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

[Amber in Treasury]

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

[Amber in Treasury]

Originally Posted by Little Plastic Ninja

the famously hideous Burdine, looking somewhat presentable in this shot.

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

[TruCelt]

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]

Originally Posted by TruCelt

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]

Originally Posted by scarbrow

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]

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]

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]

Originally Posted by Troy McClure SF

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 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]

As a proud Las Vegan, I say:

Damn, that is ugly...

[lissener]

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]

Originally Posted by DiosaBellissima

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]

Originally Posted by Dewey Finn

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]

Originally Posted by lissener

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.

His designs cost more money, look worse, and take more time to complete a building which serves a function less adequately than if it were just a square fucking box. If that's a sign of progress, then I'd hate to see what a sign of regress is.

[jjimm]

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]

Originally Posted by faithfool

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]

Originally Posted by Mr Happy

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]

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]

Originally Posted by Maserschmidt

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]

Originally Posted by Alessan

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]

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]

Originally Posted by Mr Happy

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]

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...se-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]

More pics of the model here

[Alessan]

Originally Posted by Dewey Finn

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]

Originally Posted by Alessan

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]

Originally Posted by stpauler

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.

Originally Posted by friedo

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. Now, I just don't know. Here is a picture of Frank Gehry's house, 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]

Originally Posted by Maserschmidt

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]

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]

Originally Posted by MichaelQReilly

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]

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 by an English architecture firm, but it was snot, not shit.

And yes, architecture students (again English) have been trained to design torture devices, 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]

Originally Posted by Alessan

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]

From the Canadian Encyclopedia:

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]

Originally Posted by Muffin

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, 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; 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]

Originally Posted by Mr Happy

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]

Originally Posted by lissener

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]

Originally Posted by lissener

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.

Post-postmodernism?

[Brainiac4]

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]

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

[straight man]

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
Maggie's Centre Dundee
IAC Headquarters (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...

[lissener]

Originally Posted by Muffin

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

While there's obviously a continuum, they're ultimately very different.

Deconstruction took a confrontational stance toward much of architecture and architectural history, wanting to disjoin and disassemble architecture.[2] While postmodernism returned to embrace— often slyly or ironically—the historical references that modernism had shunned