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.”
Try the Sydney Opera House. Still, that looks positively conservative compared to Gehry’s buildings, going by the examples provided.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
It provokes people, who then have negative thoughts concerning it.
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.
More pics of the model here
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).
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.
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:
[thread=451472]Why Do People Dislike Modern Architecture?[/thread]
Stranger
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?”
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.
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.
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.