Starchitect Discussion Thread

[louisville327 0]

In the vein of the ever-interesting Brutalism Discussion Thread , why not discuss the more contemporary architectural trend that seems to focus more on the people doing the design work than the designs themselves?

I'm talking, of course, about the Starchitects.


This would include (but is not limited to) people such as Rem Koolhaas (and Office For Metropolitan Architecture) , Thom Mayne (and Morphosis), Daniel Libeskind, Frank Gehry, Toyo Ito, Steven Holl, Ken Yeang and of course the most popular of all starchitects, Frank Lloyd Wright.

Most living starchitects produce buildings in the deconstructivist or bio-morphic styles using computer-aided graphic design techniques. Think wavy lines, curves, glass and a general focus on architecture as abstract sculpture.

Some examples:

Rem Koolhaas and OMA (Seattle Public Library):


Thom Mayne and Morphosis (Hypo Alpa-Adrea Center):


Daniel Libeskind (Berlin Jewish Museum):


Frank Gehry (Guggenheim Museum, Bilbao):


Steven Holl (Simmons Hall, MIT):


Most of these buildings are said to represent something other than what they are (buildings), and to hold some kind of deep, metaphorical or cultural meaning. Usually only the designer can easily discern this meaning by looking at the building.

Personally, I find the trend of starchitecture to be disturbing for two important reasons:

1) The designer should never be more important than the building, because after the structure is completed, real people have to use the building, not the designer;

2) Most of these designs are atrocious displays of personal arrogance and freely reject the traditions and patterns of the urban environments in which they are built.


Granted, this is merely my opinion. Please post other examples of starchitecture as well as your thoughts on the trend.

Thanks.

[slightlyslack 20]

I like the idea of meaning being inscribed in the form of the building, and not just its contents, but you're right--it's usually only understandable by the architect.

I friggin' love the  Walt Disney Concert Hall  in downtown Los Angeles, but Gehry has done a lot of stinkers--the one that really comes to mind is this  lecture hall/office building at UC Irvine.  The lecture hall is ridiculous (staircases with stucco steps?!) and the offices are known to be singularly unpleasant places in which to work.  Gehry said, I thought like an engineer when I built this one--lots of boxes and cubes, which is ridiculous; engineers think in terms of functionality, and it's a decidedly un-functional building.

 

The very worst example of starchitecture is Thom Mayne's Caltrans district headquarters , also in downtown LA.  (It is frequently referred to as the Death Star.)  Mayne obviously never thought for a minute about the people working inside of it: within minutes of it opening for business, the employees on one side of the building were putting newspaper over the windows because the glare was so bad.  It also was clearly not designed with pedestrians in mind, because it is a blank wall on three sides except for the plaza in the front.  Evidently, it was supposed to be integrated with a park next door, but that may not be built, so for now it's a white elephant that neither respects its context nor is especially beneficial to the people using it.

[Kwakelaar 92]

I don't think it matters much if you can see or understand the deeper meaning of these or any buildings, more important is if you can see the beauty of them. Architecture I think should be experienced and not judged from foto's or drawings.

Architecture has always contained more meaning than just being a building for living, working or whatever function. It is not something new that they display somepart of our culture that is not instantly understood by people outside the profession.
As an architect you need to have an idea on how to design and why you design like that. There needs to be somekind of logic in the building. The buildingstyles of the past also had a set of rules or logic that most designers would apply when designing. As society change these ideas of design are not valid anymore and I think that most architects are trying to find a new set of rules to apply for their buildings. One thing that has changed is that there seems to be no general idea that most architects can agree on, we are all more or less inventing our own personal logic that only applies to our own designs. Individualism seems to be the only way at the moment.

I do agree that architecture of today very often do not take into consideration tradition or surroundings, but I don't think this is something you can only see with the stararchitects, architects all over are making designs of this kind.
Some arrogance is needed to make something new but that should ofcourse not occur in a maner that the end-users can not work or live in the building.

I think the stararchitects are important in the way that they change the ideas of architecture and what is possible. Without their names and reputation most experiments would only exist on the drawingboards.

[louisville327 0]

Date: 10/9/2005 9:48:21 PM
Author: slightlyslack
but Gehry has done a lot of stinkers...

quote>

Speaking of Gehry stinkers, here's another good example:


The Nationale-Nederlanden Building in Prague is just another example of Gehry's crap style. Most of his work is little more than ultra-technological kitsch---he builds cartoons rather than buildings.

The building in the picture above is a perfect example. There is no proportion or sense of symmetry, no relationship to the historic and graceful buildings around it, no appreciation for the street. The support beams for the glass whatever-the-hell-it-is in the center pour onto the sidewalk and become giant obstacles for anyone unfortunate to be walking there. The right side looks like a chopped carrot covered with protruding windows---another Gehry trademark.

The building looks like the construction crew left mid-demolition, or as if King Kong was walking by and tripped into it. The entire structure appears to be on the verge of collapse.

All in all, it just looks sloppy.

[tungston 19]

Louisville327:

 

Trying not to be mean spirited, I think it ridiculous to include the works of Frank Lloyd Wright, in with the architecture you picture.  Not even close.

[louisville327 0]

Date: 10/10/2005 6:42:53 AM
Author: tungston

Louisville327:

Trying not to be mean spirited, I think it ridiculous to include the works of Frank Lloyd Wright, in with the architecture you picture. Not even close.

quote>

I used FLW only as a reference---he is the most famous American architect ever. He is the quintessential starchitect, even if the majority of his work is superior to others that came after him. I cited him not because his style is the same, but because his notoriety began the whole trend of what we now regard as celebrity architecture.

[tungston 19]

Date: 10/10/2005 7:22:05 AM Author: louisville327

Date: 10/10/2005 6:42:53 AM Author: tungston

Louisville327:

Trying not to be mean spirited, I think it ridiculous to include the works of Frank Lloyd Wright, in with the architecture you picture.  Not even close.

I used FLW only as a reference---he is the most famous American architect ever.  He is the quintessential 'starchitect', even if the majority of his work is superior to others that came after him.  I cited him not because his style is the same, but because his notoriety began the whole trend of what we now regard as 'celebrity architecture'.

I guess I didn't get the meaning of your statements.  I thought your idea was to point out how outlandish those architects designs were.

 

EDIT:  I know nothing about the other architects you mention, I just happen to live in an area that has some of FLW's buildings. 

[DuskTrooper 314]

Don't forget Michael graves. As for these Starchitects, I usually loathe most of their works.
Daniel Libeskind needs to be destroyed....

[____----____ 37]

Date: 10/10/2005 10:03:34 AM Author: DuskTrooper Don't forget Michael graves.  As for these 'Starchitects', I usually loathe most of their works. Daniel Libeskind needs to be destroyed....

quote>

 

heard that one before

[louisville327 0]

Date: 10/10/2005 10:03:34 AM
Author: DuskTrooper
Don't forget Michael graves. As for these 'Starchitects', I usually loathe most of their works.

Daniel Libeskind needs to be destroyed....

quote>

Michael Graves designed the Humana Building in downtown Louisville. It was built in the mid-1980s with much fanfare.



At least he tried to respect the original, historic streetscape of Main Street with the front of the building. Unfortunately, the entrance to the building is so huge and shadowed that it becomes more intimidating than beautiful.



I've seen worse.


As for Danny Libeskind being destroyed (at least career-wise), I agree.

[slightlyslack 20]

Oh, Louisville327, you do NOT want to see the house Gehry's building for himself here in western Los Angeles.  The neighbors would be up in arms except for the fact that in the Venice district where he's building, everyone is permanently stoned, so nobody minds.

[Odainsaker 2,136]

Uh oh, I am compelled again to show that strange historical building from the Brutalist thread, the New Sky Building No 3.

 

https://www.simtropolis.com/idealbb/files//newsky3.jpg align=baseline>

 

It is the formidable battleship (or is it submarine) plowing through Tokyo with no further rationalization other than architect Watanabe Yoji once served in the Japanese Navy and wanted the techo-naval look on this building.  That the tiny porthole-like windows have little relationship to the claustrophobic apartments was certainly less important than the overall image.  Even the units are not as capsular as the pre-fab sections suggest, but the new technology of pre-fab units was the rage in the late 1960s.

 

Then there was New Sky Building No. 5, also built in Tokyo in 1971 by Watanabe.

 

https://www.simtropolis.com/idealbb/files//newsky5.jpg align=baseline>

 

Certainly sculptural in its own right; we should be thankful that the ground level maintains its infill scale.  Though ultimately constructed of concrete, its amazing conceptual model was made of sheet-metal and looked more like an automobile engine component rather than a apartment tower.  Check out the exhaust pipes, which have great imagery, though little necessary function.  Yep, Watanabe just wanted the look of engines and space-ships, though in this building that will be hidden and meaningless once the neighboring buildings grow upwards.  In the larger sense, he was an early practitioner of the Japanese Techno-look in architecture, where the actual functioning of technology becomes less important than the aesthetic stylization of technology as whimsical sculpture.

 

But as sculpturally cool as this kind of fantasy architecture is, let us be honest, these are pretty ugly buildings, and their aesthetic justification is rather flimsy given the coldly hostile effect they evoke.  Is fantasy whimsy enough?  As bizarre examples of their bizarre era with this playful architect, they may now have a nostalgic precious quality.  They are landmarks not because they work well, but because they are deliberately outlandish.  But look at the picture again--the tangible world where real people live can be seen in the shirt hanging out the window to dry.

 

 

[organicsabre 1]

Another star architect who uses alot of CAd modeling in his work is Sir Norman Foster of Foster & partners in London here are a few of his buildings and compute renderings.


Berlin university library building

High rise in London

Zenith opera house

City of London Council offices

behjing airport

he has done hundreds more different buildings including the Swiss Re thats on the stex somehwere.

[GAT-X105 3]

That building is actually in New York. They're building the shiny tower part on top of the original, lowrise building.

And I agree. Liebskind, Childs, and the like suck.

[louisville327 0]

Date: 10/10/2005 3:28:03 PM
Author: slightlyslack
Oh, Louisville327, you do NOT want to see the house Gehry's building for himself here in western Los Angeles. The neighbors would be up in arms except for the fact that in the Venice district where he's building, everyone is permanently stoned, so nobody minds.

quote>

Speaking again of Gehry, I assume that that the house he is building will be a replacement for the one he currently lives in:





Though the outer shell of the house seems very Gehry-esque, the actual house is clearly visible in both pictures. Surprise, surprise, it's just a normal house. All Gehry did was build an abstract-looking wall around the outside of his lot, essentially fencing in his property and obscuring the fairly pedestrian look of his home.

Judging by his house and his work as a whole, I'd argue that Gehry is obsessed with the aesthetics of security culture. His designs ignore or directly conflict with the streets on which they are built---some of his projects incorporate features you'd expect to find as part of a city jail or a medium security prison. For example:







The Goldwyn Library in Hollywood looks more like the walled compound of a religious cult than a public library. Gehry wrapped the awkward, blocky building in a 15-foot blank wall complete with iron gates and metal spikes. The sidewalk is totally cut off from any possible relationship with the structure by an imposing and unfriendly partition. Sure, the wall is pink, but that still doesn't make it seem sweet or soft.

It's a harsh design that looks more appropriate in the Baghdad Green Zone than in Hollywood. Gehry, a long-time resident of Los Angeles, not only helped promote the local obsession with urban security through designs like the Goldwyn Library, but apparently took it to heart and let it dominate his own home, as well. I'm interested to see what his new Venice compound will look like.

[Hanson784 165]

Some of Gerhy's work is just.. well. I was watching him and Santiago Calatrava on Charlie Rose back in the Summer (they made quite a pair), when asked about his decision making process for the Guggenheim Bilbao, he told a story that went something like this,

I was asked a similar question when I was a guest lecturer by a university student.
I asked the student, 'have you ever been to Bilbao?'
He said no.
I said, 'Then shut up and sit down!
Well, that explains a lot.

Speaking of Santago Calatrava, what does everyone think about him? Specifically his 80 South Street Tower currently under construction in Lower Manhattan. Here's the website, www.80southstreet.net

[slightlyslack 20]

The Goldwyn Library in Hollywood looks more like the walled compound of a religious cult than a public library.

quote>

Well, it IS in eastern Hollywood, which is the headquarters of the Church of Scientology.

 

But yes, it nods quite a bit to that peculiar obsession of white Angelenos with security and privacy.  Speaking of which, I saw an article in Reason from 2002 that argues that New Urbanist street design principles actually increase crime (citing studies from England), and advocates instead the use of defensible space principles in urban design.  (Minimal pedestrian access, strict retail-residential separation, etc.)  To which my response is: Great.  You want the world to look like Sao Paulo?  Just great.

[slightlyslack 20]

Now, if you're going to do architecture as abstract sculpture, putting it in a park is a great way to do it.  The new De Young art museum in San Francisco's Golden Gate Park is a Temple of Art much like pretty much every art museum built ~1830-1980, but with a twist: instead of the same tired old Neoclassical or Egyptian Revival influences, it has a decided Mesoamerican look (with the obligatory postmodern twist).  The architects are Herzog and De Meuron.

 

http://www.calendarlive.com/media/photo/2005-10/19919157.jpg align=baseline>

[GaryReggae 81]

I must say, I am not keen at all on this style of building where the structure looks more like a sculpture than a building. It is anything but functional and must cost a lot kore to build than a standard building. It is pure arrogance.

[hdorriker 190]

Deconstructivism freaking rocks.

And around here, it's beginning to show signs of becoming, of all things, mainstream

But generally, (because of the extreme regionalism that one sees in the architecture of this state) It tends to be an inevitably postmodern mix of deconstructivist styling applied to neo-rustic aesthetic materials. Basically, it's international style with logs and glass and green (always green) pitched aluminum roofs. Which isn't bad, or necessarily ugly, It's just there's only so much brown and green one can take before those two colors become as oppressive and dreary as naked concrete is for most people. But then again, I prefer concrete to stucco, and bright primary colors to traditional pastels and that's pretty uncommon taste.
There are also communities which are starting to show a somewhat more mainstream deconstructivism. There is Prospect, a new urbanist community (I couldn't get a picture to link properly, so here is one to their site) Which is not completely deconstructivist, but is more transitionary with little pockets of deconstructivism surrounded by period revival, pastiche and postmodern architecture (Although all of the newer buildings are either postmodern in the way that the Euro-Contemporary tile-set on SC4 is, or they are mildly deconstructivist.

Of course around here, the most artsy or starchitectural piece of deconstructivism you'll find yet would be the Denver art museum expansion (which is still under construction) by Daniel Liebeskind:

[louisville327 0]

Date: 10/12/2005 10:45:33 AM
Author: hdorriker
Deconstructivism freaking rocks.

quote>

Wow! Look! A spaceship crashed in our city! Now where the heck is the front door?

Of course around here, the most artsy or 'starchitectural' piece of deconstructivism you'll find yet would be the Denver art museum expansion (which is still under construction) by Daniel Liebeskind.

quote>

I find it disturbingly ironic that most grand deconstructivist and/or starchitectural projects are civic buildings: libraries, museums, city government buildings, etc. Buildings meant for use by everyone are designed by architects with only their own personal expression in mind. Civic now equals ego.

Some recent examples include Gehry's Bilbao Guggenheim, Koolhaas' Seattle Library, Libeskind's Denver Library, Gehry's Hollywood Library Compound (all pictured above), and these:

East Wing of the National Gallery Of Art in DC by I.M. Pei:


Steven Holl's expansion of the Nelson-Atkins Art Museum in Kansas City:

(A giant glass box sure compliments a neoclassic masterpiece!)

Bellevue Art Museum in Bellevue, WA, again by Steven Holl:


Gehry's Weisman Art Museum in Minneapolis, MN:


Dallas City Hall by I.M. Pei:


All public buildings (according to use, not ownership), all the products of solitary, ego-driven architects with only their own self-expression in mind.

[slightlyslack 20]

Date: 10/12/2005 5:20:44 AM Author: GaryReggae I must say, I am not keen at all on this style of building where the structure looks more like a sculpture than a building.  It is anything but functional and must cost a lot kore to build than a standard building.  It is pure arrogance.

quote>

Ironic that a guy who's into Brutalism would say that.  I view nonfunctionality as a totem of wealth--if it were anything else, there wouldn't be a city in the world that would approve some of these ridiculous projects.

[louisville327 0]

I've been griping non-stop about starchitects and the garbage they build, so instead I'll give an example of excellent starchitecture.

Robert A.M. Stern may not be as notorious as Daniel Libeskind or Frank Gehry (probably a good thing), but he is generally well-known, especially for his excellent series of 4 books on New York architectural history. He has worked for years with the Disney company. That would seem like a bad thing, considering how Disney-fied most starchitecture is these days, but Stern has actually done some really good work. Unlike most prominent starchitects who mock and discard historical context and tradition, Stern embraces them.

For example, Stern and his company are working on a new residential skyscraper in New York City, but it doesn't look all that new:



It's called 15 Central Park West , and it embraces the fine pre-war building tradition of New York City. It has a very art deco feel to it, especially since it's a limestone building (the limestone will be taken from the same quarry that supplied the Empire State Building).







Stern has captured the majesty and grace of the pre-war period. By following the tradition and context of Central Park West's skyline, he has designed a building that is both brand new but timeless---it could have been built in 1930 just as easily as 2006, but it doesn't look worn out or archaic.

A Libeskind-esque crashed spaceship is cool for about two seconds, until you realize it will always be a giant metal behemoth with no relationship to anything else around it. A building like Stern's, however, easily becomes a part of the fabric in which it is built. It contributes something to the city around it, because it both blends in AND stands out.

And who says nobody builds stuff like this anymore?

[hdorriker 190]

That is pretty cool that they are doing such a regionally relevent new building like that 15 Central Park West building. Especially since most of the time revival architecture at that scale is done without much consideration for the style, or the look of an urban environment itself (*cough* AT&T Building *cough*). New York has a definitively Art-Deco/Gothic look to it, I like it because it doesn't clash with the historical context.



But I still think deconstructivism freaking rocks for areas without such context, or with a completely artificial or irrelevant historical context (such as much of the Denver metro area)
I will say that, Liebeskind's work may be chaotic and perhaps barely functional, but it's better than Gehry in my opinion. Because Gehry's stuff is infamous for it's construction costs (Guggenheim in Bilbao, Spain) and frankly, the process he uses reeks of arrogance: Supposedly, he makes a clay maquette of the structure, then has scans it into a computer which produces a 3d model then he hands it off to his team of engineers to try to figure out how to make it into a building... somehow...
That is why I don't like Gehry too much. Liebeskind at least approaches his architecture more like an architect and less like a disconnected and haughty ar-teest.

[louisville327 0]

Date: 10/14/2005 6:32:41 PM
Author: hdorriker
That is why I don't like Gehry too much. Liebeskind at least approaches his architecture more like an architect and less like a disconnected and haughty ar-teest.

quote>

Sorry to burst your bubble here, hdorriker, but Libeskind is just as much an arrogant, elitist ar-teest as Gehry is. Please direct your attention to Item A, submitted to evidence:

Libeskind Art Party Report courtesy of The Gutter

Just this week Danny L. threw himself a big party in NJ to honor a new (and no doubt ugly) residential building he's got in the works for Union City. As the on-site report illustrates, the party was very much high society couture with no architecture in sight. All drinky drinky and no buildy buildy.

The guy's no different than any other run-of-the-mill genius starchitect. You're welcome to like his buildings, if you can call them that, but don't pretend he's Mr. Salt-Of-The-Earth.

Just sayin'.

[DuskTrooper 314]

And furthermore (on the Robert A.M. Stern issue) he does have a large bag of styles to pick from. He can be pre-war, ultramodern, etc, which is great, considering that the other Starchitects usually stick to one exceptionally cliched routine(Libeskind, and his lopped crystals, etc.).

An example of one of RAMS non pre-war-esque designs; the Hobby Center, in Houston, Texas:



Now, another Starchitect I like is Norman Foster, since his designs are futuristic, and actually quite feasible. An example of this is the Commerzbank, in Frankfurt. Another Starchitect that I have not seen mentioned yet is Calatrava, but, alas, his works are quite beautiful, and express more than just the creator's feelings, etc. Some of his works are a bit...cliched, as well, but, most of them are still beautiful.

So, currently, there are only a few people on my Architectural blacklist...
Gehry, Libeskind, and Graves.

[Hanson784 165]

louisville327, well, it looks like little Danny had a good time terrorizing Union, NJ. I would've advised him not to design any more buildings until the drinky winky wears off.
Mr.Starchitect needs to get those dramatic, rectilinear glasses checked.

15 Central Park West is a great example of starchitecture done right. It incorporates itself into the fabric of the city while still standing out. I just hope it doesn

[slightlyslack 20]

I must say, I am quite taken with Calatrava's pending 80 South residential tower in New York.  I'm sure louisville327 would hate it, but I find it to be a wonderfully grand experiment in integrating high-rise living with the suburban demand for quiet space, and the New York waterfront is actually a pretty great place to do something like that (as opposed to, say, Central Park West or the Chicago lakefront).

[louisville327 0]

Date: 10/15/2005 3:16:37 PM
Author: Hanson784
15 Central Park West is a great example of starchitecture done right. It incorporates itself into the fabric of the city while still standing out. I just hope it doesn

[Odainsaker 2,136]

Time to throw in a building I spent more than enough time in, Ricardo Legorreta's San Antonio Central Library.  For those unfamiliar with him, Legorreta is probably Mexico's premier and most award-winning contemporary architect.  His particular hallmark tends towards solid, blocky masses in vivid primary colors, reminiscent of traditional Mexican architecture, with his own playful dashes of cylinders and spheres doing quirky things.  San Antonio, in finally consolidating its library system under a centralized structure, gave him the opportunity to make a grand and powerful civic statement, which he certainly did.

 

 

Above is the image of the San Antonio Central Library that you will find in all the avante-garde architectural publications.  Yes, those are spheres whimsically set to appear rolling down a ramp.  In architalk, it may be the postmodern morphological interduality of iconoclast Jungian form suffused through dynamic potentiality, but I will just call it whimsy.  Be sure to note the forlorn bus stop bench and the empty plaza of blank walls.  Still, this has all the great sculptural sunlighting and stark shadows that this mode enjoys.

 

https://www.simtropolis.com/idealbb/files//salib3.jpg align=baseline>

 

Aw, shadow sculpture doesn't mean much on cloudy days.  The playful sphere pile is cute, but it doesn't really amount to much for patrons waiting at the bus stop bench.  It may look good and amusing, but people will never go beyond that bus stop into the sterile plaza.  Regardless of the sphere sculpture, in terms of human activity, this is a scaleless and inhumane dead zone.  Why does the architecture and landscaping not instead sculpt a pleasant sheltered place to read your library book outdoors while waiting for the bus?

 

Then there is the fortress mentality...

 

https://www.simtropolis.com/idealbb/files//salib4.jpg align=baseline>

 

Not the most inviting of entrances, but then, this sculpture for sculpture's sake corner is not the entrance anyway.  Nor is the main entrance that opening further to the right.  Oh no, another Kafka-esque public building where the public cannot find the way in.  Basic geometries and primary colors are great imagery, but sidewalk canopies, clear entrances, and streetlevel windows showing some activity human activity does more to make this a place for people.  The programmatic organization of this building was around open internal courtyards rather than open perimeters.

 

https://www.simtropolis.com/idealbb/files//salib5.jpg align=baseline>

 

Here is where the angry citizens will line up the city council for the firing squad.  In order to humanize this space, it was decided to add a cozy streetbench, so patrons here won't feel so much like indigents.  Just the place I want sit and read my library book.  Somewhere, where the wall ends, is the courtyard for the main entrance.  Believe it or not, it was hoped this library project would be the cornerstone in revitalizing the surrounding central city neighborhood.  I last remember the surrounding buildings being mostly massive parking garage structures.  Desolate streets do not revitalize neighborhoods, and blood-red fortress walls, regardless of the play of sculptural masses, do not make living streets.

 

Oddly enough, I do like the color, though the public was in an uproar when the enchilada red color scheme was first revealed.  The color, however, has since grown in popularity given its vivid look recalling the colorful buildings of Mexico, and I praise those involved for not surrendering under the initial criticisms.  This is actually a very large building, and it is unmistakeable on the skyline.

 

https://www.simtropolis.com/idealbb/files//salib6.jpg align=baseline>