-provoking"?

Maserschmidt

10-18-2009, 08:51 AM

I'm calling you out on the wanky comment.

How is this building "thought-provoking"?

It certainly seems to have provoked a lot of thoughts here.

Alessan

10-18-2009, 10:19 AM

Have you noticed that none of Ghery's projects are commercial or residential buildings? No-one who hopes to turn a profit ever hires him.

Mr Happy

10-18-2009, 11:09 AM

It certainly seems to have provoked a lot of thoughts here.

No no, the building didn't provoke any thought. Just the fact that someone called it "thought provoking" made me actually ask what they meant.
I really dont expect a response because i don't think that faithfool meant what they said. I think he/she just liked the catch-phrase. But if you can explain the "the provoking" aspects i'd love it.

Dewey Finn

10-18-2009, 11:44 AM

Have you noticed that none of Ghery's projects are commercial or residential buildings? No-one who hopes to turn a profit ever hires him.
You say that like it's a bad thing. He's living the dream of every architect; to be able to design buildings that push the cutting edge and with lavish budgets.

Muffin

10-18-2009, 12:06 PM

That building does an excellent job at matching form with function. It gives people headaches that are so bad that they become patients of the brain centre in the building.

Muffin

10-18-2009, 12:10 PM

No no, the building didn't provoke any thought. Just the fact that someone called it "thought provoking" made me actually ask what they meant.
I really dont expect a response because i don't think that faithfool meant what they said. I think he/she just liked the catch-phrase. But if you can explain the "the provoking" aspects i'd love it.It provokes people, who then have negative thoughts concerning it.

Neverending Elbow

10-18-2009, 12:40 PM

It looks funny and cool. In isolation it's sort of lost - I'd love to see a whole town "melting" like that. But not in dark colours like that; that would just be depressing.

It reminds me of a building in Sopot, Poland.
http://www.allpropertymanagement.com/blog/misc/crooked-house-poland.html

I love that one, but it's brighter and really fits into the surroundings. It's also very workable and amazingly normal inside.

Pashnish Ewing

10-18-2009, 12:54 PM

More pics of the model here (http://www.keepmemoryalive.org/index.php?path=ABOUT_LRBI/PHOTO_ALBUM&section=1)

Alessan

10-18-2009, 01:01 PM

You say that like it's a bad thing. He's living the dream of every architect; to be able to design buildings that push the cutting edge and with lavish budgets.

And all he has to do is sell his line of bullshit to committees of people who know nothing about construction.

I don't know - earlier, more talented architects like Stanford White, Cass Gilbert and Raymond Hood all managed to convince actual developers to build their creations. They did this by managing to produce buildings that broke artistic boundaries and were actually very good buildings. An architect has to be able to do both.

Plus, their buildings were prettier.

Cat Whisperer

10-18-2009, 01:33 PM

And all he has to do is sell his line of bullshit to committees of people who know nothing about construction.

I don't know - earlier, more talented architects like Stanford White, Cass Gilbert and Raymond Hood all managed to convince actual developers to build their creations. They did this by managing to produce buildings that broke artistic boundaries and were actually very good buildings. An architect has to be able to do both.

Plus, their buildings were prettier.
{stands up, starts clapping}
My husband works in the construction industry, with a company that builds this type of building. His hatred for architects runs true and deep, mostly because so few of them get this. They think a "sexy" new building is one that is simply hard to build (and ends up just looking stupid).

Stranger On A Train

10-18-2009, 02:31 PM

On the plus side, it would confuse airplane-flying terrorists....Unfortunately causing them to lose orientation and end up crashing into an attractive and functional building off to the right. So Gehry isn't just protecting his own monstrosities, he's also aiding the terrorists.

Somebody needs to step up and put a motherfucking bullet in Frank Gehry's motherfucking head. Why do they keep building this shit?For the same reason they keep publishing the L.A. Times; because for some reason, people keep reading it despite the fact that it is nothing but a conveyance for advertisement with no factual news content to be found aside from the Sports section.

I, too, used to think that Gehry was the worst architect in living memory, until Caltech decided to complete in the parade of hideous architecture by building the Thom Mayne-designed Cahill Center for Astronomy and Astrophysics (http://www.astro.caltech.edu/observatories/coo/rof/ROF_html_2dba5e42.jpg). Now, I just don't know. Here is a picture of Frank Gehry's house (http://www.GreatBuildings.com/cgi-bin/gbi.cgi/Gehry_House.html/cid_1139260471_DSCN0859.html), by the way. I understand a couple of his neighbors threw their trash over his wall in protest. I imagine he integrated bits of it into his facade.

I'm all for novel architecture and I love sprawling, ambling buildings with interesting lighting and use of open space that look like they were grown in place rather than boxy, wedged-in corporate cookie cutters and cloned tract housing, but Gehry, Mayne, and the like are just hysterical parodies of self-involved artiste-type architects who have no interest in the actual functionality or comfort of the buildings they designed. Mayne was reportedly "disappointed" that Caltech insisted on having a "conventional" interior, i.e. offices, lounges, conference rooms, a lecture hall, et cetera. Presumably he wanted to design the same kind of jarring, eye-hurting, "cracked" interior, complete with sharp, pointy angles and dysfunctionally-shaped rooms that complement the facade. And the rust stains that have to be scrubbed and power-washed off of the Gehry-designed Disney Center certainly complement the eyesore that it poses to the surrounding area. Residents had to threaten to sue before the city agreed to intentionally dull the polished steel exterior; before that, during sunny days it would reflect painful amounts of sunlight into surrounding condos and apartments. If that isn't the definition of disruptive, hideous architecture, I don't know what is.

Previous thread:
Why Do People Dislike Modern Architecture?

Stranger

MichaelQReilly

10-18-2009, 03:05 PM

It certainly seems to have provoked a lot of thoughts here.

I'd hope we'd go for a higher level of thought provoking than "Wow, what an ugly piece of shit, who would think designing something that looks like that is a good idea?"

Chronos

10-18-2009, 05:55 PM

Y'know, that Crooked House thing in Poland actually looks kind of neat. It's the same sort of thing Gehry is doing, except there they made it work. I'm still not sure how practical it is on the inside, or how hard it was to build, but at least they got the "look pretty" part right. Plus, it houses tourist attractions, not brain surgeons, so giving it a whimsical appearance makes sense.

Maserschmidt

10-18-2009, 07:12 PM

I'd hope we'd go for a higher level of thought provoking than "Wow, what an ugly piece of shit, who would think designing something that looks like that is a good idea?"

Well yes, but some of the hatred has been pretty entertaining, even if not particularly complex. In particular I enjoyed the guy wanting to assassinate the architect...there's a band name in there somewhere.

Muffin

10-18-2009, 07:42 PM

I don't think that any of Gehry's buildings are a piece of shit. In fact, I am not aware of any post-modern architect's building as being a piece of shit.

Admittedly, there was a work that was certainly a blob of infected snot (http://www.treehugger.com/files/2007/03/future_systems.php) by an English architecture firm, but it was snot, not shit.

And yes, architecture students (again English) have been trained to design torture devices (http://www.architectsjournal.co.uk/kent-students-asked-to-design-torture-device/572006.article), but that is design that makes people shit, rather than design that is shit.

Note that none of these are actually shit. In fact, post-modern architecture has done everything to distance itself from the earthy waddle and dung roots of architecture.

Frankly, Gehry would do well if he designed a piece of shit, or at least he wouldn't do any worse than he has with the designs he has been emitting.

Hakuna Matata

10-18-2009, 10:14 PM

Have you noticed that none of Ghery's projects are commercial or residential buildings? No-one who hopes to turn a profit ever hires him.

Actually he has a reputation for keeping his projects on budget for the most part. Some have not been on budget, but in general his projects tend to be on budget, moreso the most Architects in general. He also established his initial career on commerical and residential projects. I am not sure what you mean by turning a profit--are residential projects supposed to turn a profit?

I can understand not liking his work, but you can't deny he is influential in the field of Architecture. Personally as an Architect with 25+ years of experience I like his work and find his work interesting. Does it all work--no, but he pushes the boundaries. If I had my druthers and had the same type of clients I would love to do work like he does. I am proud of my built work, but if I am honest with myself it pales in comparison to the artistic merit of his work.

His work, although most people think it is a jumbled mass of thrown together curves, is actually very detailed and thought out. His firm also is one of the leaders in 3D technology relative to the CADD industry. He has a separate firm that deals just with the digital aspects of his work which is unique among architectural firms. http://www.gehrytechnologies.com/

Muffin

10-18-2009, 11:55 PM

From the Canadian Encyclopedia: (http://www.thecanadianencyclopedia.com/index.cfm?PgNm=TCE&Params=A1ARTA0001258)The postwar demand for consumer goods, the vast influx of immigrants, and the need to convert a wartime industrial machine to civilian needs resulted in a sharp increase in Canadian imports of US consumer goods and industrial machinery. Canada's postwar exports, however, fell sharply. By 1947 Canada was importing twice as much as it was exporting to the US. Because Britain and Europe were devastated by the war and short of foreign exchange, Canada could not, as it had in the past, pay for its US trade deficit from a trade surplus with the rest of the world.

Thus in 1947, we exported Frank Gerhy to the USA. Problem solved for Canada. Problem inherited by the USA. Sorry, y'all.

lissener

10-19-2009, 12:39 AM

I don't think that any of Gehry's buildings are a piece of shit. In fact, I am not aware of any post-modern architect's building as being a piece of shit.
I don't think you can call Gehry's later work postmodern. His Venice Beach House (http://www-scf.usc.edu/~zechar/images/venice/gehry.jpg), yes, but that was built in 1986, at the height of the postmodern movement, and as you can see is quite different from the style he's developed since then.

One of the things I like about his more recent work is that it's hard to categorize, but I'm fairly certain it's not considered postmodern. Postmodern architecture is distinguished by its "jokey" nature, which is usually in the form of references to specific, older styles of architecture. That's a simplistic description, but it's a useful one as kind of a shortcut to "getting" postmodern architecture. Take a look at the examples at wikipedia (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Postmodern_architecture); you'll notice a certain cartoonish quality most of these buildings have in common. Very 80s. I think an argument could be made for describing "Fred and Ginger" as postmodern, but even then he was beginning to look outside of architectural history for his reference points.

Postmodernism was a very specific reaction to Modernism (hence the name, obviously). Gehry's style is just as much a reaction to postmodernism, and he has succeeded in moving beyond it, in my opinion. His style has just as much to do with deconstructionism, although it's transcended that as well.

Boyo Jim

10-19-2009, 12:43 AM

I'm calling you out on the wanky comment.

How is this building "thought-provoking"?

My thoughts ran counter to many of the other posters here. They think it looks like it's melting. My impression is that it's deflating.

Hakuna Matata

10-19-2009, 01:07 AM

Postmodernism was a very specific reaction to Modernism (hence the name, obviously). Gehry's style is just as much a reaction to postmodernism, and he has succeeded in moving beyond it, in my opinion. His style has just as much to do with deconstructionism, although it's transcended that as well.

I would agree with this statement on both issues---most of Gehry's work is not Postmodern, and I would also call most of his latest work De-Con as well, and much of it has indeed transcended it.

Robot Arm

10-19-2009, 01:17 AM

Brainiac4

10-19-2009, 07:34 AM

On-topic: that is one weird-ass building.

Slightly off: I just wanted to put in a plug for DMark's Vegas site - it's a great resource. I used it to prepare for a trip to Vegas a year or so ago, and it was invaluable.

Muffin

10-19-2009, 09:14 AM

Deconstructionism? Just another branch in the post-modernism tree.

straight man

10-19-2009, 02:54 PM

Gehry, oh, Gehry... I honestly think he phones in about 75% of his work. So much of what he does is repetitive and impractical. But then again, he can do some really impressive stuff when he bothers to sit down and think out what a building is actually for. All three of the examples below are, I hope you can all agree, very attractive (but not all that wild) buildings.

Gehry Tower (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gehry_Tower)
Maggie's Centre Dundee (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Maggie%27s_centres#Maggie.27s_Dundee)
IAC (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/IAC/InterActiveCorp_Headquarters) Headquarters (http://www.iacbuilding.com/interactive/content.html) (second link has Flash)

That last one is probably my favourite piece of architecture, period. So very stylish, and the design actually makes use of conventional construction techniques. I'm curious how these examples have held up, though —there's nothing sufficiently malformed about to make deterioration inevitable, but then again, with Gehry, you never know...