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…
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.
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.)
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.
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!
cobblehiller- did we get it wrong? Is he War?
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.
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.
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.
pluvious – excellent post
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.