No really, it’s brought a lot of interest (and pride) to downtown L.A., and it’s almost always sold out.
The LA Philharmoniceven uses an outline of the building on its logo.
Ed
And don’t forget that flats are still very much around.
Yes, but I think you, and the OP and many people in this thread are mixing modern building - which is doing pretty well, thank you very much, and modernist building - which has left plenty of interesting and accepted new ideas, but has pretty much died out except as a form of conceptual art - if it has ever been more than that.
I suppose it depends on what you mean by “modernism”. Older modernism, especially up to about the 50’s, had some style and class. Not every building was a winner, but for the most part, they tried to have a distinctive but fitting and enjoyable look and were functional. But newer modern and post-modern architecture started going awry, I say. It became about having a unique look, and the fact is that people don’t want or need most shapes in their housing.
Yeah, older houses had smaller rooms… but that was not an aesthetic choice. It was because small rooms were easier to heat, and homes were usually much smaller, and needed more functional space.
Absolutely. To describe it as ‘non-functional’ is truly absurd. In a similar vein, I nominate The Lowry. Completely at home in its post-industrial setting and fully acknowledging it, but also beautiful. It even makes a nod to a seafaring connection, with very gently undulating floors which, as you move from one part of the building to another, give the impression of being on water rather than land. Also, above all, it works really well in its various roles as opera house, theatre and art gallery, and is popular.
Oh, I’m sure it’s brilliantly functional. But, from a purely external POV, esthetically indefensible.
By L.A. standards, though . . .
“You should see downtown L.A.! Some of the buildings there are more than 20 years old!”
– Steve Martin, L.A. Story
When I think of modern architecture I get images of those ugly concrete skyscrapers in the suburbs we have in Europe. Very efficient - but so boring it robs the soul.
http://ing.dk/modules/xphoto/cache/77/22577_620_400.jpg
I can’t stand Danish design – sucks the life out of you.
De gustibus non est disputandum.
I love it. It’s an amazing and beautiful building. Too bad you cannot appreciate it, apparently.
I can make similar things with crumpled aluminum. I think they’re pretty, too, but you don’t see me making billion-ton versions for kicks.
If nothing else, at least Gehry can bring together such disparate personalities as smiling bandit and myself in agreement.
It’s a lovely building to be in and around.
I know it might be hard for you to comprehend, but some of us actually LIKE this sort of thing.
Here’s another modernist L.A. monstrosity.
And this.:rolleyes:
Can you point out the “exactly” part?
Also, I’m sure you’re aware that the Seattle Library is beloved by its staff and its users. (stipulated: you can find isolated dissent) Same for Disney Hall, Diamond Ranch HS, Museum of Folk Art, etc, etc
Yes it is defensible as such, with the answer ‘I like it’.
OK, go ahead, design something which is also a functioning building, which has meaningful use of space inside appropriate to its purpose, which looks like your crumpled aluminium.
In defense of Gehry, he designs as many attractive and functional buildings as he does ugly ones. It’s just that the ugly ones are more memorable… they stick out like a sore thumb, instead of blending into their surroundings.
Now, in terms of Good Gehry… The Art Gallery of Ontario recently did a major renovation featuring an addition designed by Gehry (some photos here, here and here)
IMO, it’s gorgeous. The main atrium on the second floor feels like the belly of a ship, with huge solid wood beams curving around you, and it’s actually enjoyable to walk up those crazy looping staircases and the winding ramp just inside the front doors.
However, this non-Gehry this piece of crap that’s right next door? Not so gorgeous, though I have to admit I’m coming to appreciate its cheeky awfulness.
I also like the Disney Concert Hall inside and out.
And gehry’s guggenheim in bilbao spain is also stunning.
This library?! sigh No accounting . . .
Now, this is a library! Or this! I’ve been in both. Dignified, functional, commodious, and they really relate to the built surroundings! That’s one of the worst things about starchitecture, they design it as if it might be plunked down anywhere and it doesn’t matter where. Good example here. Or here.
Hijack: I’ve sometimes wondered by Ayn Rand wrote an essentially political novel, The Fountainhead, about an architect. But, when you think about it, if she was going to make the alienated-genius hero an artist (rather than, say, an industrialist or inventor, as in Atlas Shrugged), that was the only choice that would serve. Architects make things everybody has to look at, and live or work in; and what they make has social effects and implications. As (I think) Winston Churchill put it, “We shape our buildings, and our buildings shape us.”
But – which surely cannot have been Rand’s conscious intention – Roarke exemplifies all the worst aspects of starchitects. Yes, he has the integrity of his artistic vision, free from social pressures, free from antiquated esthetic conventions – but he thinks of nothing else. You get the feeling he would just exactly as satisfied if one of his designs were erected in the Gobi Desert, with nobody to use it or look at it, as if it were built in Manhattan. And the physical descriptions of his buildings evoke Nazi architecture more than anything else – strange choice for a proto-Libertarian author!
Yeah, I really like something that looks like a bilboard that’s failing in a hurricane.
Is it really against the law to put some architects in front of a firing squad?
Not if you call it performance art! 
I’m going to guess you stopped looking after the first photo I linked, because that particular bit of the building is only visible if you’re directly facing the northeast corner.
Perhaps you’d like to take a look at the dozens of other photos that show a functional, airy, bright gallery space? Or the grand expanses of warm natural woods and gentle curves? Or what that “billboard” looks like when you’re standing on the other side of it?
The architects who belong in front of firing squads are the ones who churn out thousands of bland, generic, Stepford McHouses for new subdivisions (or worse yet, those who design those same homes to replace older, smaller bungalows in established neighbourhoods)… because Og forbid a house actually have some character.