Slate's Bizbox




architecture: What we build.

Failed IconsWhy it's so hard to make unforgettable architecture.


Click here to read a slide-show essay about the elements that make for an iconic building.

..

..

..



Print This ArticlePRINTDiscuss this in The FrayDISCUSSEmail to a FriendE-MAIL
Share on FacebookPost to MySpace!Share with MixxDigg ThisShare with RedditShare with del.icio.usShare with FurlShare with Ma.gnolia.comShare with SphereShare with Stumble Upon
Witold Rybczynski is Slate's architecture critic.
Join the Fray: our reader discussion forum
What did you think of this article?
POST A MESSAGE | READ MESSAGES

Remarks from the Fray:

Having seen the Kimmel Center and Princeton Stadium in person, and checking out the pictures on Vinoly's web site, my feeling is that he does great interiors, but mediocre exteriors. For instance, Princeton Stadium is a joy to watch a game in; bright, all the seats are close to the field, airy, yet it also holds in and intensifies the crowd noise. Even the concourse underneath the stands manages to be light and welcoming, which is unusual in stadium design. Furthermore, the supports for the stands are really innovative; if somebody can find a way to translate them to larger facilities, they could really revolutionize stadium design.

However, the outside is bland. It has no color and not enough details to make it interesting. Even the lettering fades into the background. Depite being much shorter, the old stadium made much more of an impression as you approached it.

The Kimmel Center is similar. The construction of the halls separate from the main building is visually effective, and the roof is really cool when you're inside it. The problem with the outside is (a) it's bland to begin with, and (b) given the surrounding buildings, the only place you can really see far enough to fully appreciate the length of the building and the roof is the south side--the direction from which the fewest people are coming.

--dperry

(To reply, click here.)

The article is completely shortsighted. I mean really, if you are going to evaluate the works purely on their exterior relationships, try to spend more than 10 minutes on the site, possibly experiencing the building from various vantage points both micro and macro. For instance, [in Denver,] 13th street, the major one-way boulevard in which the building's tip majestically spans across, drastically changes in grade when traveling from York to Broadway. Traveling along this corridor you would have experienced the Rocky Mountains perched in the background atop the expansion's prow and as you proceed West, you will discover that the Hamilton Wing (Libeskind expansion), working in conjunction with Graves and Ponti, begins to block then frame the mountains in an wonderful play of openness, compression, and release. I won't even go into the buildings' awe-inspiring vista of the city from the Golden Triangle neighborhood. I mean really Mr. Rybczynski try walking a couple of blocks south. Oh wait, there's more... Try framing the complex from Olmsted's (et al.) Civic Center Park. Oh, but that would require walking a single block to the north and a bit of research on your end. Laziness however, is key among critics, as the simple fact stands that the majority of the Cultural Center Complex, which includes housing, a 1000-car parking garage, future programming along Broadway, and a completely separate site for the Clifford Still Museum (architects recently short-listed), is completely fenced off, and it appears was never experienced "in the round" Mr. Rybczynski. As for those who view the work negatively, well, at least architecture has ventured onto the lips of those around water coolers, dinner tables, carpools, and roach coaches everywhere, thereby affirming that architecture is for the masses, and not a select few!

--kotf

(To reply, click here.)

This piece paints an inaccurate picture of the Sydney Opera House. The author writes: "Upon completion, it was internationally recognized as an Australian symbol. But a symbol of what? According to Charles Jencks, the author of Iconic Building, the white forms can be read as sails, waves, seashells, or copulating turtles. None of which has anything to do with music." Any Sydneysider could have told him that the design was meant to, and did - strikingly - evoke the image of sails. How appropriate for a building that juts out into a habour thick with the sails of pleasure craft. And as for having to do with music, the author fails to appreciate that the buildings house not only symphony concerts and opera, but also live theatre and other non-musical events.

--Dr_Pete

(To reply, click here.)

(8/12)





Washington Post
The Washington Post
OPINIONS
PLUS » Ruth Marcus: Berlin vs. Baghdad Q&A