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.
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.
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.
:eek::eek::eek:
What a total piece of shit.
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.” 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 (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. 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 or this. 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. Appealing, sound, working with the theme of the buildings around it. Not everything new and interesting needs to be jarring.
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.
“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.)
Some of that molding is quite functional - picture rails are very useful.
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.
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.
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.
True, but my point was that “form follows function” has specific meaning in architecture and results in buildings like the 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.)
As MarkofT says above, there is a more conventional building behind the weird facade. See the Wikipedia article for more info, and an overhead view of the model.
Funny you should mention bad roofs. FLW’s Marin Civic Centerhas been plagued with roof leaks ever since it was built.
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.
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.
Bingo.
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?]
Most of modern architecture is a massive exercise in Emperor’s New Clothes Syndrome.
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.