« BHA Wants Waterfalls Shut Down Advertisement »
August 28, 2008
Modernism in the City/Gehry in Brooklyn
Charles Taylor's review in the journal Dissent of From a Cause to a Style: Modernist Architecture’s Encounter with the American City, by Nathan Glazer, is worth a read. Glazer looks at how the ideals of modernism have been usurped by the making of starchitects, whose personal vision for a building outweighs the consideration of the building's context or a social agenda. "When architects are regarded chiefly as artists, discussion of their work is reduced to a question of their personal vision," Taylor writes. "Questions of whether a building serves those who use it or the larger community, of whether it honors or ignores the style and scale of its surroundings, of whether it adds to or damages the life of its neighborhood, are treated as quaintly prosaic and utilitarian, akin to reducing any consideration of a work of art to its social relevance."
That's his zoomed out theorizing, which translates this way when talking about Atlantic Yards. "Introducing his design for Atlantic Yards, Gehry spoke about trying to understand 'the body language of Brooklyn.' But the only language Gehry has ever been interested in is the language of Frank Gehry. To say he is defiantly noncontextual is to imply that context enters into his thought at all."
Gehry may have been ousted from the Theater for a New Audience building, but his vision for Atlantic Yards, which, no matter your opinion of it, seems pretty noncontextual considering the neighborhoods around it, remains.
A Wrench in the Machine for Living: Frank Gehry Comes to Brooklyn [Dissent]
Photo from the Atlantic Yards Web site.
Trackback Pings
TrackBack URL for this entry:
http://www.brownstoner.com/mte/mt-tb.cgi/5998
Comments
For years it struck me that modern architecture looked the way it did because the Erector Set generation were coming of age & buildings reflected that style. Now we've got the Lego & aluminum foil generation doing their things. I wish someone would make building set toys that feature classical architectural modules for the current group of kids.
Posted by: Arkady at August 28, 2008 10:25 AM
I liked Mr. Taylor's review better when it was, um.... "The Fountainhead."
Posted by: East New York at August 28, 2008 10:26 AM
House o' cards. Seriously.
Posted by: MacD at August 28, 2008 10:45 AM
The next group of kids is playing with K'nex...this is not going to be pretty! But it'll do really fun stuff! ;)
Posted by: cobblehiller at August 28, 2008 11:01 AM
Looks beautiful. Can't wait for Miss Brooklyn so long as Modells & PC Rick gets torn down and turned into a park, plaza, pavillion or something aestheically pleasing.
Posted by: PropJoe at August 28, 2008 11:09 AM
What drivel.
It is not the function of an architect to set or interpret a "social agenda" or consider context. That is the function of the government with authority granted by the citizens of the city. I am no fan of Gehry, who is by the way the epitome of postmodernism and is almost anti-modernist, but the criticism in this snippet is incomprehensible.
Reading the review more thoroughly, we can see the author is at best uninformed and possibly deranged. His repeated attempts to associate modernist architecture with fascism borders on the comical. Does this man know nothing of history? Has he never read anything by Ezra Pound, one of the more famous authors of the 20th century? Has he not seen buildings constructed in the formerly fascist nations?
His rantings against the Atlantic Yards is also ill informed. He tells us the development will have 8,000,000 square feet on 22 acres of land - a figure that indicates an average FAR of 8.0, very low for a county as populous as Brooklyn and much lower than probably half of Manhattan. He also doesn't seem to acknowledge the presence of the Williamsburg Savings Bank Building or the proximity of AY to downtown Brooklyn or even several high-rise housing projects. He only mentions the townhouses to the east, not the city to the west. He obviously doesn't realize that many of the buildings nearby actually have much greater density than the AY development. The Williamsubrg Savings Bank alone is built to an FAR well above 20.0.
The author also can't seem to use the census bureaus website. How on earth has come to the conclusion the neighborhood is mostly black?
The rest is just alarmist. The buildings, given their height and low FAR - will absolutely NOT block the sun permanently anywhere. This is the very reason they are designed this way. The development will not destroy the surrounding neighborhoods, but they will be reborn. Retail will thrive from greater population density.
I think his understanding of Jane Jacobs' work is also based on anecdotes and not her books. I could go on, but don't have the time.
The review is well written, but the author doesn't know anything about the topics of which he has written. He knows about Moses, he thinks anything he doesn't like is fascist, and he thinks Jane Jacobs wants the whole world to be 3-story brownstones. Foolish and naive. The guy has to spend more time reading, and less time practicing is ascorbic writing style.
Posted by: Polemicist at August 28, 2008 11:09 AM
Anyone surprised? I thought the falling down look of Gehry's design was a sly slap at what he thinks the future of Brooklyn is.
Posted by: east river at August 28, 2008 11:09 AM
Sometimes I think the object of some of these starchitects is to be so innovative, so state of the art, and so utterly new, that the ultimate desire of their design is not to enhance a piece of the city, or serve a need, but to leave the viewer with his/her jaw on the ground at the amazing genius of it all.
Bilbao, which I think is Gehry's finest work, did all those things, but it also was a perfect venue for what it is - a museum. The curse of a success like that is that you are called on to top yourself on every projct after that, and I think the man is running out of ways to reinvent himself. His designs for AY are just awful.
While I'd love to see something better than a Starrett City plopped on the site, I think we need a design that relates in materials and form to its surroundings, while meeting the practical needs of housing, business, transportation, etc, etc. Krypton-by-the-Bay is out of context and just not right. I welcome a modern design that is worthy of Brooklyn, and also worthy of looking at and building for th next hundred years, too.
Posted by: Montrose Morris at August 28, 2008 11:10 AM
If there was any connection between kids' toys and future buildings, how did we end up with architectural masterpieces when the kids from those days likely had not much more than plain wooden blocks to play with? Having said that, I still think Arkady might be on to something; recent generations seem to rely less on creativity and imagination and more on recreating what's already done before. I'm sure the full screen version of Laverne and Shirley is being pitched to Hollywood execs as we speak...
Posted by: Biff Champion at August 28, 2008 11:11 AM
frank gehry must have stolen this guy's girlfriend or something.
Posted by: z at August 28, 2008 11:13 AM
"It is not the function of an architect to... consider context."
What drivel.
Posted by: SnarkSlope at August 28, 2008 11:14 AM
I think drivel refers to polemicist's post. I loved Krypton by the Bay, montrose! (Now I need to clean up the coffee spray- thanks)
Posted by: lurker in the mist at August 28, 2008 11:20 AM
You know that in 10 or 15 years the old Victorian brownstones and such will just as beautiful as ever and Gehry's will be a rusting eyesore. People will say 'what were they thinking' - there are a lot of buildings and developments like that, left over from the 50's and the 60's = they look so out of place. Just a shame they are building it now - think people would have learned
Posted by: mimi at August 28, 2008 11:29 AM
I have serious reservations about Frank Gehry... he strikes be as an architect that creates designs just cuz he can. The asymmetry and twisting just because he can, not because its particularly good, appropriate, pleasing, displeasing.
I have to agree that Bilbao is amazing...
What he has been doing lately is just, frankly, annoying. This is like MIT's Stata Center. Twisty and colorful and funhousey. Oh, and MIT's Stata Center is a technical nightmare - thus the lawsuits. This last aspect of Gehry has been a constant in his career....
Posted by: tybur6 at August 28, 2008 11:36 AM
oops- so sorry snarkslope- of course that's who you were referring to. duh.
I myself am quite taken by the lines "Reading the review more thoroughly, we can see the author is at best uninformed and possibly deranged." and "The development will not destroy the surrounding neighborhoods, but they will be reborn. "
Does he mean like at the apocalypse? Would that make poley, Pestilence?
Posted by: lurker in the mist at August 28, 2008 11:39 AM
An architects job is to build a building that meets the needs of its intended function and contributes something to the surrounding environment. That doesn't necessarily mean that is has to be "contextual", but you have to at least consider the context and how the building relates to it in the design. If it's not contextual there should be a good reason for it and some other way that the building can still work in its surrounding environment. Ghery is not very good at this. I am so bored with his stuff, it is the same old "look how weird and twisty I can be" thing. I hope the building doesn't get built as shown and am pretty sure it won't with budget cuts. Let's just hope we don't get something worse.
Posted by: robroz at August 28, 2008 11:42 AM
Polemicist, how can you possibly think that an architect (a good one, anyway) does not consider context? That should be about number three on the list, after function and the physical perameters of space.
The fact that Gehry did NOT consider context here is the reason the design fails miserably.
You are so enamoured of your population density theories that you can't see anything else. There is so much more to building a better city than population density, and the success of a design is predicated on much, much more than whether or not it succeeds in meeting whatever your criteria are on the subject.
Posted by: Montrose Morris at August 28, 2008 11:42 AM
AHA! Lurker you've done it! Death, War, Famine and Pestilence! Poley is the 4th horseman! I mean What is obviously Death or War - have it your way - then Ozymandius, and then Dow...he could be Famine! And now, Poley for pestilence! Fine work lurker, fine work!
Posted by: cobblehiller at August 28, 2008 11:54 AM
it's worth noting that the bilbao project was pretty controversial itself among locals. it was demeed out of context and destructive of its architectural surroundings, and was criticized as looking like a shipwreck. there was even an attempted terrorist attack at the museum opening, motivated by charges of cultural imperialism. today, the building is viewed as a great architectural success, even by locals.
Posted by: z at August 28, 2008 11:54 AM
the modernist impulse as inherently fascist? true, as far as it goes. modernism was ALWAYS about eliminating things. in the context of atlantic yards, it's perfectly true that it's the public that's been eliminated, and in its place a manufactured public has been paid to declare their support for the project. the design itself reinforces this erasure -- the anti-public superblocks, demapping of public streets, and delineation of the the 'park' as a 'publically accessible private space' -- all conspire to privatize, which is to say serve capital, not people, or at least not people without capital.
that this project has been force fed to bklyn certainly isn't the architect's fault. it's the politicos who are supposed to represent us. they failed, and we failed to hold them accountable.
the architect is only responsible for his work, which, in this case, totally reinforces the agenda of private power.
Posted by: pluvious at August 28, 2008 11:55 AM
The Disney concert hall is a giant cooker- dunderheaded, as the writer called it.
With that kind of decision-making process going on, it's been increasingly obvious that Gehry no longer separates the needs of his projects from his need to express his own ego. When you think of earlier architects- who certainly had no lack of ego- and their approach, the differences are very apparent. And while earlier architecture may not work well for today, it isn't because they were not designed well, but more to do with the changes in society. In much older buildings, for instance, they may seem small and cramped because as a whole we are much bigger than people 3-400 years ago. Our lifestyles are vastly different. Whereas a victorian woman might have several outfits and clothing was hung on hooks in cupboards,today we need big closet spaces, as any renovator knows.
Somehow I can't imagine Gehry worrying about closet space but that's not to say there isn't work of his that I don't like. Some of it I love, like the Rasin Building in the Czech republic, or Bilbao and even the new glass building on the west side. But the AY design- ugh.
Posted by: bxgrl at August 28, 2008 11:55 AM
do i know that mimi? willing to bet you that a lot of people are and will be defending those 50s and 60s buildings as historical landmarks worthy of preservation.
take note that the author - despite being a bitter fort greener - also refers to "the darkness and claustrophobia of Victorian architecture in which so many poor were imprisoned." they are pretty to look at, and the historical detail is nice...but i know from experience that these old brownstones take a LOT of work, a lot of time, and a lot of money to make them modern & liveable, and will continue to take a lot more (resources and time) into the future to keep them looking "just as beautiful as ever."
i'm agnostic on the gehry design myself and do agree that the size and function ought to be appropriately scaled to the area. but i think it's a bit silly to argue for "context" in form (as in appearance) and materials - it's one way to go, but it's conservative and limited to prefer it reflexively, and regressive to insist on it.
Posted by: i disagree at August 28, 2008 12:01 PM
pluvious - excellent post
Posted by: bktycoon at August 28, 2008 12:12 PM
Victorian architecture wasn't just dark and claustrophobic for the poor. there was a time when night air was thought to be unhealthy. So at least some of the design was based on Victorian thinking and as their views on health changed, some of the architecture began to reflect that too.
I'm not sure that appearance, as in fitting into the neighborhood, is the issue so much as whether a building works for its inhabitants and community. In the same way we're turned off by the banal condo designs going up everywhere, the opposite of that are buildings that are so crazy looking that they are uncomfortable just to look at.
Gehry really is a master of this kind of thing. I love Fred and Ginger it's fun and edgy and makes people a little uncomfortable but I don't find it off putting. His best works brings an energy and imagination to the streets that's wonderful. If he were better on the nuts and bolts, his work would be seen as consistently brilliant but the devil is in the details. The AY design is distressing just to look at.
Posted by: bxgrl at August 28, 2008 12:21 PM
Montrose
The architect is a professional. He does what his client tells him to do. Context refers to building density and height. Nothing more. It is not the job of the architect to determine what is most ideal - as our differing opinions indicate, this is entirely subjective. What the architect does do is 1) listen to his client and 2) ensure the building complies with zoning and building codes.
In markets where real estate product is not in short supply, the developer is the one who determines what size project is most economically feasible. Not the architect.
The author confuses the issue of zoning context and aesthetic. The Gehry quote was more about an artistic interpretation of Brooklyn, but the author rips him for building these big buildings. The author holds a bias typical of NIMBYs, that it is self evident that density is the sole architectural criterion and that it should be forever fixed.
My point however is the context is not a mid-block section of Prospect Heights. The context is Downtown Brooklyn.
Lastly, Jane Jacobs focused extensively on population density, which is why I brought it up. The author seems to think she was some kind of radical preservationist opposed to all new development. Nothing could be further from the truth. As much as she was opposed to the needless destruction of neighborhoods (Something the AY project is decidedly NOT doing), she was opposed to suburban sprawl. She wrote an entire book that argued population density was the catalyst for civilization itself.
pluvious:
The super block design is out of functional necessity given the design constraints of the decking. It has nothing to do with post-war urban planning theory. And despite your communist tirades, the super block design is quite common in formerly communist countries.
Posted by: Polemicist at August 28, 2008 12:24 PM
pluvious- I have to disagree. Gehry is a very active part of the process. Ratner didn't come up with the design, he gave Gehry a rundown of what he was looking for and the rest is up to gehry. A starchitect like Gehry is never passive in this process.
But that said, I agree it is the pols who failed us as much as we failed ourselves.
Posted by: lurker in the mist at August 28, 2008 12:26 PM
cobblehiller- did we get it wrong? Is he War?
Posted by: lurker in the mist at August 28, 2008 12:28 PM
Hmmm, good question - lemme think - well that could make What = death or pestilence, and I think he'd be fine with either of those, really, being into the whole plaguing us thing...hmmm, yup, ok! War it is for Polemicist!
Posted by: cobblehiller at August 28, 2008 12:34 PM
You can only say that AY is not destroying neighborhoods if you believe that AY exists in a vacuum and not on NYC streets. Maybe "destroying" is not entirely accurate- perhaps it would have been better to say that it stopped the comeback of a neighborhood in its tracks and it did so unnecessarily.
"She wrote an entire book that argued population density was the catalyst for civilization itself."
She did and history bears her out. But you're leaving out the more relevant part of her argument- how cities deal with population density. She argued for smaller scale and neighborhood integrity. She played a part in the fall of Robert Moses who certainly advocated the warehousing of people into high density projects which we know are unsuccessful in so many ways and ripped apart neighborhoods with the enthusiasm of a dog attacking a piece of meat.
But polemicist, why don't you put your money where your mouth is? there's plenty of high density housing available. Why not move into one because I'm betting you don't and won't.
Posted by: east river at August 28, 2008 12:41 PM
whether a building "works" for its inhabitants and the community is a different - and much broader, and more vague - question than whether a building needs to be "contextual" in materials and form. it sounds like you agree that the latter isn't a serious concern, and i agree that the former is. the problem, i think, is that the workability question implies so many competing instincts and priorities as to have the answer be basically subjective in all but the extreme cases. to take up z's bilbao example, people are often just wrong when they decide, based on drawings and fear, that a more edgy building won't "work" for them.
(obviously, it's a separate issue if the design has inherent structural problems.)
Posted by: i disagree at August 28, 2008 12:50 PM
Polemicist, I hardly think Jane Jacobs' use of the word density, as applied to suburban sprawl, has any relevance to over massing of people in an uban environment. She consistantly encouraged the urban village, walkable, livable, urban settings that encouraged a healthy street life, and the interaction of people. Where is that life in a semi-gated high rise enclave that isolates itself from the two neighborhoods it divides, one that has appropriated streets and bridges and parks unto itself?
I think Jane Jacobs would have gone up one side of you and down the other for your theories of urban density, to the destriment of a quality of life. Your vision, which seems to be perfectly illustrated by the photo in today's links, would have horrified her. Plus, she would have grabbed your ear and twisted it if she heard some of your ideas about the worth of the Baby Boom generation.
Posted by: Montrose Morris at August 28, 2008 12:57 PM
Ouch! MM. I just envisioned a little old lady dragging some skinny hipsterish kid in black jeans and spiked gelled hair down the street. what fun!
It isn't surprising that someone like polemicist would misconstrue Jane Jacobs intent.
Yes, i disagree, I don't think new architecture should necessarily be forced to emulate the neighborhood. there's room for preservation and innovation. And I couldn't agree more with you about the meaning of "workability", but perhaps there is no real answer for that and its the process that will eventually define what does and doesn't work? Speaking in the sense that Ratner made no real efforts to reach out to the community, other than to manipulate them for his own purposes. But had the community not felt so pushed out, or believed the project was able to bypass the proper reviews at their expense, workability might have taken on a different meaning?
Posted by: bxgrl at August 28, 2008 1:22 PM
Hey Montrose;
It seems to me that you are being inconsistent in your message to Polemecist.
Here you are decrying the idea of the "towers in the park" concept of high-rise housing (inspired by Le Corbusier (sp?)), yet at the same time you defend the same type of housing for the projects. Seems to me that this is the same type of housing -only the financial arrangements are different. What gives?
BTW: I agree about hi-rise housing, but I can't follow your logic on this.
Finally, I feel a need to stand up for Polemecist, as he seems to be the villian of the day. While I don't necessarily agree with him on this one, he is an effective protagonist, and suffers for going up against some of the orthodoxy that reigns in Brownstoner country. Keep your chin up, Polemecist!
Posted by: benson at August 28, 2008 10:02 PM
You lost me there, Benson, where did I ever mention the projects in this thread? If you are referring to my Starrett City remark (which are not projects, I hope you know), you misread the intent of my remark.
I was saying that I hope that something banal, like the architecture of Starrett City, was not built on the site. That AY was worthy of a quality design, and that there has to be something workable yet attractive. I don't want bland econo-towers anymore than I want the glass and steel representation of a crumpled piece of paper.
Hope that clears it up for you. I do try for consistancy at all times. You gotta give me that one.
Posted by: Montrose Morris at August 29, 2008 12:54 AM
"he is an effective protagonist, and suffers for going up against some of the orthodoxy that reigns in Brownstoner country."
You've set the bar pretty low there benson. You seem to have missed some of his more interesting posts from the past.
Posted by: lurker in the mist at August 29, 2008 9:13 AM
Montrose;
Sorry, my question wasn't clearly written. I was refering to some of your posts in the past in which you have defended the projects. In my memory you defended both the concept of the projects, and their physcial form.
Comments?
Posted by: benson at August 29, 2008 9:26 AM
Many many buildings and residences from the 50's and 60's absolutely are cherished, admired and protected and YES, Mimi they are standing just fine. You have know idea what you are talking about.
Posted by: traditionalmod at August 29, 2008 10:08 AM
I deplore large high rise projects, always have. I don't like them as architecture, and I don't like them as human warehouses. If I have ever defended them, it was a defense of their existence as a form of necessary housing for people whose choices are those buildings or nothing. I've defended the right of low income people to a roof over their heads as a basic right of living in the richest country in the world.
My personal preferences for public houses would be buildings no higher than 6 stories, but I don't like a lot of the barracks that get built either.
When I was in college, I was tempted to become an architect after taking an inspiring class on the challeges of public housing - how to create buildings that both meet the practical needs of public budget concerns, space, and density, while balancing them against the human needs of personal space, room for kids, community, and the instillation of pride of place. I ended up going in a different direction, partly because I can't draw that well, but that class instilled a love of the profession that is with me still. If there had been a degree for historic preservation at the time, like Columbia has now, I think I would have gotten that architectural degree.
All that to say that even in this class, there was no firm consensus on how to solve these problems, only a firm belief, that I share, that packing people into towers is not the ideal answer to the challenges of public housing.
Posted by: Montrose Morris at August 29, 2008 10:10 AM
Oh c'mon, the thing is just FUGLY
Posted by: Ppark at August 29, 2008 11:23 AM
Latest Restaurant Additions
-
Pomme de Terre
added November 19, 2008 12:01 PM in Ditmas Park -
Scopello
added November 18, 2008 12:01 PM in Fort Greene -
DiFara
added November 17, 2008 11:59 AM in Midwood -
Chiles y Chocolate
added November 14, 2008 12:02 PM in Park Slope -
Downtown Bar and Grill
added November 13, 2008 11:58 AM in Cobble Hill -
Tempo
added November 12, 2008 11:57 AM in Park Slope -
The Chocolate Room
added November 11, 2008 12:01 PM in Cobble Hill, Park Slope -
Tanoreen
added November 10, 2008 12:02 PM in Bay Ridge -
Black Iris
added November 7, 2008 12:02 PM in Fort Greene -
Quercy
added November 6, 2008 12:01 PM in Cobble Hill
Post a comment
Please be patient while your comment is published. It may take a moment.